In Praise of Alexander Hamilton Part V – June 18th 1787

ArticleVBlog ^ | March 11th 2019 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Jacquerie]

“There is a natural inclination in mankind,” wrote Benjamin Franklin, “to Kingly government.” He wasn’t alone. Convention delegate Hugh Williamson (NC), thought “it was pretty certain . . . that we should at some time or other have a King,” but he wished to postpone the event as long as possible. James Madison and George Washington made similar observations. Even John Adams in his Defense of the Constitutions of the United States of America predicted a future government “nearer (in) resemblance (to) the British constitution,” including a hereditary king and senate.¹

Among the delaying features of our pre-17th Amendment Constitution such as separation of powers and different sources of electors for the House, Senate, President, and Supreme Court, are Article IV § 4 that guarantees the republican form to the states. But what is republican government? In Federalist 43 James Madison simply defined republican government as having the consent of the governed, and no hereditary offices. Article I § 9 and 10 prohibit monarchy and titles of nobility.

Despite these Constitutional safeguards, Madison predicted a new Constitution around 1930, presumably to accommodate one that tended toward the monarchical form.²

In his speech, Alexander Hamilton cut to the chase. Since republics were often scenes of turmoil and violence, and monarchy was likely in our future, why not push republican principles to their limit and consider a higher-toned government to avoid the pitfalls that brought down every previous republic? Wouldn’t this further delay, possibly forever, the seemingly inevitable?

While readers today are aghast at Hamilton’s hostility for the evolving republican Virginia and federal New Jersey plans, opinions in 1780s America had only recently move toward some governing form other than monarchal. Thanks to England’s balanced constitution, George III was sovereign of the freest people on earth . . .

[Jacquerie]

The Framers’ Constitution sought to control deadly factions, what we call political parties. But, instead of Constitutional government, today we have what the Framers feared: rule by party.

OTOH, rather than attempt to control natural passions, Hamilton’s sketch of government mimicked the British government, the freest on earth. Hamilton recognized the rich and poor as distinct orders of society and channeled their passions in a national legislature. An elected non-hereditary Governor-for-Life held an absolute veto over legislative bills.

We’ll never know its utility, but if nothing else, Hamilton jump-started convention delegates to properly empower their new design of government.

[an amused spectator]

And the problem is that the Democrat Party is rabid...

[ConservativeDude]

interesting point. also interesting to note that the UK is also ruled by party....and the House of Commons is far more powerful than it was in Hamilton’s day.....

[Jacquerie]

Yes, the UK Monarch and House of Lords are ciphers. Pity.

[sauropod]

Bkmk