Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America
Reason ^ | 9/18/2017 | Ron Paul

Posted on 09/18/2017 1:32:30 PM PDT by Borges

Having now endured a more than two-year orgy of adoration for the Broadway hip-hop musical, Hamilton, the public surely deserves a historical corrective. Historian Brion McClanahan's latest work on the Revolutionary period, How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America, is being released Monday.

Ron Paul, the Libertarian and Republican candidate for president and longtime U.S. Representative from Texas, has written the foreward, which he graciously shared in advance with Reason.

The central government has always been the greatest threat to liberty in America, but most Americans don't understand how modern America became the warfare state. How did the president acquire so much unconstitutional power? How did the federal judiciary become, at times, the most powerful branch of government? How were the states reduced to mere corporations of the general government? Why is every issue, from abortion to bathrooms to crime to education, a "national" problem? The people have very little input into public policy. They vote, they rally, they attend "town hall" meetings, but it does very little to stop the avalanche of federal laws, regulations, and rules that affect every aspect of American life. We have a federal leviathan that can't be tamed, and Americans are angry about it. They want answers.

Certainly, the Framers of the Constitution did not design our system this way. They intended the checks and balances between the three branches of government and also between the states and the central government to limit the potential for abuse, but somewhere along the way that changed. Who or what changed the system? It wasn't Barack Obama or George W. Bush. It wasn't even Franklin Roosevelt, his cousin Teddy, or Woodrow Wilson. They certainly helped, but as Brion McClanahan argues in the following pages, the architects of our nationalist nightmare were none other than Alexander Hamilton and a trio of Supreme Court justices: John Marshall, Joseph Story, and Hugo Black. Identifying the source of the problem is essential for correcting it.

Hamilton has become one of the more popular figures in America for the Left and the Right, so accusing him of making a mess of the United States is certainly shocking. But it is also accurate. Hamilton's constitutional machinations created the outline for literally every unconstitutional federal act, from executive and judicial overreach to the nationalization of every political issue in the country. He lied to the American public about his true intentions before the Constitution was ratified and then used sly doublespeak to persuade others that so-called "implied powers" were part of the plan from the beginning. We would not have abusive unilateral executive authority in foreign and domestic policy, dangerous central banking, and impotent state governments without Hamilton's guidance. Hamilton is the architect of big government in America.

Marshall, Story, and Black certainly acted as co-conspirators. Marshall's landmark decisions could have been written by Hamilton. His reading of the Constitution was at odds with how the document was explained to the state ratifying conventions in 1788. Marshall's interpretation would have led the people to reject the document. His belief in federal judicial supremacy and unchecked national authority has been the keystone to every subsequent outrageous federal ruling, from Roe v. Wade to NIFB v. Sebelius. Marshall is the reason the Supreme Court now takes center stage in every political debate in America, but he did not accomplish this alone.

Marshall's protégé and right hand man Joseph Story codified Marshall's vision for federal judicial supremacy as a popular legal scholar and law professor. Even today, law students across the country are taught Story's version of federal power. Story's message is simple: the federal government is supreme (even if it isn't), the state governments are subservient to the central authority, and the federal court system is the final arbiter in all constitutional questions. When these law students become lawyers and judges, they echo Story's teachings. With a legal profession so infested with a version of American political history contradictory to the actual record, it is no wonder the federal judiciary has become a mere rubber stamp in the expansion of federal power.

Black put the finishing touches on the Hamiltonian coup. As a member of the Supreme Court in the mid-twentieth century, Black participated in the final transformation of America from a federal union that respected state powers to a unitary state with unlimited control over the lives of individual Americans. You can't pray in public schools, control who uses public bathrooms, regulate pornography, or keep common standards of public decency because of Hugo Black. His insistence that the majority of the people of the states had very little influence over the social standards of their own communities delivered a death blow to the original Constitution. Thanks to Black, Americans now believe every issue is national, no matter how local in scope.

