Replies

Mensa meansa nothing should I wish I could be one too by any standard: IQ, SAT scores, charming demeanor.

I'm 3 for 3 ;o)

Hamilton was that brilliant everyone admitted it even those who hated his guts.

I'd agree with that part.

However, he was NOT a monarchist no matter who tells that LIE.

His words say otherwise. I guess he was the liar.

He did believe in a permanent National Interest and hoped that role would be served by the Senate.

I'll give you half credit. He advocated that the President serve for Life after election. Can you imagine X42 serving for another 50 years?

Plus, all debate at the convention was explicitly to be kept secret so ideas presented there could not be used against their expositors.

Which would mean that they could honestly state their opinion, not be a politician and speak with forked tongue.

He changed his mind about the utility of States though never wished them to be too strong.

"He played a surprisingly small part in the debates, apparently because he was frequently absent on legal business, his extreme nationalism put him at odds with most of the delegates, and he was frustrated by the conservative views of his two fellow delegates from New York [John Lansing, Jr and Robert Yates]", and "Hamilton's policies soon brought him into conflict with Jefferson and Madison." National Archives and Records Administration

He played a surprisingly small part in the debates, apparently because he was frequently absent on legal business, his extreme nationalism put him at odds with most of the delegates, and he was frustrated by the conservative views of his two fellow delegates from New York [John Lansing, Jr and Robert Yates]", and "Hamilton's policies soon brought him into conflict with Jefferson and Madison."

Yes. Exactly. The New York delegation was constantly divided in the convention and ratification. Hamilton penned several of the now famous federalist essays, but chief among his anti-federalist opponents was his fellow NY delegate Robert Yates, author of the Brutus papers. Yates and the other anti-federalists took a strong states position throughout that debate with Hamilton's significantly more nationalist position countering it.

It is a common myth that Hamilton was a monarchist but by any common meaning of the word he was not having agitated and fought against monarchies from as early as 1774. His statements at the CC were meant to drive the debate towards a stronger government, not monarchy. He had no doubt that his ideas would not prevail but used the opportunity to allow compromise with something he might not totally agree with but which he believed was better than nothing. To refuse to acknowledge this obvious fact does nothing to indicate an awareness of the truth.

Nor can you find ANY of his writing advocating monarchy not even those of 1775.

Hamilton was present for much, if not most, of the debates and limited his comments, he said, out of respect and consideration for the older, more experienced leaders. He was the youngest member there. Plus, the fact that Clinton had made sure the NY delegation would vote "NO" compromised Hamilton's actions there as he admitted and made him feel less free to take part. He did, however, play major roles on the committees and undertake lengthy private conversations with the delegates. He was at the convention as much as most and more than many certainly more than his New York counterparts.

His most important role was in pushing for the calling of the convention. That had been a major goal from his earliest days in the Congress.