Is Hamilton Bashing Productive for the Liberty Movement?

Is Hamilton Bashing Productive for the Liberty Movement?

  • yes

    Votes: 33 73.3%

  • no

    Votes: 12 26.7%

  • not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    45
Smitty said:
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.
Click to expand...

You should read a book about the Mexican Revolution.
 
Galileo Galilei said:
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.
Click to expand...

The precedent which was established during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 established the role of the American federal government.

,..and that role is to rule.
 
From The Constitution as Counter-Revolution: A Tribute to the Anti-Federalists
by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel:

Nationalist-dominated Convention
The Philadelphia convention's official function was to propose revisions to the Articles of Confederation. But the delegates, meeting in secret, quickly decided to violate their instructions and draft a totally new document. Out of the fifty-five present, only eight had signed the Declaration of Independence... twenty-one delegates belonged to the militarist Society of the Cincinnati. Overall, the convention was dominated by the nationalist factions that the prior war had forged together: land speculators, ex-army officers, public creditors and privileged merchants.
Click to expand...

The Constitution's supporters furthermore pulled off a significant linguistic coup by successfully seizing for themselves the label "Federalist". They had in fact designed the Constitution to replace the federal system of government under the Articles of Confederation with a national system. The true defenders of federalism were therefore the Constitution's opponents.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Galileo Galilei said:
Constructive critism, yes. But what is constructive?
Click to expand...

An argument from reason, not emotion.

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.
Click to expand...

We should be honest about Hamilton, and all the other founding fathers. They were flawed men, living in flawed times, but also had some interesting ideas that are more than worthy of discussion.

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.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "bring hamilton on board". I'm not running a ship here. :p

I'm all for the FED being abolished in 1933, but the problem stems from those who advocate it's creation or necessity in the first place. Self-proclaimed Hamiltonians have called me names and insulted me for holding the position that I want the FED to be abolished. I will not compromise my position to "make nice" with them, but i'm more than willing to have a thoughtful and respectful discussion on the issues.
 
The founding fathers were by all means not the same. You had the Jeffersonians who believed in giving power to the small people and you had the Hamiltonians who believed the power should be kept within the elite.

A fine example of this is a quote by Alexander Hamilton “Your people, sir, is nothing but a great beast” talking to Jefferson. He felt the power should be elected by the elites because the "little people" were to stupid to maintain a government. Hamilton wanted what England was really where as Jefferson wanted more of an Agrarian society. In the end Hamilton won although the powers are elected by everyone so you can really chalk up one small one for Jefferson.

Ill be honest though, Hamilton might of been right about the people being to stupid to maintain a government. We see a prime example of this today....
 
tjeffersonsghost said:
The founding fathers were by all means not the same. You had the Jeffersonians who believed in giving power to the small people and you had the Hamiltonians who believed the power should be kept within the elite.

A fine example of this is a quote by Alexander Hamilton “Your people, sir, is nothing but a great beast” talking to Jefferson. He felt the power should be elected by the elites because the "little people" were to stupid to maintain a government. Hamilton wanted what England was really where as Jefferson wanted more of an Agrarian society. In the end Hamilton won although the powers are elected by everyone so you can really chalk up one small one for Jefferson.

Ill be honest though, Hamilton might of been right about the people being to stupid to maintain a government. We see a prime example of this today....
Click to expand...

very well said, Hamilton was a gangster banker who wanted a central banking system so... yeah, bash the hell out of him!
 
Last edited:
Smitty said:
The precedent which was established during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 established the role of the American federal government.

,..and that role is to rule.
Click to expand...

There was already a crackdown in 1786 before the Constitution (Shay's Rebellion). Prior to that there was Bacon's Rebellion. There was the giant New York slave conspiracy of 1741.

Plus, the Constitution provides for federal assistance in suppression of rebellions, which Pennsylvania agreed to.
 
Hamilton was more than a gangster banker. Before the adoption of the Constitution he tried to set up a Bank of North America type in New York ( a for profit private bank) He failed to do so because the Bank of North America was not renewed by Penn. legislature which killed any chance of NY granting him a similar deal. Hamilton was a great follower of Roger Morris, who used his private bank and his position as superintendent of finance under the Articles of Confederation to supply his own coffers. He was a silent investor in many companies that were hired by the governments to do something. He quickly became unpopular and was being investigated when the new constitution was created (which is why he didn't become Secretary of the Treasury but told Washington to appoint Hamilton, whom believed the same dream as Morris did) This is why we had the First Bank of the United States, a for profit private bank to loan money to the government and to the moneyed men who could afford to loan from it. It practically mirrored the Bank of North America.

Roger Morris's biggest scheme was the collection of war debt bonds. War bonds were being given to men and families who sacrificed their time and/or supplies to help the war effort (i.e. fresh horses, pigs, grain, etc. ). If they were given a war bond worth $100s more than likely that bond was only worth about $6 on the open market. No one was willing to take these bonds for their face value. The rich seeing an opportunity to make a profit could hold on to these bonds and not lose much money as they waited out the war. The poor, however, needed money right away and would sell them for what were pennies on the dollar. Stories are numerous of the average enlisted soldiers getting just enough money on the open market for their war debt bonds to pay for their trip home and nothing more.

As expected war bond speculation became the new thing to do. In Maryland, some 93% of the war bonds were held by only 124 people. So what did the rich want from these seemingly worthless war debt bonds? They wanted the government to redeem them not the going rate in the free market but face value with the original interest rate in specie. Once Hamilton took over as Secretary of the Treasury not only did he guarantee all his moneyed “friends” full face value on all Continental bonds, whom owned almost all the war debt bonds, but he schemed to incorporate state issued bonds into the national debt to guarantee full face value. The only thing he didn’t get was the full interest rate. Rich made out hand over fist. Had the war debt bonds been paid off in 1786 at the free market rate the total debt for the war would have been only 5 Million dollars, instead with the assumption of the 25 million dollar debt held by the states incorporated into the already 40 Million dollar “federal” debt. Hamilton’s “national blessing” became a 65 million dollar debt. In the end those that held onto the war debt bonds made nearly 35 million dollars in pure profit simply by buying the bonds cheaply and lobbying congress to pay in full specie.
 
Last edited:
Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today
- Thomas DiLorenzo

cover
 
Hamilton betrayed the 1776 revolution and, as far as I'm concerned, helped cheat generations of Americans out of the voluntary society that was and is their legacy and birthright.
 
Last edited:
demolama said:
Hamilton was more than a gangster banker. Before the adoption of the Constitution he tried to set up a Bank of North America type in New York ( a for profit private bank) He failed to do so because the Bank of North America was not renewed by Penn. legislature which killed any chance of NY granting him a similar deal. Hamilton was a great follower of Roger Morris, who used his private bank and his position as superintendent of finance under the Articles of Confederation to supply his own coffers. He was a silent investor in many companies that were hired by the governments to do something. He quickly became unpopular and was being investigated when the new constitution was created (which is why he didn't become Secretary of the Treasury but told Washington to appoint Hamilton, whom believed the same dream as Morris did) This is why we had the First Bank of the United States, a for profit private bank to loan money to the government and to the moneyed men who could afford to loan from it. It practically mirrored the Bank of North America.

Roger Morris's biggest scheme was the collection of war debt bonds. War bonds were being given to men and families who sacrificed their time and/or supplies to help the war effort (i.e. fresh horses, pigs, grain, etc. ). If they were given a war bond worth $100s more than likely that bond was only worth about $6 on the open market. No one was willing to take these bonds for their face value. The rich seeing an opportunity to make a profit could hold on to these bonds and not lose much money as they waited out the war. The poor, however, needed money right away and would sell them for what were pennies on the dollar. Stories are numerous of the average enlisted soldiers getting just enough money on the open market for their war debt bonds to pay for their trip home and nothing more.

As expected war bond speculation became the new thing to do. In Maryland, some 93% of the war bonds were held by only 124 people. So what did the rich want from these seemingly worthless war debt bonds? They wanted the government to redeem them not the going rate in the free market but face value with the original interest rate in specie. Once Hamilton took over as Secretary of the Treasury not only did he guarantee all his moneyed “friends” full face value on all Continental bonds, whom owned almost all the war debt bonds, but he schemed to incorporate state issued bonds into the national debt to guarantee full face value. The only thing he didn’t get was the full interest rate. Rich made out hand over fist. Had the war debt bonds been paid off in 1786 at the free market rate the total debt for the war would have been only 5 Million dollars, instead with the assumption of the 25 million dollar debt held by the states incorporated into the already 40 Million dollar “federal” debt. Hamilton’s “national blessing” became a 65 million dollar debt. In the end those that held onto the war debt bonds made nearly 35 million dollars in pure profit simply by buying the bonds cheaply and lobbying congress to pay in full specie.
Click to expand...

How did this work out? Robert Morris went to debtors prison and Hamilton was shot to death.
 
Worked out great for the rest of the 10% that profited off their schemes. Just like any men who has power, sometimes they stretch themselves out too far. They made enemies and in the case of Morris bad investments. Land speculation needed foreign investment. Morris was a heavy land speculator... when foreign investment didn't pander out as hoped he landed in debtor's prison.
 
Last edited:
Hamilton was opposed to democracy. So Hamilton's legacy was not followed when the 17th Amendment was ratified.
 
You'll find most were against democracy because land speculation needed foreign investment and foreign investors were scared of democracy. Which is why if you look at the federal constitutional convention the majority of the attendees were land speculators and rich merchants. The state constitutions of 1776 were too democratic, even Maryland (which did not change much from colonial rule). So the convention was to drive out a lot of the democratic reforms that occurred in the states and create a federal government that could control democracy. i.e (popular uprisings like the Massachusetts Regulation of 1786 aka Shay's rebellion)
 
Last edited:
demolama said:
You'll find most were against democracy because land speculation needed foreign investment and foreign investors were scared of democracy. Which is why if you look at the federal constitutional convention the majority of the attendees were land speculators and rich merchants. The state constitutions of 1776 were too democratic, even Maryland (which did not change much from colonial rule). So the convention was to drive out a lot of the democratic reforms that occurred in the states and create a federal government that could control democracy. i.e (popular uprisings like the Massachusetts Regulation of 1786 aka Shay's rebellion)
Click to expand...

Most wanted SOME democracy, as the House had majority support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ClaytonB
The American tradition of abolishing central banks
Replies
0
Views
735
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
PAF
Why We Need the Rule of Law
2
Replies
30
Views
165
69360
6
PAF
The USS Liberty and America’s Greatest “Ally”
Replies
7
Views
2K
unknown
unknown
PAF
National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill is a Trojan Horse
2
Replies
25
Views
5K
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
PAF
L’État, C’est Moi (“I Am the State”).Trumpian Version
Replies
0
Views
89
PAF
PAF
Back
Top