[Brion McClanahan]

Yes, absolutely. The president takes an oath to defend the Constitution. Obviously, under your scenario such a law is unconstitutional so the president would be duty bound NOT to enforce it. Of course, I am assuming the president in your situation did not sign the law confiscating all firearms.

[Brion McClanahan]

Glad you enjoyed the lecture. I have a friend who travels to Vietnam quite often. He loves it there.

[Brion McClanahan]

Washington could be a showman and he had a temper, but I think arguing Washington hindered rather than helped the war effort is unjustified.

As for Franklin, there is much to admire about him, particularly from a practical and academic position. He did have his foils, but I don’t think he was unprincipled. He certainly believed in American independence even when it was dangerous for him to do so, and without his diplomacy in France, the Americans may not have won the war.

[Brion McClanahan]

You’re welcome.

[Brion McClanahan]

Good question. The thirteen identified “Quids” around 1806 were:

John Randolph (VA), leader
Nathaniel Macon (NC), leader
Joseph Hopper Nicholson of MD, leader
James M. Garnett of VA,
Philip R. Thompson of VA,
Abram Trigg of VA,
Richard Stanford of NC,
Thomas Spalding of GA,
David Rogerson Williams of SC,
Joseph Clay of PA,
Christopher Clark of VA,
Edwin Gray of VA,
Joseph Bryan of GA,

Taylor was not considered to be one of the “Quids” in congress but a sympathetic and powerful voice of support.

[Brion McClanahan]

I would start with the Jefferson/Hamilton debate and move forward. Use Jefferson’s attack on the bank followed by Hamilton’s defense. I would also consult Taylor of Caroline’s Inquiry into the Principles and Policies of the Government of the United States has a very good chapter on banking. You can then address the issue with the rechartering of the Bank (narrowly passed the Senate and good info in the debates there on the bill), the Marshall Court via Mc. v. Maryland, and later Jackson’s veto of the recharter for 2nd BUS. William Gouge wrote an excellent treaty against central banking in 1833. Very Jeffersonian. There was some opposition to the National Banking Acts in the 1860s, but remember, the South was out of the Union at that point so the legislation was passed by a Northern pro-banking majority. As for the FED, see Pujo’s (of LA) opposition along with that of Glass (of VA) and C.A. Lindbergh of MN (considered a socialist but very Jeffersonian in his critique of the FED). Hope that helps.

[Brion McClanahan]

I concur with the committee. “There are no great men…only great committees.”

[Brion McClanahan]

Lincoln mentioned the amendment briefly in his first inaugural and said he had not opposition to it, but he actions before and after his inaugural don’t support that. It was passed before he took office and sent to the States for ratification, but the War halted possibility of ratification. Even so, the Deep South would probably not have come back in the Union at that point. They were fully committed to independence.

[Brion McClanahan]

They weren’t prohibited from coming into D.C. for any reason, only for sale. The Compromise outlawed the slave trade in D.C. but not slavery in D.C.

[Brion McClanahan]

Voting restrictions are, at least according to the Constitution as ratified, left up to the States. Many States, in fact all of the original 13 if I recall correctly, allowed non U.S. citizens voting privileges because citizenship was tied to the State first, then to the general government. If they could become a citizen of said State, they could vote in that State and by default in all elections for the general government as well.

[Brion McClanahan]

Yes, that is correct.

[Brion McClanahan]

From Nov last year, from yours truly. A popular review intended to get hits.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/04/spies-like-us/

[Brion McClanahan]

You’re welcome, and indeed, this site IS awesome!

[Brion McClanahan]

I was not trying to disparage you or your argument nor was I calling YOU a Straussian, but your position that the Declaration of Independence somehow is a “founding” document is a Straussian position.

The Declaration is not a “public description of what we considered good government in 1776.” It was a “defounding” document if nothing else. Certainly, it was an expression of the American mind as Jefferson said, but the only portion of the document that could be taken as a reference to government is the last paragraph where Jefferson announces that there are 13 Free and Independent States similar to the State of Great Britain. The second paragraph were historians and Americans in general focus so much time and energy was a justification for why Americans believed they had a right to secede from the Empire, i.e. longstanding abuse of English liberties.

That is where I think your entire premise is wrong. The Declaration was never intended to be a “vision” for American government. The vision for American government could be found in British and ancient antecedents. As John Dickinson said, “Experience must be our only guide.”

The Constitution failed to achieve what proponents said it would, namely a federal republic of delegated powers, because the States ultimately did not have the codified legal authority to check federal usurpations of power. They thought the language of the 10th Amendment would be enough. They were wrong.

[Brion McClanahan]

I did not respond to this question because I think it is far too complex for a single paragraph or discussion thread, but the issues between the North and South were longstanding. Certainly, the Deep South considered the threat to slavery as a sufficient justification for secession, but they mentioned other issues as the conflict intensified and these other issues had been mentioned before as potential threats to the Union, i.e. economics, cultural differences, etc. The North, not the South, advocated secession as early as 1794 when it seemed they were going to lose control of the government. The issue of slavery in 1794 was no where near as important as it was in 1860, yet the North threatened to leave not only in 1794, but in 1803 and 1815. And even before the Constitution was written and ratified, as well as during the Phil. Convention of 1787, everyone knew the North and South were different, not just because of slavery, but because of climate, geography, culture, and economics. There was a threat to the Union at that point and armed conflict was mentioned as a possible outcome of the dissolution of the Union.

The underlying issue is did the South develop the way it did because of slavery or was slavery developed because of Southern culture. I think it is the latter. Slavery was the millstone of Southern society, a means to maintain an economy and a social order, and by the way a social order Northerners also readily accepted once black Americans were introduced to many Northern States. Southerners often exposed Northern hypocrisy on the issue of race.

Overall, the question of why slavery should be asked, not if slavery. Was it moral, economic, political, or philosophical? The political implications far outweigh the other issues, meaning the North and South were locking horns over who would control the central government and its spoils, i.e. Western land and the treasury, and what type of political system would reign supreme, a federal republic or a national government. Southerners argued that the Confederate Constitution was a return to the true intent of the U.S. Constitution as ratified.

As for other issues, read this report from the Confederate Committee on Foreign Affairs written by Robert B. Rhett: http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/report-of-the-committee-on-foreign-affairs/

[Author]

Posts