McClanahan has done a service to those who love liberty and respect the original Constitution as drafted and ratified by the founding generation. By knowing how we went wrong and who drove America off the rails, Americans can begin to repair the damage done to our political system. Unrestrained nationalism is a curse, but there is an antidote: liberty and federalism. If we start to cultivate liberty and freedom in our own communities and insist that our elected officials pursue the same agenda by disengaging the general government from Hamilton's desire for unchecked national power, we could salvage real America from the ruins of Hamilton's America. Education is the first step, and reading this book is a nice place to start.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: founders; hamilton
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last
To: Borges

L. Neil Smith is finally justified. He wrote scathing critiques of Hamilton into his “Probability Broach” alt-history novel series. Recommended reading for libertarian-leaning FReepers, if you can ignore the Pollyannaish treatment of the non-aggression principle and other libertarian concepts.


21 posted on 09/18/2017 3:55:52 PM PDT by backwoods-engineer (Trump won; I celebrated; I'm good. Let's get on with the civil war now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x

“When in doubt, knock France?’’. On a purely personal level two generations of my family fought in two world wars for Frances freedom and damned near lost their lives doing it. And know the Frenchies are letting the Muslims over run them.


22 posted on 09/18/2017 3:59:01 PM PDT by jmacusa ("Made it Ma, top of the world!'')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

And the North American continent would have probably go the way of South America. A region of squabbling, occasionally at war, manipulated by outsiders nation-states.


23 posted on 09/18/2017 4:05:10 PM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: x

Statism didn’t have free reign until the culmination of the disasterous Wilson/FDR years. I’m not in doubt, and I’m not gratuitously knocking France. Hamilton’s ideas were retrograde, and very much in tune with the retrograde example of France’s long-entrenched dirigisme model (from Louis XIV onward). Hamilton did hate the Constitution that was ratified and worked sedulously to subvert it. His acolytes in the courts helped things along dramatically, with Marbury being an example of a poison pill that keeps on giving. Of course, Hamilton wasn’t alone. Many Federalists ignored the Constitution when they could, as, for example, when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed during the Adams administration. For a more careful look at Hamilton/Clay type policies during the 19th Century, I recommend The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton Folsum.


24 posted on 09/18/2017 4:06:34 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Borges

“I smell a rat”

Patrick Henery explaining why he refused to attend the Constitutional Convention,1788


25 posted on 09/18/2017 4:13:05 PM PDT by CapandBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reily

Without doubt.


26 posted on 09/18/2017 4:24:44 PM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
If it hadn't been so big, we would very likely have stayed out of WWI, which would have likely stopped WWII and all the massive bloodshed that was a result of it, from happening.

More opinion masquerading as fact.

27 posted on 09/18/2017 4:30:24 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
Oh good grief....

Your post is not just laughable, but hysterically so!

I suggest that you refrain from ever posting about topics you know nothing at all about and take your own advice about growing up!

28 posted on 09/18/2017 4:42:27 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
Hamilton’s ideas were retrograde, and very much in tune with the retrograde example of France’s long-entrenched dirigisme model (from Louis XIV onward).

Hamilton's model was always England. Jefferson's love was for France, Revolution and all. England may not have been the best model for America, but Hamilton was not as "hands on" as the French model was. So far as I know, he wasn't going to micromanage industry.

Hamilton did hate the Constitution that was ratified and worked sedulously to subvert it. His acolytes in the courts helped things along dramatically, with Marbury being an example of a poison pill that keeps on giving.

Hamilton was satisfied with the Constitution we got. His interpretation of the Constitution (and Marshall's) wasn't the same as Jefferson's, but he was there at the convention. He voted for the Constitution. He signed it. He was one of many Founders who compromised his original views for the sake of the country.

Of course, Hamilton wasn’t alone. Many Federalists ignored the Constitution when they could, as, for example, when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed during the Adams administration.

True. But that wasn't the last time government curtailed civil liberties because of a national crisis. Jefferson, who protested against the Alien and Sedition Acts, has also been criticized for his own record on civil liberties.

