Both DiogenesLamp and Kalamata know exactly as much about our history as they can fit into their own Lost Cause, anti-Federalist ideological template.
Everything else they ignore, distort and/or deny.
For someone who pretends to be a historian, you certainly are ignorant of the term Federalist. Federalism is a system of government in which there is a distribution or division of power between a central government and a series of smaller governments. Alexander Hamilton hijacked the term "federalist" to enhance his rhetorical influence over the masses; but he was, in fact, anti-federalist, or more accurately, a nationalist supporting an all-powerful central government—the antithesis of federalism.
For that reason, one of Hamilton's first acts was an attempt to undermine federalism. Hamilton said this when he, Madison and Jay were trying to "sell" the Constitution to a bunch of very cautious sovereign States:
Hamilton clearly recognized state sovereignty, as well as the proper distribution of powers. However, once in power, in the Washington administration, Hamilton said this:"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases: where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally contradictory and repugnant."
[Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 32, in Bill Bailey, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.145]
"It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt, that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money." "The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible,is this: That the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, be general, and not local; its operation extending, in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot." "No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude, which is granted, too, in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."
[Report on Manufactures. Communicated to the House of Representatives, December 5, 1791, in Henry Cabot Lodge, "The Works of Alexander Hamilton Vol 04." G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1903, pp.151-152]
Everything underlined in that statement is a lie! The instant Hamilton introduced an unauthorized power – the power over agriculture – he rejected federalism, and the Constitution.
I am not hair-splitting. Hamilton himself said the power over agriculture belonged to the states, back when he was in his "sell mode":
"Allowing the utmost latitude to the love of power which any reasonable man can require, I confess I am at a loss to discover what temptation the persons intrusted with the administration of the general government could ever feel to divest the States of the authorities of that description. The regulation of the mere domestic police of a State appears to me to hold out slender allurements to ambition. Commerce, finance, negotiation, and war seem to comprehend all the objects which have charms for minds governed by that passion; and all the powers necessary to those objects ought, in the first instance, to be lodged in the national depository. The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. It is therefore improbable that there should exist a disposition in the federal councils to usurp the powers with which they are connected; because the attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as it would be nugatory; and the possession of them, for that reason, would contribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance, or to the splendor of the national government."
[Ibid. Bailey, Federalist No. 17, p.83]
What a weasel . . .
Mr. Kalamata