The Good Side of Alexander Hamilton

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Why is Galileo Galilei always screaming racism and defending big government historical figures on here?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

You are completely and utterly mistaken. The federalist papers argue for a LARGER, MORE ENERGETIC government, one which would replace the Articles of Confederation with a more activist regime.

Actually, Hamilton was instrumental in the issuance of continental script, and it was the continual inflation of this currency which savaged the Amercian economy.

Hamilton wished to emulate the British system, and advocated a loose constitutional construction which allowed for men like Lincoln and Wilson to further attack the constitutional fabric of limited government.

All educated young men in the South, pre-civil war, read the Federalist Papers, with contributed to their understanding of state's rights and limited federal powers. This includes John Taylor.

The Federalist Papers were at the center of the corpus of reading. For example, Jefferson had them as required reading at the University of Virginia. The other core readings (besides our three fundamental documents) were Washington's Farewell Address (also written mostly by Hamilton), The Kentucky Resolution, the Virginia Resolution, and Madison's Report of 1800. However all these documents added up are still less reading than the Federalist Papers.

I wish to withdraw any suggestion that I made that you have any hint of racism. However, the original John Taylor of Caroline did indeed promte slavery even if he remarked that it was evil. That in some way makes it worse if he knew it was evil but still promoted it.

I also still consider you to be a tue patriot and vey smart regarding strategy and issues, even if you are mistaken in this regard, so I hope this spirited debate has not damaged our friendship.

Sincerely,

Galileo

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Why is Galileo Galilei always screaming racism and defending big government historical figures on here?

show me where the Federalist Papers defend big government.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

show me where the Federalist Papers defend big government.

Start with Federalist no. 9. The more Federalism you read, the more obvious it becomes that it's a big government philosophy.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Start with Federalist no. 9. The more Federalism you read, the more obvious it becomes that it's a big government philosophy.

Federalist # 9 is basically the same as # 10, only not as well written. Having a functional government that can do basic things like pay for an ambassador to France or England, or pay the war veterans their back pay is not a big government.

Historically, all big governents had arisen from independent states fighting each other in endless arrays of alliances and wars.

 

[silverhandorder]

Hamilton changed his position several times for bigger government. He was playing a lot of people to get what he wants. He got a lot of people excited for improvements. As such I have really hard time believing Hamilton's good intentions.

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

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?

Uh, slavery in the united States was based on Caste, not Race. There were free Black and Mulattoes, and slave Mulattoes and Whites. Read up on Mary Chestnut and you'll learn something new.

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Fuck Hamilton.

Eww, necrophilia. No thanks. (j/k ). Yes, indeed piss on Hamilton. Mercantilist bastard.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Thank Hamilton for deciding the matter of taxation in the United States with this brief argued before SCOTUS:

February 24, 1795.

What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms—there is none.

We shall be as much at a loss to find any disposition of either which can satisfactorily determine the point.

Shall we call an indirect tax, a tax which is ultimately paid by a person, different from the one who pays it in the first instance?

Truly speaking, there is no such tax—those on imported articles best claim the character. But in many instances the merchant cannot transfer the tax to the buyer; in numerous cases it falls on himself, partly or wholly. Besides, if the same article which is imported by a merchant for sale, is imported by a merchant for his own use, or by a lawyer, a physician, or mechanic, for his own use, there can be no question about the transfer of the tax. It remains upon him who pays it.

According to that rule, then, the same tax may be both a direct and indirect tax, which is an absurdity. To urge that a man may either buy an article already imported, or import it himself, amounts to nothing; sometimes he could not have that option.

But the option of an individual cannot alter the nature of a thing. In like manner he might avoid the tax on carriages by hiring occasionally instead of buying.

The subject of taxation, not the contingent optional conduct of individuals, must be the criterion of direct or indirect taxation. Shall it be said that an indirect tax is that of which a man is not conscious when he pays? Neither is there any such tax. The ignorant may not see the tax in the enhanced price of the commodity—but the man of reflection knows it is there. Besides, when any but a merchant pays, as in the case of the lawyer, etc., who imports for himself, he cannot but be conscious that it falls upon himself.

