THICK AS THIEVES…….
A couple of questions have been asked, the first is this…..
#1. “Ive been thinking and wondering about something and maybe ya,ll can help me to understand???,,,, OK George Washington was a Federalist just as Alexander Hamilton was, and thus a big government guy, so i guess my question would be…. If Washington was still alive and could understand what was happening in 1860/61, Do ya,ll think that he would have been in favor of the southern states seceding from the federal union that he so loved????…….”
#2. Would George Washington have supported his home state of Virginia secession in May of 1861?
We need to begin here by understanding that George Washington was not a “Federalist” but rather a nationalist.
Those who we have been led to believe were federalists were in reality nationalists, and those we have been led to believe were “anti-federalists” were actually federalists.
George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison were the Virginia delegates who showed up early at the 1787 Philadelphia convention with a plan (The Virginia plan) for a wholly national government system to replace the wholly federal system under The Articles of Confederation, this plan for a wholly national government was rejected, forcing these nationalists to accept a compromise which resulted in a partially federal system cobbled together with a partially national system creating the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, which has been an abysmal failure resulting in the removal of the federal portion.
The nationalists commandeered the label “Federalists” for themselves leaving the opposition left with the label “Anti-Federalists”, when in fact the “Anti-Federalists” were actually federalists, and those who we have been led to believe were federalists were actually nationalists.
Here is an example of proof……….
In the 1787 U.S. CONstitutional debates #39
James Madison (A nationalists) stated …..
“”But it was not sufficient,” say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, “for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the federal form, which regards the Union as a Confederacy of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a national government, which regards the Union as a consolidation of the States.” And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? ”
What Madison is stating is that those who were opposed to the new U.S. CONstitution …..
(those you have been led to believe were “anti-federalists)
were complaining that the proposed new U.S. CONstitution ought to have preserved the federal form which regards the Union as a Confederacy of sovereign States; but instead they were framing a national government which regards the Union as a consolidation of the States.
Now ask yourself…..
Why would those we have been led to believe were “anti-federalists” be complaining that the new CONstitution should have PRESERVED THE FEDERAL FORM?
In reality you had rats, and anti-rats, meaning Rats who advocated ratification of the new proposed CONstitution, and anti-Rats who opposed ratification of the new proposed CONstitution.
One cannot just accept what one has been taught as fact, such who do so, are the Pseudo intellectuals who make fools of themselves when faced with others who are actually educated.
I am currently ill and running a fever, therefore, I will make a second installment to this article to further explain the federal and National systems that were cobbled together to form the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, along with a letter from Alexander Hamilton to George Washington as proof that these men were advocates of BIG government, and centralized power. The self proclaimed “conservative” who exhibit adoration for these framers of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and that CONstitution itself are ignorant fools.
By James Everett, Sui Juris
All rights reserved without prejudice