How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America

Reason ^ | 9/18/2017 | Ron Paul

[backwoods-engineer]

L. Neil Smith is finally justified. He wrote scathing critiques of Hamilton into his “Probability Broach” alt-history novel series. Recommended reading for libertarian-leaning FReepers, if you can ignore the Pollyannaish treatment of the non-aggression principle and other libertarian concepts.

[jmacusa]

“When in doubt, knock France?’’. On a purely personal level two generations of my family fought in two world wars for Frances freedom and damned near lost their lives doing it. And know the Frenchies are letting the Muslims over run them.

[Reily]

And the North American continent would have probably go the way of South America. A region of squabbling, occasionally at war, manipulated by outsiders nation-states.

[achilles2000]

Statism didn’t have free reign until the culmination of the disasterous Wilson/FDR years. I’m not in doubt, and I’m not gratuitously knocking France. Hamilton’s ideas were retrograde, and very much in tune with the retrograde example of France’s long-entrenched dirigisme model (from Louis XIV onward). Hamilton did hate the Constitution that was ratified and worked sedulously to subvert it. His acolytes in the courts helped things along dramatically, with Marbury being an example of a poison pill that keeps on giving. Of course, Hamilton wasn’t alone. Many Federalists ignored the Constitution when they could, as, for example, when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed during the Adams administration. For a more careful look at Hamilton/Clay type policies during the 19th Century, I recommend The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton Folsum.

[CapandBall]

“I smell a rat”

Patrick Henery explaining why he refused to attend the Constitutional Convention,1788

[Jacquerie]

Without doubt.

[DoodleDawg]

If it hadn't been so big, we would very likely have stayed out of WWI, which would have likely stopped WWII and all the massive bloodshed that was a result of it, from happening.

More opinion masquerading as fact.

[nopardons]

Oh good grief....

Your post is not just laughable, but hysterically so!

I suggest that you refrain from ever posting about topics you know nothing at all about and take your own advice about growing up!

[x]

Hamilton’s ideas were retrograde, and very much in tune with the retrograde example of France’s long-entrenched dirigisme model (from Louis XIV onward).

Hamilton's model was always England. Jefferson's love was for France, Revolution and all. England may not have been the best model for America, but Hamilton was not as "hands on" as the French model was. So far as I know, he wasn't going to micromanage industry.

Hamilton did hate the Constitution that was ratified and worked sedulously to subvert it. His acolytes in the courts helped things along dramatically, with Marbury being an example of a poison pill that keeps on giving.

Hamilton was satisfied with the Constitution we got. His interpretation of the Constitution (and Marshall's) wasn't the same as Jefferson's, but he was there at the convention. He voted for the Constitution. He signed it. He was one of many Founders who compromised his original views for the sake of the country.

Of course, Hamilton wasn’t alone. Many Federalists ignored the Constitution when they could, as, for example, when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed during the Adams administration.

True. But that wasn't the last time government curtailed civil liberties because of a national crisis. Jefferson, who protested against the Alien and Sedition Acts, has also been criticized for his own record on civil liberties.

For a more careful look at Hamilton/Clay type policies during the 19th Century, I recommend The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton Folsum.

I haven't read the book, but from the reviews it looks like he's separating out the capitalists of the late 19th century into two groups, good and bad, and maybe ignoring that both benefited from the same protectionist policies.

[PGalt]

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

The most important question that was ever proposed to your decision, or to the decision of any people under heaven, is before you, and you are to decide upon it by men of your own election, chosen specially for this purpose. If the constitution, offered to your acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed. You may rejoice in the prospects of this vast extended continent becoming filled with freemen, who will assert the dignity of human nature. You may solace yourselves with the idea, that society, in this favoured land, will fast advance to the highest point of perfection; the human mind will expand in knowledge and virtue, and the golden age be, in some measure, realised. But if, on the other hand, this form of government contains principles that will lead to the subversion of liberty — if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannic aristocracy; then, if you adopt it, this only remaining assylum for liberty will be shut up, and posterity will execrate your memory.

Momentous then is the question you have to determine, and you are called upon by every motive which should influence a noble and virtuous mind, to examine it well, and to make up a wise judgment. It is insisted, indeed, that this constitution must be received, be it ever so imperfect. If it has its defects, it is said, they can be best amended when they are experienced. But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government.

So far therefore as its powers reach, all ideas of confederation are given up and lost. It is true this government is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual states must very soon be annihilated, except so far as they are barely necessary to the organization of the general government. The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance — there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; — there is no limitation to this power…

And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. This disposition, which is implanted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority, and having such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the federal government succeeds at all.

In a free republic…

Brutus #1 - Anti-federalist

Check$ and Balance$?

http://www.usdebtclock.org

Current and former (Barack, Hillary, Kasich, Paul, etc., etc.) members of The Gang of 535, aka CONgre$$, should be in federal prison.

