The Good Side of Alexander Hamilton

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.

This is historically incorrect. Most of the major founding fathers, from James Madison, John Randolph, John Taylor, Thomas Jefferson, and Spencer Roane, all maintained that the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional.
 
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.

James Madison WROTE A VETO MESSAGE for George Washington for the First Bank of the United States, and only signed the second bank into existence because of the War of 1812. Truly, war is the health of the state.
 
the wisest thing that can be said about hamilton's federalism
is that he was george washington's spike jones in that he
was a very talented one-man-band who RAN everything!!!
 
the wisest thing that can be said about hamilton's federalism
is that he was george washington's spike jones in that he
was a very talented one-man-band who RAN everything!!!

Well, what do you know, we owe the entire republic to Alexander Hamilton, that great hero of the Revolution!!! Aide de Camp to Washington nothing, he really ran everything!!!
 
that derned brat of a scottish laird, yes... as john adams once less euphemistically said...
 
hense jefferson's toyings with a minimalism... as a response to washington's lofty daydreaming
 
They are human too. Jefferson, the best of the bunch, did some things that weren't exactly clearly Constitutional while he was President.


Citing the Constitution is "extreme" :confused::confused::confused: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

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


.

Citing the Constitution is not extreme, but whether a bank can be used to regulate the value of currency is a gray area. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison all thought that the bank was necessary under the necessary and proper clause. They lived there then. They decided it was necessary. Now you come along 200 years later and tell them it was not necessary.

You also undermine attempts to end the Fed. Under the principles of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and yes, even Hamilton, today's Fed is both unconstitutional and bad policy. You just have an unhealthy obcession about Hamilton it seems.
 
Citing the Constitution is not extreme, but whether a bank can be used to regulate the value of currency is a gray area. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison all thought that the bank was necessary under the necessary and proper clause. They lived there then. They decided it was necessary. Now you come along 200 years later and tell them it was not necessary.

You also undermine attempts to end the Fed. Under the principles of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and yes, even Hamilton, today's Fed is both unconstitutional and bad policy. You just have an unhealthy obcession about Hamilton it seems.

Jefferson and Madison wrote extensively, as did their intellectual constitutional champion John Taylor of Caroline, regarding the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of the Bank of the United States.

I'm afraid you are factually fatuous.
 
This is historically incorrect. Most of the major founding fathers, from James Madison, John Randolph, John Taylor, Thomas Jefferson, and Spencer Roane, all maintained that the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional.

Totally wrong.

James Madison signed a bank bill. Jefferson approved of the 1st bank when he was president, and didn't object when the 2nd bank was made. All of the major Founding Fathers supported the bank, including others I have not mentioned like James Monroe, John Marshall, and JQ Adams. Other heroes of the early Republic who supported the bank were Davvy Crockett, Sam Houston, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John Calhoun.

John Taylor was a slaveocrat, who actually argued that slavey was a good thing, so I could care less what he said. Taylor was evil.

Spencer Roane is a pretty weak example of a Foubnding Father.

OK, you got me, John Randolph was against the bank.

You are totally missing the boat on this. NONE of the Founding fathers supported a perpetual national bank. They supported a temporary bank so we could pay back the heroes of our wars of independence. They supported a temporay bank that did not do bailouts, issue fiat currency, or operate in utter secrecy. These are the true arguments. What you are doing is framing the question so the Fed supporters can claim the support of the Founding fathers. I reject that strategy. it is a loser.
 
Citing the Constitution is not extreme, but whether a bank can be used to regulate the value of currency is a gray area.
It says "Congress may...." It doesn't say that Congress can pass that authority on to anyone else.


Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison all thought that the bank was necessary under the necessary and proper clause. They lived there then. They decided it was necessary..
Cite a link? :confused: :rolleyes:
 
James Madison WROTE A VETO MESSAGE for George Washington for the First Bank of the United States, and only signed the second bank into existence because of the War of 1812. Truly, war is the health of the state.

Madison changed his mind. If you are going to jump into the arena and argue the Constitution, yu'd better have James Madison on your side. if you don't, you lose. Your argument is a loser. You've also got George Washington against you, which makes you a two-time loser; the Father of our Country and the Father of the Constitution both against your position. Nice work, buddy.

