Replies

From Madison's notes: "It will be objected probably, that [an Executive for life] will be an elective Monarch, and will give birth to the tumults which characterize that form of Gov[ernmen]t. He w[oul]d reply that Monarch is an indefinite term. It marks not either the degree or duration of power. If the Executive Magistrate wd. be a monarch for life--the other prop[ose]d by the Report . . . wd. be a Monarch for seven years."

Don't know too many ways that can be taken. Hamilton called for an elected monarch, much as he called for a lifetime Senate. Hmmmm, except for the 'elected' bit sounds quite a bit like England's system of government with the higher offices serving for life. But you keep preaching sunshine....

Madison was reflecting on Hamilton's comments apparently, not quoting them. While the quote is unclear it is not apparent that Hamilton is doing anything other than discussing the nature of the Executive, not calling for a Monarch.

Isn't he comparing two proposals? Is "he" Hamilton or Madison presuming to answer objections?

No, England's government was composed of inherited powers in the House of Lords and the Monarchy. But that was part of Hamilton's point in examining the meaning of the term Monarch. By his writings he distinguished a Republic from other forms of government precisely because such offices were NOT inheritable and were to be held only in good behavior even with the life term version.

Hamilton pushed for a strong government and one of the ways he achieved it was to propose one even stronger than what he knew would be acceptable. Like a negoitiator asking for a pay raise far higher than he knew he could get.

Hmmmm, except for the 'elected' bit sounds quite a bit like England's system of government with the higher offices serving for life. But you keep preaching sunshine....

If there is still any doubt, let us not forget the following, also from Madison's notes on the Convention:

Monday June 18, 1787.
(Hamilton)the British Govt. was the best in the world: and that he doubted much whether any thing short of it would do in America.

(Hamilton)As to the Executive, it seemed to be admitted that no good one could be established on Republican principles. Was not this giving up the merits of the question: for can there be a good Govt. without a good Executive. The English model was the only good one on this subject. The Hereditary interest of the King was so interwoven with that of the Nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad-and at the same time was both sufficiently independent and sufficiently controuled, to answer the purpose of the institution at home.

Nope, no call for any type of "monarch", "king", or anything like that at all. < /sarcasm >

I don't know about you, billbears, but if I had been there and heard that fall out of Hamilton's sewer after fighting the very same government he wanted emulated, Aaron Burr would have had a much different place in history.