The Good Side of Alexander Hamilton

Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
4,992
The Good Side of Alexander Hamilton

I have just discovered that a good friend of mine, internationally famous 9/11 conspiracy theorist Dr. Kevin Barrett is a direct descendant of Alexander Hamilton.

To console him and his family, I come up with the list of good things about Hamilton. Please enjoy.

Alexander Hamilton....

* grew up on an obscure island in a remote ocean as an orphan. Hamilton and Thomas Paine are the two major Founders who had it the worst as children. Hamilton got ahead because he was brilliant. Some have argued that he was as smart, or even smarter than James Madison and/or Thomas Jefferson. Possibly this has rubbed off on his direct descendant Kevin Barrett.

* was a war hero of the Revolution. He lead infantry charges at Yorktown, operated the artillery, and was George Washington's chief assistant. Also took part in the Crossing of the Delaware, and fought at the Battle of Monmouth. Not many of the major Founders actually fought in the war, Washington, James Monroe, and John Marshall excepted.

* wrote 51 of the Federalist Papers, which argue for a small, limited government (unfortunately, Hamilton often did not follow what he wrote). He organized the project as well and saw to the actual printing of both he newspaper versions and the book versions. The Federalist Papers are Hamilton's best known, most read, and most influential legacy. More people know about the Federalist Papers, than know about his banking ideas.

* he never owned slaves.

* in defense of Hamilton's nationalism, it can be argued that he was not attached to any one particular state, as he came to America as a teenager, and then spent most of his early years in the Revolutionary war, when nationalism ran high as the states worked together to defeat the evil British Empire. All the other major Founders who held high office were born and raised in a particular state with their families, and were also older than Hamilton, hence they remembered life in America before the Revolution.

* Hamilton helped organize the Constitutional Convention (with James Madison). He also signed the Constitution.

* Hamilton helped organize the Annapolis Convention, the forerunner of the Constitutional Convention. He wrote (with James Madison) the proclamation calling for a new convention (the Constitutional Convention).

* Hamilton was a key player at the New York ratifying convention, which voted 30-27 to ratify the Constitution.

* Hamilton served in the Continental congress.

* In 1800, Hamilton was critical to Thomas Jefferson's election. He persuaded a Delaware delegate, James Bayard to switch his vote and vote for Jefferson. The election had been thrown to the House of Representatives.

* the idea that Hamilton jump-started the nation's economy is a myth. But what is true is that he organized the federal government's finances so it could function. This included raising enough money to pay for an ambassador to France, England and Spain, and to start paying back the Revolutionary War veterans.

** in defense of Hamilton's central bank:

1) many things blamed on Hamilton should be blamed on those who came later.

2) the bank was temporary, for only 20 years. If this precedent had been followed, the Fed would have been abolished in 1933.

3) the bank did not issue fiat currency. So the Fed violates a basic Hamilton principle of banking

4) the bank was 20% publicly owned.

5) the bank did not operate in utter secrecy.

6) the bank did not do bailouts.

7) corruption in the bank was low by today's standards.

8) George Washington signed the bank bill. 39 members of the House voted for the bank bill. The Senate voted for the bank bill. VP John Adams and the Supreme Court also supported the bank bill. So you cannot place all the blame for the bank bill on Alexander Hamilton.

:)
 
Hamilton on gold and paper money (source: Gold - The Once and Future Money p. 106-107. Typed out by hand I might have some typos):

The emitting of paper money by the authority of the Government is wisely prohibited by the individual States, by the national constitution; and the spirit of that prohibition ought not to be disregarded by the Government of the United States. Though paper emissions, under a general authority, might have some advantages not applicable, and be free from some disadvantages which are applicable to the like emissions by the States, separately, yet they are of a nature so liable to abuse - and it may even be affirmed, so certain of being abused - that the wisdom of the government will be shown in never trusting itself with the use of so seducing and dangerous an expedient. In times of tranquility, it might have no ill consequence; it might even be managed in a way to be productive of good; but, in great and trying emergencies, there is almost a moral certainty of its becoming mischievous. The stamping of paper is an operation so much easier than the laying of taxes, that a government, in the practice of paper emissions, would rarely fail, in any such emergency, to indulge itself too far in the employment of that resource, to avoid, as much as possible, one less auspicious to present popularity. If it should not even be carried so far as to be rendered an absolute bubble, it would at least be likely to be extended to a degree which would occasion an inflated and artificial state of things, incompatible with the regular and prosperous course of the political economy.
Among other material differences between a paper currency, issued by the mere authority of Government, and one issued by a bank, payable in coin, is this: That, in the first case, there is no standard to which an appeal can be made, as to the quantity which will only satisfy, or which will surcharge the circulation; in the last, that standard results from the demand. If more should be issued than is necessary, it will return upon the bank.
 
