Lifetime appointments are not equivalents to Big government. Are you suggesting that “lifetime appointments” are more conducive of small government?
Veto of state laws may actually reduce the layers of government but has nothing to do with the size of the fedgov.
“Nothing?” Feel free to back up that claim as well.
So his "plan" of government hardly "speaks for itself."
On the contrary, Mr. Hamilton’s plan does indeed “speak for itself.” Have you missed the discussions here at FreeRepublic regarding the supposedly imminent retirement of just one of our Federal “lifetime” appointees? Hmm? Many Americans are waiting in ‘breathless anticipation’ for a rare event indeed: a change of personnel on the Supreme Court. Now apply that to the presidency and the entire senate. Heck, Mr. Truman would have been President of the United States until December 1972! Who do you think would have won the first presidential election in 40 years, if the ‘New Deal’ Democrats had had four decades to consolidate their political power? Or do you believe they would have had a change of heart, and spent most of the time downsizing government? By all means, please enlighten us!
;>)
Other errors in your post include attributing to me a preference for life-time appointments to a "central government bureaucracy" whatever THAT is.
LOL! You really should work on your reading skills: you obviously missed the word “apparent.” The “error” is on your part...
And THIS admirer of Hamilton does not try and avoid any statement he ever made however, I do insist on accuracy and context, something that rarely accompanies his critics comments.
Which is why, of course, you dismiss “[d]iscussions reported second hand, and out of context at the Constitutional Convention” – including, apparently, his ‘plan of government’ (which was described “second hand” by James Madison while “at the Constitutional Convention ;>). Speaking of which, I have yet to see a ‘Hamilton groupie’ post the gentleman’s ‘plan of government,’ the details of which are invariably provided by “his critics.”
Hamilton referenced Madison's observation that man is "a compromising animal" as the determinate of his strategy at the convention and that his goal was to pitch the government as "high" as possible meaning as strong or "energetic" as possible.
So, Mr. Hamilton may reference ‘Madison’s observations,’ but when his critics reference ‘Madison’s observations,’ you claim they “don’t count,” because they are “[d]iscussions reported second hand, and out of context at the Constitutional Convention.” Your hypocrisy is showing...
;>)
This is no secret and virtually all students of Hamilton (including his enemies) recognize it as true.
Please prove your claims. We’ll use your standard: “[d]iscussions reported second hand, and out of context at the Constitutional Convention don't count”...
... I was referring more to the land given the settlers of the trans-Mississippi West in the 19th century.
Obviously. Many of your friends also seem to ignore the nation’s early history...
To return to Hamilton's "plan", the constitution of the United States can be said to be as much Hamilton's "plan" for government as much as it was any man's.
Utter nonsense. Mr. Hamilton proposed a national government modeled on that of Britain. You may be unaware of the fact, but the idea of a “national” government was explicitly rejected by the constitutional convention, and a "federal" model approved in its place. The Constitution established what Madison called a compound republic, a confederacy of individual states.
Some nebulous and /or hypothetical "plan" of Hamilton means little when compared to the REAL Hamilton plan which begins " We the People of the United States...."
“Nebulous and /or hypothetical?” What happened to your claim that “THIS admirer of Hamilton does not try and avoid any statement he ever made however, I do insist on accuracy and context”? Are you suggesting that Mr. Hamilton’s plan did not include a chief executive, senators, and judges serving lifetime terms? Hmm? There’s nothing “nebulous” or “hypothetical” about it: it’s described at length in the records of the Constitutional Convention that you seem so eager to dismiss...
;>)
I see no necessary correlation between lifetime appointments and big or small government.
Why should I back up an opinion contrary to an unsubtantiated remark. Why would there be a correlation between veto of state laws and the size of the fedgov? Perhaps you should back up YOUR claim.
I have no interest in your rhetorical speculations but must repeat that there is no hypothetical "plan" of Hamilton which speaks for itself other than his actual plan, the constitution of the United States. And that certainly does not speak for itself, if it did there would not be so many people so confused about its genesis and meaning. His eleven points is a mere outline of ideas which he never submitted as a "plan."
No error, your attempt to attribute something to me is not well disguised. Please indicate where I proposed or supported such appointments for a "central government bureaucracy" Not courts but a cgb. Otherwise, if you are honest, you will retract it.
Hamilton gave a FIVE HOUR speech at the CC. Are you suggesting that a few pages could convey all that was necessary to understand the complexity and depth of his proposals? They are useful for spreading false impressions, however. For example, H. no doubt had little use for state governments and wanted to reduce their sovereignty as Madison indicates but most of his enemies ignore the rest of M.'s remark "On the other hand he confessed he was much discouraged by the amazing extent of Country in expecting the desired blessings from any general sovereignty that could be substituted." Thus, it is FALSE that he proposed getting rid of states.
In posting his plan of government one must realize that much of it was actually adopted and that it never suggested a King or Monarch and that it was completely consistent with his view (and many others) of what a Republic was. On the whole, Madison's report indicates that H had a lot of uncertainty about the future course of action. There is no doubt that during the discussions public and private with M and others H's ideas were as influential as any expressed at the convention. Nor is there any doubt, except among those who hate him, that they were very close to M's as well as Washington and others.
I never said Madison's remarks "don't count" they are very useful but are just a short summary of H's comments. However, H's plan as stated there (it is accurate because M had H review the remarks regarding the "plan" for accuracy as far as they went) had elements which were actually incorporated in the Constitution. That became H's "plan."
You seem anxious to forget that at the time he spoke there were two other plans, elements of both which were also incorporated into the constitution. But I know the Hamilton-haters love beating this dead horse. Of course, in order to do this they have to ignore much of what M reported he said as well as virtually H's entire life and works. "Having made these observations he would read to the Committee a sketch of a plan which he shd. prefer to either of those under consideration. He was aware that it went beyond the ideas of most members....He did not mean to offer the paper he has sketched as a proposition to the Committee. IT WAS MEANT ONLY TO GIVE A MORE CORRECT VIEW OF HIS IDEAS, and to suggest the amendments which he should probably propose to the plan of Mr. R in the proper stages of its future discussion."
My "friends" knowledge of American history I will take over yours anyday.
H's comments on the English government lend themselves to misrepresentation and distortion by the enemies of constitutional government, it is true. However, it is a simple matter for those with a regard to the truth to put them in context. H's regard for the English constitution and govt. was entirely because of his belief that it was "the only govt. in the world 'which unites public strength with idividual security.'" You might recall that our revolution was not against the English constitution but precisely because the colonists were denied the protection of that constitution. What he said was ENTIRELY TRUE at that time.
The constitution did not create a confederacy but a Union. Madison's papers in the Federalist do not indicate anything different and, in fact, he never stated anything other than after states joined the new government they lost forever their right to unilaterally leave. You might want to review his letters to H at the time of the NY CC wherein he told H not to accept conditional ratification for precisely that reason. NONE OF THE FOUNDERS BELIEVED IN A RIGHT OF SECESSION.
H's discussion points wrt his "plan" are hardly discussed at length and I have never denied that he wanted appointments to be in effect for as long as the recipients lived or desired them OR WITH GOOD BEHAVIOR. Anyone stating he wanted life time appointments with no ability to recall is a Liar.
H's ultimate "plan" was the Constitution of the United States of America. That same plan which the Traitors you defend would destroy.