Irrelevant. The incident, as I pointed out clearly, occurred in 1782, five years before the Constitutional Convention (which convened in May, 1787), when nobody had any Federal/Antifederal irons in the fire yet, and the guns of Yorktown were barely cool.
The word of Yates, a second or third rater, against a Titan is of no interest except as chaff trown in the eyes of History.
Blatant and abusive prejudice and intellectual arrogance of the first water. Thanks for showing it off. Now lurkers will be better able to weigh your shamelessly partisan representations and mischaracterizations.
The incident clearly shows who said what, and Hamilton's intentions are crystal-clear, as is his mode of operation. The tale itself vindicates my and Yates's measure of Hamilton's character, and I'll be happy to let you roll that boulder uphill for as long as you can stand it. Readers will know, as I say, what to make of your "efforts".
Like Hamilton, "you are known".
Yates was passed over by Morris for the position which Hamilton eventually took. He resented this appointment and complained that he had not been sufficiently rewarded while H received what HE should have (he later had to admit he was wrong about this after learning H took no pay for his work.) When you quote Yates please do not pretend that you are quoting an impartial or even fair source. You are quoting an inveterent enemy of Hamilton. Given that TRUTH the statement can be properly evaluated. And thus entirely discredited by honest men.
Yates unsuitability for the office was simply stated: "that it was Necessary the Receiver of Taxes should be able to Look Continentally. He should have Continental Eyes, should not be under governmental Regulation etc. (state)"
Thus, a toady of Clinton was completely unqualified for this post given that they had worked diligently to work to prevent the excise taxes NY collected from being transferred to the Confederation as had been agreed to do earlier. Clinton's factotems had no concern to strengthen the Union.
And you neglected to fully tell the rest of the story which in no way redowns in Yates' favor or against Hamilton. Hamilton's correspondence to Yates had him eventually agreeing with H as to what the job entailed then H (knowing that such assent was contrary to the Clintonites) OFFERED YATES THE JOB knowing he would have to turn down the job he had just sought. After H had made him look the fool he erupted with the misleading and dishonest crap you posted.
I am arrogant enough that being called arrogant causes me no alarm or concern. Like Hamilton, however, I am also honest.