By this rule, also, then a tax would be both direct and indirect—and it will be equally impracticable to find any other precise or satisfactory criterion.

In such a case no construction ought to prevail calculated to defeat the express and necessary authority of the government.

It would be contrary to reason, and to every rule of sound construction, to adopt a principle for regulating the exercise of a clear constitutional power which would defeat the exercise of the power.

It cannot be contested that a duty on carriages specifically is as much within the authority of the government as a duty on lands or buildings.

Now, if a duty on carriages is to be considered as a direct tax, to be apportioned according to the rates of representation, very absurd consequences must ensue.

‘T is possible that a particular State may have no carriages of the description intended to be taxed, or a very small number.

But each State would have to pay a proportion of the sum to be laid, according to its relative numbers; yet, while the State would have to pay a quota, it might have no carriages upon which its quota could be assessed, or so few, as to render it ruinous to the owners to pay the tax. To consider then a duty on carriages as a direct tax, may be to defeat the power of laying such a duty. This is a consequence which ought not to ensue from construction.

Further: If the tax on carriages be a direct tax, that on ships according to their tonnage must be so likewise. Here is not a consumable article. Here the tax is paid by the owner of the thing taxed, from time to time, as would be the tax on carriages.

If it be said that the tax is indirect because it is alternately paid by the freighter of the vessel, the answer is, that sometimes the owner is himself the freighter, and at other times the tonnage accrues when there is no freight, and is a dead charge on the owner of the vessel.

Moreover, a tax on a hackney or stage-coach or other carriage, or on a dray or cart employed in transporting commodities for hire, would be as much a charge on the freight as a tax upon vessels; so that, if the latter be an indirect tax, the former cannot be a direct tax.

And it would be too great a refinement for a rule of practice in government to say, that a tax on a hackney or stage-coach, and upon a dray or cart, is an indirect one, and yet a tax upon a coach or wagon ordinarily used for the purposes of its owner, is a direct one.

The only known source of the distinction between direct and indirect taxes is in the doctrine of the French Economists—Locke and other speculative writers—who affirm that all taxes fall ultimately upon land, and are paid out of its produce, whether laid immediately upon itself, or upon any other thing. Hence, taxes upon lands are in that system called direct taxes; those on all other articles indirect taxes.

According to this, land taxes only would be direct taxes, but it is apparent that something more was intended by the Constitution. In one case, a capitation is spoken of as a direct tax.

But how is the meaning of the Constitution to be determined? It has been affirmed, and so it will be found, that there is no general principle which can indicate the boundary between the two. That boundary, then, must be fixed by a species of arbitration, and ought to be such as will involve neither absurdity nor inconvenience.

The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes.

Capitation or poll taxes.

Taxes on lands and buildings.

General assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate; all else must of necessity be considered as indirect taxes.

To apply a rule of apportionment according to numbers to taxes of the above description, has some rationale in it; but to extend an apportionment of that kind to other cases, would, in many instances, produce, as has been seen, preposterous consequences, and would greatly embarrass the operations of the government. Nothing could be more capricious or outré, than the application of quotas in such cases.

The Constitution gives power to Congress to lay and collect the taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, requiring that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Here duties, imposts, and excises appear to be contradistinguished from taxes, and while the latter is left to apportionment, the former are enjoined to be uniform.

But, unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes.

If the meaning of the word excise is to be sought in the British statutes, it will be found to include the duty on carriages, which is there considered as an excise, and then must necessarily be uniform and not liable to apportionment; consequently not a direct tax.

An argument results from this, though not perhaps a conclusive one: yet where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.

[1]Hamilton, when Secretary of the Treasury, recommended a tax on pleasure carriages and Madison opposed it in the House on the ground that it was a direct tax, and therefore unconstitutional. The bill laying the tax became a law, and certain persons in Virginia refused to pay the tax, taking Madison’s position as to its unconstitutionality. The case came before the Supreme Court, and Hamilton appeared for the government with the Attorney-General of the United States. One of the newspapers said next day (Feb. 25th): “Yesterday, in the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Hamilton, late Secretary of the Treasury, made a most eloquent speech in support of the constitutionality of the carriage tax. He spoke for three hours. and the whole of his argument was clear, impressive, and classical. The audience, which was very numerous, and among whom were many foreigners of distinction and many of the Members of Congress, testified the effect produced by the talents of this great orator and statesman.”

All that now remains of the argument is the fragment of a brief given above. The case was Hylton vs. the United States, and is reported 1 Dallas, 171. The court sustained Hamilton’s view, and held unanimously that the tax was not direct and therefore constitutional.

Thanks buddy for advocating a constitution with vague terms.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Thank Hamilton for deciding the matter of taxation in the United States with this brief argued before SCOTUS:



Thanks buddy for advocating a constitution with vague terms.

See, there you go again. You blame Hamilton for what other people did.

Others to blame here besides Hamilton:

George Washington for appointing all the Supreme Court Justices.

The Supreme Court Justices.

The Senate for confirming all the Justices.

The 13 State legislatures for appointing the Senators.

The People for electing the State legislatures.

No, not everybody here is stupid.

And one other thing. We had very low taxes in 1795. We also had to pay back the heroes of the Revolution for thier service to liberty. What you are basically saying is that Patriots like Paul Revere or John Paul Jones should not be paid what is owed to them.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Uh, slavery in the united States was based on Caste, not Race. There were free Black and Mulattoes, and slave Mulattoes and Whites. Read up on Mary Chestnut and you'll learn something new.

Right, dude. There were a few exceptions to a general rule. Big deal.

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Right, dude. There were a few exceptions to a general rule. Big deal.

You apparently don't know what the fuck it is you're talking about. There weren't 'a few exceptions'. Try reading something about it.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

You apparently don't know what the fuck it is you're talking about. There weren't 'a few exceptions'. Try reading something about it.

OK, what percent of the 4 million slaves fell into your suddenly important exception? Educate us.

 

[John Taylor]

See, there you go again. You blame Hamilton for what other people did.

Others to blame here besides Hamilton:

George Washington for appointing all the Supreme Court Justices.

The Supreme Court Justices.

The Senate for confirming all the Justices.

The 13 State legislatures for appointing the Senators.

The People for electing the State legislatures.

No, not everybody here is stupid.

And one other thing. We had very low taxes in 1795. We also had to pay back the heroes of the Revolution for thier service to liberty. What you are basically saying is that Patriots like Paul Revere or John Paul Jones should not be paid what is owed to them.

George Washington was a Federalist, he is complicit in the blame for appointing John Marshall to the Supreme Court. Jefferson was right to seek Chief Justice Marshall's impeachment.

The Senate and the House were controlled by Federalists through the election of 1800, and as such, they were able to railroad their unconstitutional construction of the constitutional through congress.

As for the "heroes" you want to be "paid back" for their service. Paul Revere and John Paul Jones, or even Ethan Hale, did not fight and strive for liberty for money, but from freedom FROM big government.

 

[John Taylor]

OK, what percent of the 4 million slaves fell into your suddenly important exception? Educate us.

Likely not many of the "slaves" fell into the classification of the free blacks and mulattoes.

Try to be logical next time.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Start with Federalist no. 9. The more Federalism you read, the more obvious it becomes that it's a big government philosophy.

Federalist No. 9

"The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection."

This proved to be dead on accurate, as the Civil War occurred when the Union was not intact. Under the AoC, the States would have been fighting each other on a regular basis, AND they would have been fighting over western lands as well. Examples of this go back thousands of years.

Publius' argument:

A major aspect of Federalist No. 9 is Hamilton's response to the common Anti-Federalist argument based on the theories of Montesquieu, who wrote famously in his The Spirit of the Laws that "it is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist." The Anti-Federalist took his arguments to mean that the federal Union was bound to fail. Hamilton responded that if Montesquieu were taken literally, then since he was thinking of dimensions far smaller even than those of the states, the Americans would have to split themselves into "an infinity of little, jealous, clashing tumultuous commonwealths." More seriously, Hamilton contends that the confederated federal system described in the proposed Constitution would not suffer as Montesquieu predicted because of its confederated, rather than centralized, design.

In 1913, we went from a confederated system, to a more centralized system, which is the root cause of our big government today. The Federalist Paper here makes a plain small government argument that we should remain confederated. Obviously, this advice was not heeded in 1913.

 

[John Taylor]

All educated young men in the South, pre-civil war, read the Federalist Papers, with contributed to their understanding of state's rights and limited federal powers. This includes John Taylor.

The Federalist Papers were at the center of the corpus of reading. For example, Jefferson had them as required reading at the University of Virginia. The other core readings (besides our three fundamental documents) were Washington's Farewell Address (also written mostly by Hamilton), The Kentucky Resolution, the Virginia Resolution, and Madison's Report of 1800. However all these documents added up are still less reading than the Federalist Papers.

I wish to withdraw any suggestion that I made that you have any hint of racism. However, the original John Taylor of Caroline did indeed promte slavery even if he remarked that it was evil. That in some way makes it worse if he knew it was evil but still promoted it.

I also still consider you to be a tue patriot and vey smart regarding strategy and issues, even if you are mistaken in this regard, so I hope this spirited debate has not damaged our friendship.

Sincerely,

Galileo

Actually Galileo, John Taylor's Constructions Construed and Constitutions Vindicated was the primary study guide for the constitution in the antebellum South. Of course the federalist papers were widely read, but they are not infallible regarding construction.

Constructions Construed and Constitutions Vindicated was the preeminent book on constitutional construction from the date of its being published until the fall of Richmond in 1865.

I don't believe Col. Taylor, in any of the writings I have read, made a positive good defense of slavery, but rather explained a utilitarian argument for not necessarily wanting to integrate into a strictly limited government society several millions of people who had no real conception of respect for the institution of private property.

Now, that is no reason to keep people enslaved, but we sit here, 200 years later, passing judgment on one of the greatest luminaries of the founding, and you argue that we should discard his contribution of founding the Jeffersonian school of political theory. I am not prepared to go so far!

I am not personally upset, I know I am no racist, but I do believe in the superiority of that system through which the west grew rich, that is, the unrestrained market forces of laissez faire and the constitutionally limited government, federal republicanism, and rule of law which facilitated it.

Good luck.

 

[John Taylor]

Federalist No. 9



This proved to be dead on accurate, as the Civil War occurred when the Union was not intact. Under the AoC, the States would have been fighting each other on a regular basis, AND they would have been fighting over western lands as well. Examples of this go back thousands of years.

Publius' argument:



In 1913, we went from a confederated system, to a more centralized system, which is the root cause of our big government today. The Federalist Paper here makes a plain small government argument that we should remain confederated. Obviously, this advice was not heeded in 1913.

We went to a more centralized system when Hamilton's interpretation of the constitution was adopted for the country through force of arms by President Lincoln.

Lincoln fought the war between the states to "preserve the union", this same union you deny existed. So which is it? Was the union fought for, or did it never exist?

The union clearly existed from the moment of the ratification of the constitution, and I furthermore see absolutely no evidence that the states, in the absence of the centralism you favor, would have fought one another.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Why is Galileo Galilei always screaming racism and defending big government historical figures on here?

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"

Samuel Johnson

http://www.samueljohnson.com/jpolitics.html

 

[John Taylor]

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"

Samuel Johnson

http://www.samueljohnson.com/jpolitics.html

Yet another slander against those of us on these boards opposed to centralized government and unconstitutionally vague constitutional constructions.

In any event, it is because sir, there was an unfortunate yet distinction between those who favored economic liberty and freedom of trade and those who favored mercantilism.

Very few men were like that great great Jacksonian Democrat, Martin Van Buren, who was pro-economic liberty, pro-constitutional government, and was opposed to slavery.

Most northerners had no problem transferring wealth from southern and westerners to themselves...