You also make pro-empire remarks about the war of 1812. You apparently think its OK for a giant empire to pick on, beat up and pillage a small republic. You think what we do to Iran is OK, as well? The war of 1812 led to more freedopm and prosperity than any other single event in US history. It got an evil empire off our back, cleared the Great Lakes of enemy military forts and a belligerent navy, led to free trade practically everywhere, and led to the Erie Canal which is the most important economic building project in human history.

The post-war prosperity allowed us to pay back our heroes who fought for independence in both wars, and we paid off the national debt and closed the bank in 1833. Remember, it was a temporay bank? Did you forget about that?
 
The only good side of Alexander Hamilton is the side that faced God after he was shot.

Interesting that you tout a slave-o-crat for your handle. John Taylor said slavery was a great thing. Let me get this straight; you oppose bank slavery, but support it on racial grounds?
 
Totally wrong.

James Madison signed a bank bill. Jefferson approved of the 1st bank when he was president, and didn't object when the 2nd bank was made. All of the major Founding Fathers supported the bank, including others I have not mentioned like James Monroe, John Marshall, and JQ Adams. Other heroes of the early Republic who supported the bank were Davvy Crockett, Sam Houston, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John Calhoun.

John Taylor was a slaveocrat, who actually argued that slavey was a good thing, so I could care less what he said. Taylor was evil.

Spencer Roane is a pretty weak example of a Foubnding Father.

OK, you got me, John Randolph was against the bank.

You are totally missing the boat on this. NONE of the Founding fathers supported a perpetual national bank. They supported a temporary bank so we could pay back the heroes of our wars of independence. They supported a temporay bank that did not do bailouts, issue fiat currency, or operate in utter secrecy. These are the true arguments. What you are doing is framing the question so the Fed supporters can claim the support of the Founding fathers. I reject that strategy. it is a loser.

Forgive me for saying this, but I believe you are TOTALLY WRONG historically, and in terms of your analysis.

1) James Madison drafted a veto message for President George Washington when Alexander Hamilton fathered a proposal for a national bank. Madison objected that a bank was not specifically authorized in the Constitution, and urged President George Washington to veto it.


2) President Washington asked Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson to outline the constitutional argument against the Bank of the United States. Jefferson reiterated the strict constructionist theory that Congress can only take actions that are specifically enumerated or expressed in the Constitution, and that chartering a bank is not one of those actions, and as such, is unconstitutional.

3) James Monroe did most emphatically NOT support the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States.

4). John Marshall, JQ Adams, Daniel Webster, and Henry Clay were all pro-big government Whigs or were residual High Federalists.

5) John C. Calhoun vehemently opposed the Bank of the United States, and served as President Andrew Jackson's Vice President when the Second Bank was killed.

6) John Taylor was not a slaveocrat, and did not argue that slavery was a good thing. I think you are confusing him with John C. Calhoun and his Disquisition on Government. When Thomas Jefferson was asked to write out his constitutional construction for those following in generations to come, Jefferson replied that Senator Taylor had already written it. Constructions Construed, and Constitutions Vindicated. Senator Taylor's books arguing against the constitutionality of the Bank were the most influential books in the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian Democratic Party. Read Tyranny Unmasked.

7) Spencer Roane was the Chief Judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals, and led the philosophical resistance to the aggrandizement of federal authority. He was a contemporary of John Marshalls, and was his PRIMARY intellectual and legal rival.
 
Madison changed his mind. If you are going to jump into the arena and argue the Constitution, yu'd better have James Madison on your side. if you don't, you lose. Your argument is a loser. You've also got George Washington against you, which makes you a two-time loser; the Father of our Country and the Father of the Constitution both against your position. Nice work, buddy.

You also make pro-empire remarks about the war of 1812. You apparently think its OK for a giant empire to pick on, beat up and pillage a small republic. You think what we do to Iran is OK, as well? The war of 1812 led to more freedopm and prosperity than any other single event in US history. It got an evil empire off our back, cleared the Great Lakes of enemy military forts and a belligerent navy, led to free trade practically everywhere, and led to the Erie Canal which is the most important economic building project in human history.

The post-war prosperity allowed us to pay back our heroes who fought for independence in both wars, and we paid off the national debt and closed the bank in 1833. Remember, it was a temporay bank? Did you forget about that?

Madison opposed the Bank when he was not personally benefited from the Bank, and supported it later as a necessary war measure to combat the British during the War of 1812. That makes him an opportunist at worst. The fact is, 4 years after drafting the constitution, he OPPOSED the bank on constitutional grounds. 25 years later he signed the bill because he didn't want his presidency to fail...

I'm not going to dignify the rest of your smears with a reply, with the exception of your comment regarding the Erie Canal.

There were thousands of canals commissioned and paid for by the American taxpayer throughout the early 19th century, resulting in the bankruptcy of many states when the canals inevitably failed to produce the desired utopian paradises they were portended to be. You need to read Burt Folsom's book Empire Builders: How Michigan Entrepreneurs Helped Make America Great .

The Erie Canal was one of the few of the thousands of "internal improvement" projects to be undertaken to ever make a profit. The rest bankrupted their states, almost the federal government, and caused many states, including Michigan, to pass new constitutions which EXPLICITLY forbade using taxpayer monies on projects like internal improvements and the "American system" of that old statist, Henry Clay.
 
TO THE PUBLICK.

The crisis has come, when the following work "may do the state some service."

The Missouri Question is probably not yet closed. The principle, on which it turns, is certainly not settled. Further attempts are to be made to wrest from the new states, about to enter into the American confederacy, the power of regulating their own concerns.The Tariff question is again to be agitated. — It is time to bring the policy and the power of a legislature's interfering with the judicial functions to the bar of publick opinion. — The usurpation of a federal power over roads and canals is again to be attempted, and again to be reprobated.That gigantick institution, the Bank of the United States, which, while yet in the green tree, was proclaimed by the republicans a breach of the constitution, "stands now upon its bond;" but that charter, bad as it is, has been justified by the supreme court of the United States, on principles so bold and alarming, that no man who loves the constitution can fold his arms in apathy upon the subject. Those principles, so boldly uttered from the highest judicial tribunal in the United States, are calculated to give the tone to an acquiescent people, to change the whole face of our government, and to generate a thousand measures, which the framers of the constitution never anticipated. That decision

—— will be recorded for a precedent,
And many an error by the same example
May rush into the state. It cannot be.

Against such a decision, it becomes every man, who values the constitution, to raise his voice.

In truth, we have arrived at a crisis, when the first principles of the government and some of the dearest rights of the states are threatened with being utterly ground into dust and ashes. When we look to the original form of the government, we are struck with its novelty and beauty. It presents to us one of the grandest experiments that ever was made in political science. We see in it an attempt to ascertain, how far power could be so distributed between two governments, as to prevent an excessive concentration and consequent abuse of it in one set of bands; at the same time, that so much power was conveyed to each, as to enable them to accomplish the objects to which each of them was best adapted. The federal government was to watch over our foreign relations; that of the states, was particularly to take care of our internal concerns. The great secret was, to have these functions so wisely regulated, as to prevent the general government from rushing into consolidation; and the states, into a dissolution of the union. The first extreme would infallibly conduct us to great oppression, and probably to monarchy : the last would subject us to insults and injuries from abroad, to contentions and bloodshed at home. To avoid these extremes, we should never have lost sight of the true spirit of the federal constitution. To interpret it wisely, we should have rigidly adhered to the principle, laid down by George Clinton, when he, from the chair of the senate of the United States, gave the casting voice against the renewal of the first bank charter: "In the course of a long life, I have found that government is not to be strengthened by the assumption of doubtful powers, but a wise and energetick execution of those which are incontestable; the former never fails to produce suspicion and distrust, whilst the latter inspires respect and confidence. If, however, on fair experience, the powers vested in the government shall be found incompetent to the attainment of the objects for which it was instituted, the constitution happily furnishes the means for remedying the evil by amendment." This maxim deserves to be written in letters of gold upon the wall of the capitol in Washington.
But, we have been almost deaf to the voice of wisdom. We have nearly forgotten the principles of our fathers. In repeated instances, we have suffered the constitution to be trodden under foot. We have been lately rushing rapidly towards the gulph of consolidation. We have even seen the purest triumphs of the republican party in 1800-1, (when an alien and sedition law were shivered into atoms by an indignant people,) almost forgotten. We have seen a decision promulgated from the federal bench, which is calculated to sweep down the dearest rights of the states. The infatuation of the day has been carried so far, that we have just seen an attempt made, and bolstered up by the seriatim opinion of five eminent counsellors, to humble the powers of the state governments at the feet of the District of Columbia!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top