Zero “representation”.

[achilles2000]

Yes, Hamilton and Adams admired the stratification of English society, but I was speaking of Hamilton’s economic model, which was similar to France’s. The old system of English mercantilism was the direct inspiration for Hamilton, but England was slowly turning toward free markets by the time of ratification and was solidly in the limited government, free market camp during the 19th Century. I referenced France because, instead of following the advice of brilliant economists such as Turgot and Bastiat, France continued with statism, which was similar to the old English mercantilism. Over time, France has consistently played out more along the lines of what Hamilton proposed.

As for the Constitution, Hamilton’s “interpretation” is just the stock in trade of dishonest lawyering. If you think he was providing an honest reading of the Constitution, then we would have to believe “interpretations” such as Marbury, Kelo, Roe,Lawrence, Obergefel, and Wickard were honest readings of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Federalist Papers, and more important, the plain text of the Constitution and the state ratification debates show otherwise.

I’ve said nothing about Jefferson, although nothing in his administration even remotely compares to the Alien and Sedition Acts. To say he has been criticized for his record on civil liberties is meaningless. If he did something contrary to the express civil liberties provisions of the Constitution, I’d be interested in hearing about it. My intuition, though, that the “criticism” is according to the faux civil liberties views of the left, which have nothing to do with the Constitution. If you would like an example of Jefferson arguably exceeding his powers, I would suggest that his actions during with respect to the Louisiana Purchase could be examined.

You can’t understand actual economic history with reading it. Folsum makes a clear empirical point that is relevant to your claim. You might find it interesting, and the book is quite readable.

Sorry to have gone on at such length...

[x]

The old system of English mercantilism was the direct inspiration for Hamilton, but England was slowly turning toward free markets by the time of ratification and was solidly in the limited government, free market camp during the 19th Century. I referenced France because, instead of following the advice of brilliant economists such as Turgot and Bastiat, France continued with statism, which was similar to the old English mercantilism. Over time, France has consistently played out more along the lines of what Hamilton proposed.

That's a lot of speculation. Hamilton didn't have close ties to France and wasn't part of that side of the Enlightenment. You're setting him up as a straw man who would do what you want him to do, but he was much more in the English tradition and followed English trends. England did give birth to free market ideas but British governments didn't give up power completely.

I’ve said nothing about Jefferson, although nothing in his administration even remotely compares to the Alien and Sedition Acts. To say he has been criticized for his record on civil liberties is meaningless. If he did something contrary to the express civil liberties provisions of the Constitution, I’d be interested in hearing about it.

The Embargo and the measures enforcing it went against the libertarian views Jefferson gave lip service to.

[achilles2000]

There’s no speculation because I didn’t say Hamilton was inspired by France. I told you what any scholar would tell you about the source of his ideas. I only mentioned France because by the time of the ratification England was in the process of slowly rejecting mercantilism. France, on the other hand, continued with a program of dirigiste and a centralized state. The point is that our relatively free markets and limited government survived about as long as England’s, but if you want to see Hamilton’s statist economic views in action over time, France is not a bad approximation.

I am not here to idolize Jefferson. Levy’s book is not so much wrong about facts, but I do think it distorts Jefferson’s overall record in various ways. I believe even neo-con and liberal reviewers would (or have conceded) concede this point. FWIW, anything published by Harvard University Press (or any “Ivy” press, for that matter) needs to be carefully scrutinized. My interest, however, is in the Constitution, not Jefferson vs. Hamilton.

[NonValueAdded]

The RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington ping list.

Founding Father ping

Please FreepMail me if you want to be added to or removed from this low volume ping list. Ping requests gladly accepted.

Recessional of the Sons of the American Revolution:

“Until we meet again, let us remember our obligations to our
forefathers who gave us our Constitution, the Bill of Rights,
an independent Supreme Court and a nation of free men.”

Dr. Benjamin Franklin, when asked if we had a republic or a monarchy, replied "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Can we???

[Publius]

This may be worthy of a Federalist/Anti-Federalist ping.

[rlmorel]

I appreciate your post, but I get the distinct impression it isn’t really a desirable point of view for this type of thread.

These threads remind me somewhat of a “Two Minutes Hate” with Alexander Hamilton playing the part of Emmanuel Goldstein.

Needless to say, I agree completely with you on this. Hamilton would be appalled at the Federal Government and the out of control spending we have today. He believed in strong federal government, but not an all powerful and bloated federal government.

[Loud Mime]

Thanks for the ping - good reading here.

[KC Burke]

Hamilton was a truly valuable man to the rebellion and our founding. He was greatly disliked by the dilettante Jefferson.

[catnipman]

for anyone who really cares about what Hamilton did, the book “Hamilton” is a must read. Be forewarned though, it could take weeks to read it.

[Captain Peter Blood]

Is that the one by Ron Chernow?