Is Hamilton Bashing Productive for the Liberty Movement?

[Galileo Galilei]

Is Alexander Hamilton Bashing Productive for the Liberty Movement?

Given that Hamilton was a Patriot in the Revolutionary War, signed the Constitution, co-authored the Federalist Papers, served in the First Cabinet, was best friends with George Washington, and helped get Thomas Jefferson elected in 1800, do we not risk alienating potential recruits to the liberty movement by incessant Hamilton bashing?

There are a lot of libertarians, tea partiers, constitutionalists, and conservatives out there who have read the Federalist Papers, you know.

Is it not better to try to understand Hamilton's decision making? He was a Founding Father, after all.

For example:

* Hamilton's reaction the Whiskey Rebellion was very heavy handed and harsh. But did Hamilton not just overreact? Did he not fear potential civil war? Remember, this was in the aftermath of Shay's Rebellion.

* Hamilton's bank proposal was more of a panic reaction to the national debt caused by the Revolutionary War. And Hamilton's bank set a precedent for a small temporary national bank, with no power to print fiat currency or operate in utter secrecy. The fed violates this precedent. In other words, Hamilton could be used as an argument to audit the Fed and then reduce it's powers.

I don't agree with Hamilton on a lot of things, but to vilify him seems like a bad idea to me.

 

[Fozz]

A pro-Hamilton libertarian is like a pro-Obama conservative.

 

[Kludge]

No - neither is Hamilton-supporting.

Tl;dr.

 

[Danke]

Being non-productive is liberating.

 

[Smitty]

Hamilton demonstrated the hypocrisy of the new government before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights.

It's taken me over 5 decades to realize it,...but freedom for the masses wasn't of particular importance to the founders.

Taking control was the first priority. After taking control, the first item of business was taxation.

Governments do what governments do.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

A pro-Hamilton libertarian is like a pro-Obama conservative.

How so? What if you are like many who have read the Federalist Papers in law school, but don't know much about American history? Show us where in the Federalist Papers it argues for an elastic interpretation of the general welfare or commerce clause. Show us where the Federalist Papers support the war on drugs or the war on terror? Show us where Hamilton argues for the department of education? Or Obamacare? The NEA? Etc.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Hamilton demonstrated the hypocrisy of the new government before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights.

It's taken me over 5 decades to realize it,...but freedom for the masses wasn't of particular importance to the founders.

Taking control was the first priority. After taking control, the first item of business was taxation.

Governments do what governments do.

So we should not just bash Hamilton, but all the Founding Fathers?

 

[Smitty]

So we should not just bash Hamilton, but all the Founding Fathers?

I'm not suggesting that you bash anybody. But one needs to realize that the new American government used its power to extort taxes from the populace a mere decade or so into its existence.

 

[ClayTrainor]

So we should not just bash Hamilton, but all the Founding Fathers?

Simply bashing anyone is a waste of time and will only create confrontation, but yes if we are being honest with ourselves, all of them are more than worthy of constructive criticism. Some more than others.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I'm not suggesting that you bash anybody. But one needs to realize that the new American government used its power to extort taxes from the populace a mere decade or so into its existence.

Not really. The new government under Washington accounted for less than 2% of the gross national product. 124 years later in 1912, the federal government still only accounted for 1.75% of the GNP.

You should read the Federalist Papers. Even the anti-Federalists didn't like the AoC. The states were starting to fight over control of western lands, among other things.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Is Alexander Hamilton Bashing Productive for the Liberty Movement?

Given that Hamilton was a Patriot in the Revolutionary War, signed the Constitution, co-authored the Federalist Papers, served in the First Cabinet, was best friends with George Washington, and helped get Thomas Jefferson elected in 1800, do we not risk alienating potential recruits to the liberty movement by incessant Hamilton bashing?

There are a lot of libertarians, tea partiers, constitutionalists, and conservatives out there who have read the Federalist Papers, you know.

Is it not better to try to understand Hamilton's decision making? He was a Founding Father, after all.

For example:

* Hamilton's reaction the Whiskey Rebellion was very heavy handed and harsh. But did Hamilton not just overreact? Did he not fear potential civil war? Remember, this was in the aftermath of Shay's Rebellion.

