Regardless of his other views at other times, Hamilton's significant contributions to the Federalist Papers give us our most important insights into Founders’ Original Intent with their new Constitution.
And by definition of the word (American) “conservative”, our Founders original intent tells us our bedrock beliefs.
By stark contrast, you have consistently argued against Founders original intent and for anti-Federalists opinions.
After their defeat by the Federalists’ Constitution, most anti-Federalists became Jefferson anti-Federalists, then in time, Jefferson Democratic Republicans, and eventually, Jackson Democrats.
Yes, of course, it's a far cry from Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans to today's progressive-liberal Democrats.
But there is one matter of total consistency: Democrats have ALWAYS insisted on special privileges for their own voters.
Before the CW that meant slave-owners.
Today it means the descendants of slaves and other “oppressed” minorities.
That's why I've long suspected that at least some pro-Confederates posting here are really just old-time Dixie Democrats, hoping to convince the rest of us that their anti-Federalist version of “Conservative” is actually superior to the Founders’ original intent.
In fact, that's not “conservative” at all, it's just more of the same-old same-old special privileges for Democrat voters.
Your view of “intent” is apparently whatever you would like it to be, mainly filtered through the hagiography of the later Lincoln. In fact, it reminds me of the “intent” Douglas found in “emanations from penumbras” (That’s Griswold, so you don’t have to look it up).
Federalists like Marshall, Whigs like Clay, and followers of Clay such as Lincoln promoted a very different scheme of government from that of the Constitution. I suppose you have reason to love the leviathan police state. It sends checks in the mail; it prints money; it intervenes foolishly around the world; it is constantly intervening at home to “protect” us. If you actually read the Federalist Papers you might struggle to consider that the powers of your beloved Federal government were presented (correctly) as strictly limited to a handful of enumerated powers (That means specified in writing, in case you were wond4ering). The argument that was initially made against having a Bill of Rights was that it was unnecessary because the sovereign states retained all of their powers except those enumerated. The Bill of Rights, from a drafting perspective, was a “belt and suspenders” exercise to ensure that the states and the their respective peoples retained all of their former rights, except those enumerated. The first eight Amendments reflect English and colonial experience with the Tudors and the Stuarts. If you look at the Petition of Right of 1628, for instance, you will see provision that gave rise to several of the protections contained in the Bill of Rights. Lincoln’s tyranny would have been rejected by every one of those commonly referred to as “Founders” and the people Madison correctly described as “Founders”.
Sadly, too many lost causers worship a republic that never was and never could be. And needlessly trash a lot of good people in pursuit of their windmill.