That wasn't my assertion. My point was that Hamilton clearly had some insight into what the Founders' original intention was, perhaps more than Jefferson, who relied as much on his own beliefs and desires as on anything else.
Did you miss the qualifier, “In a modern context?” That means in modern times, NOT in the 18th century (and why did you limit it to just the 18th century, when I put no such restriction on the term? Hamiltonian federalists didn’t die out in 1799).
I said 18th century, because the Federalists didn't last very long into the 19th. I saw that "in a modern context." It's meaningless mumbo jumbo. In a modern context what would George III or Napoleon think or do? Apparently whatever you want to believe they would do. Roe v. Wade would have been incomprehensible to Hamilton. To say that he would have approved is to speak nonsense.
Actually, Madison OPPOSED a national bank, and only signed onto one in 1816 in order to pay off the debt of the War of 1812.
That means that in practice he did support and favor a National Bank when the circumstances demanded it for the country or for his party. Interesting perspective here.
“I said 18th century, because the Federalists didn’t last very long into the 19th.”
Again, you and some other guy keep referring to the Federalist PARTY, when I have on several occasions specifically said the federalist PHILOSOPHY, not the Federalist PARTY.
The federalist philosophy is pro-big government, rule by an elite, and “malleable” or “living” constitution open to new and creative interpretations to meet the issues of the day. Exactly what today’s Democrat Party subscribes to.