I won't argue the first point, but will argue the second.
Your point is unclear to me. What did he do that was stupid? If there was to be no national bank, why would the US be given the power to coin money? Would that bank's absence have empowered one State (or "nigerian" bank) to become more powerful than others, possibly so powerful that it could have overpowered some financial abilities of other States?
I have argued countless times that the effects of the 17th Amendment have allowed our Federal Government to be stronger than the Constitution's design. It seems that the government following the limited powers of the original constitution were not covered in your recipe for keeping the US Government in control. Why?
Hamilton was a liberal? In some respects I agree with you, but not in a majority of points. What brings you to your total judgement of him as a liberal?
Liberals believe people need them; that they know better than the people and should hold power. Liberals desire central control with them doing the controlling.
Conservatives believe in the people and in competition. Conservatives believe they might be smart, educated, and experienced but that others are too and the best ideas come from all.
Liberals need control as they are fearful of the world and want the world to look as they believe it should look. Conservatives can handle differences and adapt as necessary and are not fearful the world isn’t as they expect it to be.
Hamilton wanted central control by a powerful federal government with him at the helm.
The US government and State governments were to be kept in control by keeping them weak by not allowing them the instruments of power. A central bank as with the Federal Reserve System we have now is exactly the thing the anti-federalists knew would allow the government to control the people by controlling the money. Hamilton also knew this, but, as a liberal, couldn’t help himself to continue to desire central control. He led his life through fear and ignorance, as do all liberals.
People do not need control, they need freedom. Perfection is not a possible outcome with any government, and anyone trying to achieve some kind of societal perfection will only result in creating tyranny from an overbearing and controlling government.
This is why Hamilton was stupid; he failed to know and understand history and human psychology.
One State overpowering the others? As with the federal government overpowering ALL the States as we have now? Hmmm, doesn’t sound like a practical argument to me.
You are aware I hope that the only thing federal about the Federal reserve banks is the word federal in the name.
They are PRIVATELY owned.
The Constitution provides for the CONGRESS “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,...”.
Doesn’t say a word about delegating that authority to privately owned banks anywhere.