> Would like to see that quote sourced.
I don’t have a simple URL source, but I’ve read a few biographies of him as well as Jefferson, Adams, Washington and others (I try to read at least 2 of anyone since biographers often differ even about the same person/history).
This is very much inline with Hamilton’s thinking from both his biographers and others. Some of the key points that no biographers disagreed on and at least a couple mentioned
* He intentionally had Madison write the state-related Federalist Papers. He wrote the federal-government papers and minimized federal power
* Even at that time in his private journal he thought France’s Secretary of the Treasury was the most powerful position and could do ANYTHING. And that was good. He wanted to be Sec of Treasury because of that.
* He was not personally in favor of the enumerated powers but was ok with including them as long as the general welfare clause was there. He thought he could show supremacy of the general welfare clause. Again, from his personal diary and later communications, not anything he said publicly at the time since he knew the would probably doom ratification.
* He prepared 2 methods of presenting his banking bills to Congress. Knowing Madison would object, he had a complex argument based on the enumerated powers. Hoping to set precedent for the general welfare clause trumping the enumerated powers, he started with that argument. That argument won without presenting his elastic clause argument, even with many in Congress having personally ratified the Constitution and understanding the arguments.
I much prefer Madison’s interpretation but can’t deny that there were a wide range of opinions then just like now. To be fair, other founding fathers weren’t so concerned with the enumerated powers or bill of rights when issues they wanted were in conflict. The placement of DC (Washington), Sedition Act (Adams), and Fifth Embargo Act (Jefferson) just to name out a few.
And the way Adams and Jefferson manipulated the press makes the Clintons, CNN, and the NYT look like amateurs. It was pretty fascinating times and not much like what I learned in school.
I enjoyed both of your excellent, balanced and factually-based posts.
You advance the conversation in important ways, and civilly. Which is much appreciated.