For a more careful look at Hamilton/Clay type policies during the 19th Century, I recommend The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton Folsum.

I haven't read the book, but from the reviews it looks like he's separating out the capitalists of the late 19th century into two groups, good and bad, and maybe ignoring that both benefited from the same protectionist policies.

29 posted on 09/18/2017 4:48:13 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Borges; All

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

The most important question that was ever proposed to your decision, or to the decision of any people under heaven, is before you, and you are to decide upon it by men of your own election, chosen specially for this purpose. If the constitution, offered to your acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed. You may rejoice in the prospects of this vast extended continent becoming filled with freemen, who will assert the dignity of human nature. You may solace yourselves with the idea, that society, in this favoured land, will fast advance to the highest point of perfection; the human mind will expand in knowledge and virtue, and the golden age be, in some measure, realised. But if, on the other hand, this form of government contains principles that will lead to the subversion of liberty — if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannic aristocracy; then, if you adopt it, this only remaining assylum for liberty will be shut up, and posterity will execrate your memory.

Momentous then is the question you have to determine, and you are called upon by every motive which should influence a noble and virtuous mind, to examine it well, and to make up a wise judgment. It is insisted, indeed, that this constitution must be received, be it ever so imperfect. If it has its defects, it is said, they can be best amended when they are experienced. But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government.

So far therefore as its powers reach, all ideas of confederation are given up and lost. It is true this government is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual states must very soon be annihilated, except so far as they are barely necessary to the organization of the general government. The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance — there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; — there is no limitation to this power…

And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. This disposition, which is implanted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority, and having such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the federal government succeeds at all.

In a free republic…

Brutus #1 - Anti-federalist

Check$ and Balance$?

http://www.usdebtclock.org

Current and former (Barack, Hillary, Kasich, Paul, etc., etc.) members of The Gang of 535, aka CONgre$$, should be in federal prison.

Zero “representation”.


30 posted on 09/18/2017 4:56:04 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x

Yes, Hamilton and Adams admired the stratification of English society, but I was speaking of Hamilton’s economic model, which was similar to France’s. The old system of English mercantilism was the direct inspiration for Hamilton, but England was slowly turning toward free markets by the time of ratification and was solidly in the limited government, free market camp during the 19th Century. I referenced France because, instead of following the advice of brilliant economists such as Turgot and Bastiat, France continued with statism, which was similar to the old English mercantilism. Over time, France has consistently played out more along the lines of what Hamilton proposed.

As for the Constitution, Hamilton’s “interpretation” is just the stock in trade of dishonest lawyering. If you think he was providing an honest reading of the Constitution, then we would have to believe “interpretations” such as Marbury, Kelo, Roe,Lawrence, Obergefel, and Wickard were honest readings of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Federalist Papers, and more important, the plain text of the Constitution and the state ratification debates show otherwise.

I’ve said nothing about Jefferson, although nothing in his administration even remotely compares to the Alien and Sedition Acts. To say he has been criticized for his record on civil liberties is meaningless. If he did something contrary to the express civil liberties provisions of the Constitution, I’d be interested in hearing about it. My intuition, though, that the “criticism” is according to the faux civil liberties views of the left, which have nothing to do with the Constitution. If you would like an example of Jefferson arguably exceeding his powers, I would suggest that his actions during with respect to the Louisiana Purchase could be examined.

You can’t understand actual economic history with reading it. Folsum makes a clear empirical point that is relevant to your claim. You might find it interesting, and the book is quite readable.

Sorry to have gone on at such length...


31 posted on 09/18/2017 5:28:56 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
The old system of English mercantilism was the direct inspiration for Hamilton, but England was slowly turning toward free markets by the time of ratification and was solidly in the limited government, free market camp during the 19th Century. I referenced France because, instead of following the advice of brilliant economists such as Turgot and Bastiat, France continued with statism, which was similar to the old English mercantilism. Over time, France has consistently played out more along the lines of what Hamilton proposed.

