Agreed, Hamilton had a lot of very, very serous problems in his argument. Of course we got to be fair not only is hine-site 20/20 Hamilton did not even seriously want a free republic Hamilton wanted a 2nd British empire. An empire in which he would be among the aristocracy.
There are those who have said that some who wanted George Washington to be their King, Hamilton was one of em.
So treating lying, cheating, and scheming Hamilton as one of the legitimate, wise, and “benevolent” founders is already a bit of a stretch on principle.
Needless to say I’m glad he was killed in a duel with Burr. The man was a power hungry aristocratic menace.
But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.
Federalist, no. 84, 575--81; 28 May 1788
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss7.html
Hardly eleven years prior to the Constitutional Convention we fought for “the rights of Englishmen,” rights that existed under a monarchy. Monarchy is not synonymous with oppressive government as is often implied at FR. George III and Parliament betrayed the principles of a system we Americans admired. I am not aware of any colonial pamphlets prior to the Tea Party that espoused separation in order to form a republic. All Great Britain probably had to do was grant us some members to the Commons and House of Lords as was done for Scotland, Wales and the whole revolutionary mess could have been postponed if not avoided entirely. The Constitutional Convention was peppered with comments respectful of the British system.
But, despite the admiration, a parliamentary system would not do for Americans.
The gamut of dispositions at the Convention ran from tweaking the Articles of Confederation at one end to the establishment of a strong monarchical/aristocratic system at the other, as per Hamilton.
Speaking of the Articles, William Patterson (NJ)’s plan involved the grant of more power to Congress without solving the underlying structural problems of Confederacies. For instance, because some States refused to follow the peace treaty and not allow British creditors to sue in state courts, the Brits not only did not leave western outposts granted to the US under the terms, but fomented Indian attacks on American settlers. The Articles of Confederation were literally getting Americans killed.
IMO, the Articles were more of an affront and certainly more dangerous to life and property than Hamilton’s plan, yet for some reason, only Hamilton takes the barbs and insults at this forum.
Neither Monarchy nor Confederacy got very far. In fact, Hamilton's ideas got exactly nowhere, no debate whatsoever. We chose early on to establish a republic.
Given the historic record, it is illogical and simple minded to assign devious intent to establish an oppressive government to any of the Framers.