For all the cries around here of Hamilton being a big government statist, I'd still rather have a congress full of Hamiltons than 99% of the clowns we have now. He may have been the statist among the founders, but by today's standards he's practically a libertarian.
 
For all the cries around here of Hamilton being a big government statist, I'd still rather have a congress full of Hamiltons than 99% of the clowns we have now. He may have been the statist among the founders, but by today's standards he's practically a libertarian.

We have a winner!
 
For all the cries around here of Hamilton being a big government statist, I'd still rather have a congress full of Hamiltons than 99% of the clowns we have now. He may have been the statist among the founders, but by today's standards he's practically a libertarian.

Uhhhhh, Hamilton wanted an executive branch with absolute power.

So no. Very, very no.
 
Uhhhhh, Hamilton wanted an executive branch with absolute power.

So no. Very, very no.

The same Hamilton wrote this on the militia:

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well digested plan should as soon as possible be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan it will be possible to have an excellent body of well trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
 
The same Hamilton wrote this on the militia:

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well digested plan should as soon as possible be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan it will be possible to have an excellent body of well trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

So? The US didn't have the resources to field a major army, so of course he wanted a militia.

As soon as that changed, he'd have had men in red jackets on every street corner.

All statists are the same, and can be relied upon to handle power in the exact same way. Always.
 
Hamilton put a 20-year limit on the bank. If that precedent had been followed, we would have ended the Fed in 1933. Then the great depression would have ended sooner.
The bank was de facto unconstitutional to begin with. :rolleyes:

I think there was an expiration limit on the Patriot Act too :mad:
 
The bank was de facto unconstitutional to begin with. :rolleyes:

I think there was an expiration limit on the Patriot Act too :mad:

I'd say it is a gray area. It depends on your interpretation of the necessary and proper clause in conjuntion with the clause regarding money.

All of the major Founding Fathers including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and others thought it was constitutional, but with limits.

Since it is political idiocy to go against Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, a better strategy is to oppose the bank on policy grounds. Also, the Founding Fathers set Constitutional limits on the power of the bank. Madison, in his veto of the bank in 1815 layed out what was Constitutional and what was not.

According to the Founding Fathers, a central bank is Constitutional if it has a temporary term, doesn't print fiat currency, isn't secret, is partially owned by the government, and doesn't do bailouts.
 
I'd say it is a gray area. It depends on your interpretation of the necessary and proper clause in conjuntion with the clause regarding money.
No it's not.

"To coin money and regulate the value thereof" has nothing to do with setting up a central bank! :rolleyes:

Neither does "borrowing money" either.

According to the Founding Fathers, a central bank is Constitutional if it has a temporary term, doesn't print fiat currency, isn't secret, is partially owned by the government, and doesn't do bailouts.
Then what function would it serve? :confused:
 
No it's not.

"To coin money and regulate the value thereof" has nothing to do with setting up a central bank! :rolleyes:

Neither does "borrowing money" either.

Then what function would it serve? :confused:

Gee, you're smarter than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison. Do you hate America, too?
 
No, but I know how to read :rolleyes:

Do you think it is smart to directly oppose George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison on banking policies? I also question whether you actually read what I wrote. Based on the Founding Fathers, the Fed is unconstitutional AND bad policy. But you have to go to the extreme, which is just plain stupid. You wonder why Ron Paul supporters get called kooks? Now you know.
 
Do you think it is smart to directly oppose George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison on banking policies?
They are human too. Jefferson, the best of the bunch, did some things that weren't exactly clearly Constitutional while he was President.


you have to go to the extreme, which is just plain stupid. You wonder why Ron Paul supporters get called kooks? Now you know.
Citing the Constitution is "extreme" :confused::confused::confused: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I never thought I would read those words on here :(


.
 
Back
Top