* Hamilton's bank proposal was more of a panic reaction to the national debt caused by the Revolutionary War. And Hamilton's bank set a precedent for a small temporary national bank, with no power to print fiat currency or operate in utter secrecy. The fed violates this precedent. In other words, Hamilton could be used as an argument to audit the Fed and then reduce it's powers.

I don't agree with Hamilton on a lot of things, but to vilify him seems like a bad idea to me.

Your reading assignment is "Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today"

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Simply bashing anyone is a waste of time and will only create confrontation, but yes if we are being honest with ourselves, all of them are more than worthy of constructive criticism. Some more than others.

Constructive critism, yes. But what is constructive? In the 1800s, the word of the Founding Fathers carried great weight. Today, not so much. We already have to deal with the legions who bash the Founders for owning slaves, selling tobacco, fighting the Indians, etc. We don't need dumped onto this a drumbeat of anti-Hamilton rhetoric.

Instead, bring Hamilton onboard. For example, Hamilton's bank was temporary, with a 20-year term. If the Fed followed that example, it would have been abolished in 1933.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Not really. The new government under Washington accounted for less than 2% of the gross national product. 124 years later in 1912, the federal government still only accounted for 1.75% of the GNP.

You should read the Federalist Papers. Even the anti-Federalists didn't like the AoC. The states were starting to fight over control of western lands, among other things.

But for different reasons. The Anti-Federalists wanted a clear bill of rights to limit the FedGov, but the Federalists wanted to expand the Regime and its power. The Federalists succeeded.

 

[Smitty]

Not really.

Yes, really.

The new American government forcibly took revenue from the people and imprisoned those who resisted in 1794.

The percentages aren't important. The precedent is.

 

[Fozz]

I'm not suggesting that you bash anybody. But one needs to realize that the new American government used its power to extort taxes from the populace a mere decade or so into its existence.

Well, maybe that is because the Articles of Confederation clearly did not work, and many of our founders were concerned that too weak of a government would lead to the kind of chaos that was happening in France (remember this is the 1780s-90s).

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Your reading assignment is "Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today"

I already read it when it came out. It's an excellent book in many ways. It has a lot of facts, some of which I hadn't been aware of. But after reflecting upon it, the book blames Hmailton for many things that other people did much later.

For example, today's Fed prints fiat currency. But Hamilton's bank did not issue fiat currency. So why blame Hamilton for fiat currency in the 20th century? Why not credit Hamilton with following the Constitution as to the part where it prohibits fiat currency?

In 1913, we had a serious blow to our Constitution. The States changed the Constitution of the Founders, and turned it into something else. Then the Federal Reserve Act followed soon afterward.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Yes, really.

The new American government forcibly took revenue from the people and imprisoned those who resisted in 1794.

The percentages aren't important. The precedent is.

No, a federal government that spends less than 2% of the GNP is a small government. Nothing is perfect. And George Washington pardoned those who resisted in 1794.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I already read it when it came out. It's an excellent book in many ways. It has a lot of facts, some of which I hadn't been aware of. But after reflecting upon it, the book blames Hmailton for many things that other people did much later.

For example, today's Fed prints fiat currency. But Hamilton's bank did not issue fiat currency. So why blame Hamilton for fiat currency in the 20th century? Why not credit Hamilton with following the Constitution as to the part where it prohibits fiat currency?

In 1913, we had a serious blow to our Constitution. The States changed the Constitution of the Founders, and turned it into something else. Then the Federal Reserve Act followed soon afterward.

The same reason we blame the Bernanke/Greenspan FED for the current disaster-creating the moral hazard to begin with.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

The same reason we blame the Bernanke/Greenspan FED for the current disaster-creating the moral hazard to begin with.

Not even Ron Paul blames Bernake. Ron Paul blames the congress for not doing its job.

 

[Smitty]

Well, maybe that is because the Articles of Confederation clearly did not work.

I'm not sure what you mean by "worked".

I used to view the American revolution as a failure,..as evidenced by our current form of government's complete disregard of the Constitution. But lately, I've begun to view the entire process as a hoax from the beginning.

Virtually every government on earth declares that it's of the people. The founders used the same mantra.

The elite use the power of government to rule. When one group of elites wrest control of a government from another, it's because they want to be the new rulers.