Posted on 01/13/2006 10:09:12 AM PST by neverdem
Still, I always kind of leaned toward Burr on the duel question.
It always kind of saddens me that there are people who claim interested in American political history but when they hear the name "Alexander Hamilton," the first thought that comes to mind is his soap-operatic duel. Hamilton was the greatest conservative this country ever produced.
IMHO, Hamilton is a little problematic for conservatives. And I love the guy.
On the one hand, he's the clear voice of capitalism among the Founders. And in a sea of dreamers and speakers, he was the pragmatist, who rolled up his sleeve and actually made much of the new country work. Our economic power is largely built on the foundation he laid in the earliest days of the Republic.
On the other hand, no other single figure was more instrumental in consolidating Federal power and giving the Federal government authority over the states.
Still, an amazing man. What he could have accomplished had he not died on that cliff in New Jersey....
bttt
Burr was a smuck. He never did anything for our new nation and was as dangerous a leader as we ever had. All big city political machines are the descendents of Burr's NYC's crooks. Daley and boys would proudly call Burr "brother".
Hamilton, on the other hand, was the greatest American of his generation other than Washington, who admired and advanced him at every opportunity.
It was not Hamilton who cemented federal power over the states but the Constitution. He and Marshall were the greatest interpreters of the Constitution we ever had with the latter examining every issue through the thought of the former (as he admitted.) Had Hamilton been able to defeat Jefferson's political machine and become president I do not believe the Civil war would have occurred.
"It was not Hamilton who cemented federal power over the states but the Constitution."
The Constitution that Hamilton championed. He was as responsible as any other single man for the Constitution being ratified, with his tireless work on the Federalist Papers. He felt that the Articles of Confederation, with its weak federal government, was a wholly inadequate foundation on which to build the mighty industrial nation he foresaw.
Hamilton was certainly a proponent of Federal power as a guarantee of liberty. He also favored a strong Executive branch (as did Washington), which led his critics to call him a monarchist.
Hamilton was as responsible for the enactment and ratification of the Constitution as any American as you say. However, the "strong" federal government which he helped implement was in no way "strong" it was weak to the point of imbecility compared to the government we know. Hamilton knew that the real power was with the states and was determined to change that so that a real Union could be created.
But there is no doubt that this strenghtening did not really occur till this century. It was tiny in size until the Civil War and even the increased power required to fight the war was reduced drastically afterwards. What passed as a federal government in 1800 would not even compare to a small state government today and compared to a large city would be considered tiny.
Had an ideological crank like Jefferson been the first president I have no doubt the nation would have failed. It was only because we had far-sighted statesmen like Washington and Hamilton in power that we have the greatest nation in the world to live in today.
Had an ideological crank like Jefferson been the first president I have no doubt the nation would have failed. It was only because we had far-sighted statesmen like Washington and Hamilton in power that we have the greatest nation in the world to live in today.
True enough. Both Hamilton and Washington were practical men. While Jefferson was dreaming of America as an agrarian paradise, they realized that the future of the nation was in trade, industry, businesses and banks. They worked for the America that didn't take full flower until the 20th Century.
Not a coincidence that only upon becoming the nation that they foresaw did America become the greatest power in the world....
Have you read Chernow's biography?
Actually, Hamilton could put today's politicians to shame. As the architect of the Revenue Cutter Service, he caused the establishment of a new federal agency/authority that trumped states rights and even effectively superseded provisions of the Constitution. Revenue cutters had the authority to stop citizens and, if deemed appropriate, cease their private property WITHOUT a warrant (a power that the U.S. Coast Guard still has).
The original purpose of the Revenue Cutter Service was to "force" the payment of tariffs on a reluctant citizenry, including many of our founding fathers who had made an art out of avoiding paying "English" taxes and continued the practice. Think of an early version of the IRS with guns and cutlass...our founding jack booted thug.
Hamilton knew that the government must have revenue and, contrary to the false view you present, that government had all the authority in the world to tax imports to provide it. There was NO states' right to import goods without paying the tariff. Nor was there anything he was involved in collecting revenue that was unconstitutional. When there is a tariff you have no right to possess property brought into the country without paying that tariff. Anymore than today you can bring goods in without declaring them even when there is no tariff.
Of course anyone who draws the scorn of meatheaded liars as Hamilton has for over two hundred years is worthy of high praise indeed. That campaign to attack him by the Left is still in full gear. Praise of Jefferson has been sung by the same meatheaded liars during this period.
Hamilton was the greatest ally Washington had and no one received more of his support and praise. Nor was any more critical to his performance as Commander-in-Chief and President. He was the most brilliant of the Founders and played a larger role in the creation of our Nation than any man but Washington. Some will never forgive him.
Not yet but I read about half a dozen a year. I have it ready to go. But the best I have read is Forrest MacDonald's which is simply brilliant in explaining the financial system. Hendrickson's is also terrific for the basic amazing story of his life. Of course, there are others which take on just one element of his prodigeous work. Foreign policy, political beliefs, military life, legal thought, etc.
I was reading a great bio on AH last year, but I had to turn it back in to the library after three weeks because there were so many holds on it. Never got it back....
The Chernow one is an excellent overview. Manages to touch on so many aspects of his life, glories in his successes, but doesn't try to diminish or excuse the scandals.
Great book.
Hardly a false view at all. I never denied that it was his job to enforce revenue laws. The new nation was broke following the war and it was his job to gather the revenue to pay for it. The only way he was able to accomplish that duty successfully was through the use of force; implied and real.
As for the Conditionality of a federal agency having the authority to enter and seize private property, without a search warrant, has been being debated for over 200 years. Although the courts continue to uphold it, the very thought that armed federal law enforcement officers are able to enter and seize your property, without so much as a search warrant, is something that the average citizen believes is outside the bounds of the Constitution.
As for Hamilton himself, I always was a fan of his. How could I not be and spend over 30 years in the Coast Guard. However, your assertion that he was a limited federal power type is far from accurate. He led the way in use of strong, over-riding, federal power.
Exactly. As I said above, Hamilton is problematic for modern conservatives.
There's the Federalism, but then there's his committment to capitalism and industry as the guarantee of liberty.
When he became the first treasurer he was faced with a large war debt and a population that wasn't very keen on paying their dues; to anyone. Many of the founding fathers had been actively involved in smuggling and some protested that paying taxes to the new government was simply changing the yoke and continued to smuggle.
He couldn't get the public to comply willingly so his only recourse was to create and use a very heavy federal hand.
I saw him speaking about it on CSPAN last year and it sounded like him was on the same page as me. I have read Hendrickson, McDonald, Schachner, Randall, Brookhiser, Atherton, Mitchell, Lodge, Fleming, Cooke, Miller, Syrett, Rogow, Lycan, Flexner,just finished Knott and have a couple of more ready for my next foray into Hamiltonia.
Hamilton's view was not that the government should or did have unlimited power. Far from it (read his Essay on the Constitutionality of the Bank for a clear view of what is constitutional and what not.) What reputable figure has ever claimed that there is a right to smuggle goods into the country? Or that Hamilton's men did any more than law allowed in regards to private property? Federal forces have full authority to search vessels entering the country.
As I said the federal government during his day was tiny only the Department of the Treasury could be considered anything else. It was by far the largest employer in the government with far greater powers than any of the other departments. But until the Whiskey Tax Act its powers was pretty much restricted to the ports and coasts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.