Fisher Ames Quotes

Fisher Ames observed of Hamilton that the common people don’t want leaders “whom they see elevated by nature and education so far above their heads.

In passing, I continually marvel at how different today’s lawyers and politicians are from us of the first generation. We did not possess a single orator to compare with the present crop. Jefferson and Madison were inaudible. Monroe was dull. Hamilton rambled and I was far too dry (and brief) for the popular taste. Fisher Ames was the nearest thing we had to an orator (I never heard Patrick Henry). Today, however, practically every public man is now a marvellous orator—no, actor! capable of shouting down a tempest, causing tears to flow, laughter to rise. I cannot fathom the reason for this change unless it be the influence of a generation of evangelical ministers (Clay always makes me think of a preacher a-wash in the Blood of the Lamb who, even as he calls his flock to repent, is planning to seduce the lady in the back pew); and of course today’s politician must deal with a much larger electorate than ours. We had only to enchant a caucus in a conversational tone while they must thrill the multitude with brass and cymbal.

Hamilton wanted to lead the electorate and provide expert opinion instead of consulting popular opinion. He took tough, uncompromising stands and gloried in abstruse ideas in a political culture that pined for greater simplicity. Alexander Hamilton triumphed as a doer and thinker, not as a leader of the average voter. He was simply too unashamedly brainy to appeal to the masses. Fisher Ames observed of Hamilton that the common people don't want leaders 'whom they see elevated by nature and education so far above their heads.

A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.

Some die-hard federalists continued to scorn declarations of rights. Representative Fisher Ames of Massachusetts privately quipped: Mr. Madison has introduced his long expected amendments. . . . He has hunted up all the grievances and complaints of newspapers, all the articles of conventions, and the small talk of their debates. It contains a bill of rights, the right of enjoying property, of changing the government at pleasure, freedom of the press, of conscience . . . . Oh! I had forgot, the right of the people to bear arms.24

Another aspect of behavior directly impacted by the removal of religious principles was morality. Recall that both George Washington and Fisher Ames had warned that neither national morality in general nor student morality in particular could be maintained apart from religious principles. Statistics now verify the accuracy of their warnings. For example, following the 1962-1963 court-ordered removal of religious principles from students, teenage pregnancies immediately soared over 700 percent,52 with the United States recording the highest teen pregnancy rates in the industrialized world.53 Similarly, sexual activity among fifteen year-olds skyrocketed,54 and sexually transmitted diseases among students ascended to previously unrecorded levels.55 In fact, virtually every moral measurement kept by federal cabinet-level agencies reflects the same statistical pattern: the removal of religious principles from the public sphere was accompanied by a corresponding decline in public morality.56

through the transcript. Some colleagues, at least, found the whole exercise droll. Fisher Ames, a Federalist

—Y ahora no sé si me gustas. —Pero me amas. No tiene que gustarte alguien para que lo ames. Frunzo el ceño. Tiene razón. Pero que no te guste alguien es suficiente combustible para correr lejos de él. El amor sólo puede llevarte a la primera pelea.

No tiene que gustarte alguien para que lo ames.

Fisher Ames, always a shrewd observer of the scene, mused that “a spirit of faction . . . must soon come to a crisis.” He foresaw that congressional Republicans would discard their comparatively decorous criticism of Washington’s first term: