Fisher Ames

To the Federalist leaders, democracy seemed an apparition of the human mind, which was bound everywhere to produce infidelity, looseness of morals, and political chaos.

In the words of their Jeremiah, Fisher Ames, democracy is a troubled spirit, fated never to rest, and whose dreams, if it sleeps, presents only visions of hell.

So thinking and feeling, they had witnessed the triumph of Jefferson with genuine alarm, for Jefferson they held to be no better than a Jacobin, bent upon subverting the social order, and saturated with all the heterodox notions of Voltaire and Thomas Paine.

The appointment of the aged Samuel Bishop as collector of New Haven was evidence enough to the Federalist mind, which fed upon suspicion, that Jefferson intended to reward his son, Abraham Bishop, for political services.

The World's Famous Orations, Volume 8, edited by William Jennings Bryan and Francis Whiting Halsey.

Fisher Ames on the Treaty with Great Britain.

Born in 1758, died in 1808.

Member of the Massachusetts Ratifying Committee in 1788.

So under the originally ratified Constitution, the senators were once chosen by their respective state legislatures.

And i-i-in fact, in Massachusetts Ratification Convention in 1788, Fisher Ames, the famous Federalist, called the senators the ambassadors of the states.

That was their function.

They were supposed to actually represent the states within this federal government, within the general government, as the founders called it.

To the Federalist leaders, democracy seemed an apparition of the human mind, which was bound everywhere to produce infidelity, looseness of morals, and political chaos.

In the words of their Jeremiah, Fisher Ames, democracy is a troubled spirit, fated never to rest, and whose dreams, if it sleeps, presents only visions of hell.

So thinking and feeling, they had witnessed the triumph of Jefferson with genuine alarm, for Jefferson they held to be no better than a Jacobin bent upon subverting the social order, and saturated with all the heterodox notions of Voltaire and Thomas Paine.

The appointment of the aged Samuel Bishop as collector of New Haven was evidence enough to the Federalist mind, which fed upon suspicion, that Jefferson intended to reward his son, Abraham Bishop, for political services.

Of course, they don't know.

It was then Fisher Ames.

Now, here's my point.

Well, if you can make your point real quick, we've got to get to break.

Go ahead, sir.

Yeah.

I mean, Fisher Ames wanted the Bible taught in public schools to teach morals to young people.

And they're trying to use the First Amendment in a way never intended by the man that wrote the First Amendment.

To understand the significance of the action taken, it should be remembered that the passions excited by the struggle over the new Constitution were still turbulent.

Fisher Ames of Massachusetts, a member without previous national experience, who watched the proceedings with keen observation, early noticed the presence of a group of objectors whose motives he regarded as partly factious and partly temperamental.

Writing to a friend about the character of the house, he remarked three sorts of people are often troublesome, the anti-Federals, who alone are weak and some of them well-disposed, the dupes of local prejudices who fear Eastern influence, monopolies and navigation acts, and lastly, the violent Republicans, as they think fit to style themselves, who are new lights in politics, who are more solicitous to establish or rather to expatiate upon some sounding principle of republicanism than to protect property, cement the union, and perpetuate liberty.

The spirit of opposition had from the first an experienced leader in Delbridge Gerry of Massachusetts.

Gerry declared his assent to the views expressed by Page.

If the doctrine of having prime and great ministers of state was once well established, he did not doubt that we should soon see them distinguished by a green or red ribbon or other insignia of court favor and patronage.

The strongest argument in favor of retaining the clause referred to was made by Fisher Ames, who began to display the powers of clear statement and of convincing argument that soon established his supremacy in debate.

He brought the debate at once to its proper bearings by pointing out that there were really only two matters to be considered, whether the proposed arrangement was useful and whether it could be safely guarded from abuse.

The World's Famous Orations, Volume 8, edited by William Jennings Bryan and Francis Whiting Halsey.

Fisher Ames on the Treaty with Great Britain.

Born in 1758, died in 1808.

Member of the Massachusetts Ratifying Committee in 1788.

To understand the significance of the action taken, it should be remembered that the passions excited by the struggle over the new Constitution were still turbulent.

Fisher Ames of Massachusetts, a member without previous national experience, who watched the proceedings with keen observation, early noticed the presence of a group of objectors whose motives he regarded as partly factious and partly temperamental.

Writing to a friend about the character of the House, he remarked three sorts of people are often troublesome, the anti-Federals, who alone are weak and some of them well disposed, the dupes of local prejudices who fear Eastern influence, monopolies and navigation acts, and lastly, the violent Republicans, as they think fit to style themselves, who are new lights in politics, who are more solicitous to establish or rather to expatiate upon some sounding principle of Republicanism than to protect property, cement the Union, and perpetuate liberty.

The spirit of opposition had from the first an experienced leader in Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts.

Gerry declared his assent to the views expressed by Page.

If the doctrine of having prime and great ministers of state was once well established, he did not doubt that we should soon see them distinguished by a green or red ribbon or other insignia of court favor and patronage.

The strongest argument in favor of retaining the clause referred to was made by Fisher Ames, who began to display the powers of clear statement and of convincing argument that soon established his supremacy in debate.

He brought the debate at once to its proper bearings by pointing out that there were really only two matters to be considered, whether the proposed arrangement was useful and whether it could be safely guarded from abuse.

To understand the significance of the action taken, it should be remembered that the passions excited by the struggle over the new Constitution were still turbulent.

Fisher Ames of Massachusetts, a member without previous national experience, who watched the proceedings with keen observation, early noticed the presence of a group of objectors whose motives he regarded as partly factious and partly temperamental.

Writing to a friend about the character of the House, he remarked three sorts of people are often troublesome, the anti-Federals, who alone are weak and some of them well disposed, the dupes of local prejudices who fear eastern influence, monopolies, and navigation acts, and lastly, the violent Republicans, as they think fit to style themselves, who are new lights in politics, who are more solicitous to establish or rather to expatiate upon some sounding principle of republicanism than to protect property, cement the union, and perpetuate liberty.

The spirit of opposition had from the first an experienced leader in Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts.

Gerry declared his assent to the views expressed by Page.

If the doctrine of having prime and great ministers of state was once well established, he did not doubt that we should soon see them distinguished by a green or red ribbon or other insignia of court favor and patronage.

The strongest argument in favor of retaining the clause referred to was made by Fisher Ames, who began to display the powers of clear statement and of convincing argument that soon established his supremacy in debate.

He brought the debate at once to his proper bearings by pointing out that there were really only two matters to be considered, whether the proposed arrangement was useful and whether it could be safely guarded from abuse.