In Praise of Alexander Hamilton

Mark:
Nice article....

Hamilton was a brilliant man, and we owe him much.

He also had some inclinations which were decidedly tyrannical.

I, sometimes in the course of my work, find him lying on the ground ... also some of his other relatives - Ben especially is exciting.

Jefferson & Madison, who despised Hamilton, were in awe of his intellect.

The RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington ping list.

Hamilton (Wenham and Ipswich, track 5) 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???

About 15 years ago the New York Historical Society (museum) had a Hamilton special (narrated by historian Richard Brookhiser) that was everything Hamilton. And most excellent.
Everyone who attended even got a mock NY Post newspaper highlighting Hamilton.
Had a great time (and learned a lot).

Proponent of a large centralized federal government. That’s going well.

And a lousy shot.

Yes, AH went from nothing to a big mover and shaker in NY and national politics. It sounds like the museum hosted great event. We need more such events for this great Framer.

You write: Jefferson & Madison, who despised Hamilton, were in awe of his intellect.

And Hamilton was in awe of Burr’s intellect. As was Jefferson. And both were as randy as he.

I’ve been to Nevis. It’s beautiful, gorgeous beyond description. It is very peaceful now with an educated sharp minded and wise African descended Mayor. The black kids there are studious and well-behaved.

Contrast that with neighboring St. Kitts island, less than a half mile away across the water where crime, drunkenness and bad behavior are on display. The difference could not be starker.

Nevis is a tax haven and is populated by billionaires walking anonymously on the beach unshaven and wearing cutoff jeans.

The people on Nevis understand very well their legacy and that of Alexander Hamilton. His history is displayed at city hall and in shops, practically everywhere.

Hamilton came to America from Nevis as a result of a devasting hurricane (global warming?) that ripped up the island. He wrote about the hurricane and its aftermath for a journal circulated among well to do English traders. It was this article that landed him a scholarship in the colonies. He was a gifted writer, born with a great mind.

For all that have the opportunity, visit Nevis, avoid St. Kitts, you will love it and probably want to live there.

Despite his remarkable achievements, I’ve found that many Article V COS opponents unjustly vilify the man who, while impoverishing himself and family through government service, enriched his nation. The often unhinged hostility of these people and others are only surpassed by contemporary Trump Derangement Syndrome.

You COS proponents just can’t keep it civil can you? I have been an opponent of Article V long before COS existed and Alexander Hamilton has nothing to do with it. The general naivete of COS is what is so astounding about the movement. The don’t worry be happy view of what they think will be the result of a Constitutional Convention is nothing short of... Naive

One word Kavenaugh, should dispel any such idea, and before that, there was an abundance of reasons not to open the Constitution to liberal meddling in a world of Liberal Meddling. Everyone thinks they know the end result of a Convention. I don’t believe anyone has a clue what the media Circus will actually produce.

Thank you for the background info!

If you want to find un-civil, look up any Aticle V speech by Publius Huldah or Phyllis Schlafly (RIP). My comments are truthful and mild.

1. Constitutional Convention – “Born a Citizen” v “Natural Born Citizen”:

When developing a new U.S. Constitution for the United States of America, Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft on June 18, 1787. In addition, he also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.

Many of the founders and framers expressed fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future serve as President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. This question of foreign influence was elevated when John Jay considered the additional power granted to the Presidency during times of war, that is when he serves as Commander in Chief of the military. Jay felt strongly that whoever served as President and Commander In Chief during times of war must owe their sole allegiance to and only to the United States.

Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President.

John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.

Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link.

Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.

Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was overwhelmingly rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.. Therefore, the President of the United States must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth. [SOURCE CREDIT]

So why do we keep hearing about the President only needing to be “born a citizen”? Well, let’s start with the fallacy of the 14th amendment trumping Article II -

link

http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

I don’t believe anyone has a clue what the media Circus will actually produce.

Absolutely agreed.

Hamilton largely got his way......to the detriment of us all. He wanted centralized power, a crony capitalist system in which government would be in bed with business giving them handouts and special favors rather then just regulating the market, and he favored an executive with almost royal powers.

We would have been far better off had we gone in a more Jeffersonian direction with decentralized power, a stricter interpretation of the General Welfare clause and strict limits on the government’s ability to borrow money.

But wasn’t Jefferson in the end correct. Big government lead to unmanageable debt and the welfare state we have today. And creating a central bank lead to a cabal of corrupt bankers cheating Main Street.

Wasn’t he some Jamaican interloper?