That's a lot of speculation. Hamilton didn't have close ties to France and wasn't part of that side of the Enlightenment. You're setting him up as a straw man who would do what you want him to do, but he was much more in the English tradition and followed English trends. England did give birth to free market ideas but British governments didn't give up power completely.

I’ve said nothing about Jefferson, although nothing in his administration even remotely compares to the Alien and Sedition Acts. To say he has been criticized for his record on civil liberties is meaningless. If he did something contrary to the express civil liberties provisions of the Constitution, I’d be interested in hearing about it.

The Embargo and the measures enforcing it went against the libertarian views Jefferson gave lip service to.

32 posted on 09/18/2017 5:47:34 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: x

There’s no speculation because I didn’t say Hamilton was inspired by France. I told you what any scholar would tell you about the source of his ideas. I only mentioned France because by the time of the ratification England was in the process of slowly rejecting mercantilism. France, on the other hand, continued with a program of dirigiste and a centralized state. The point is that our relatively free markets and limited government survived about as long as England’s, but if you want to see Hamilton’s statist economic views in action over time, France is not a bad approximation.

I am not here to idolize Jefferson. Levy’s book is not so much wrong about facts, but I do think it distorts Jefferson’s overall record in various ways. I believe even neo-con and liberal reviewers would (or have conceded) concede this point. FWIW, anything published by Harvard University Press (or any “Ivy” press, for that matter) needs to be carefully scrutinized. My interest, however, is in the Constitution, not Jefferson vs. Hamilton.


33 posted on 09/18/2017 6:08:42 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Borges; Pharmboy; Doctor Raoul; indcons; Chani; thefactor; blam; aculeus; ELS; mainepatsfan; ...
The RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington ping list.

Founding Father ping

Please FreepMail me if you want to be added to or removed from this low volume ping list. Ping requests gladly accepted.

Recessional of the Sons of the American Revolution:

“Until we meet again, let us remember our obligations to our
forefathers who gave us our Constitution, the Bill of Rights,
an independent Supreme Court and a nation of free men.”
Dr. Benjamin Franklin, when asked if we had a republic or a monarchy, replied "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Can we???

34 posted on 09/18/2017 6:59:51 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (#DeplorableMe #BitterClinger #HillNO! #cishet #MyPresident #MAGA #Winning #covfefe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 14themunny; 21stCenturion; 300magnum; A Strict Constructionist; abigail2; AdvisorB; Aggie Mama; ...

This may be worthy of a Federalist/Anti-Federalist ping.


35 posted on 09/18/2017 7:11:49 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I appreciate your post, but I get the distinct impression it isn’t really a desirable point of view for this type of thread.

These threads remind me somewhat of a “Two Minutes Hate” with Alexander Hamilton playing the part of Emmanuel Goldstein.

Needless to say, I agree completely with you on this. Hamilton would be appalled at the Federal Government and the out of control spending we have today. He believed in strong federal government, but not an all powerful and bloated federal government.


36 posted on 09/18/2017 7:20:45 PM PDT by rlmorel (If all you have is a Hammer and Sickle, everything looks like a fascist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Thanks for the ping - good reading here.


37 posted on 09/18/2017 7:29:27 PM PDT by Loud Mime (Liberalism: Intolerance masquerading as tolerance, Ignorance masquerading as Intelligence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Hamilton was a truly valuable man to the rebellion and our founding. He was greatly disliked by the dilettante Jefferson.


38 posted on 09/18/2017 7:38:23 PM PDT by KC Burke (If all the world is a stage, I would like to request my lighting be adjusted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Borges

for anyone who really cares about what Hamilton did, the book “Hamilton” is a must read. Be forewarned though, it could take weeks to read it.


39 posted on 09/18/2017 8:02:40 PM PDT by catnipman ( Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: catnipman

Is that the one by Ron Chernow?


40 posted on 09/18/2017 8:07:36 PM PDT by Captain Peter Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson