The wisdom of federalism, our Constitution’s plan!

[Ronin Truth]

Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution–and What It Means for Americans Today

The more historical research I read and the more I contrast what economists write with what non-economists write, the more I am convinced that the bulk of history and biography should be redone. Thomas DiLorenzo, an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland, explains why: “Most historians are not educated in the field of economics, and political biographers in particular tend to interpret a politician’s actions in terms of his stated motives.”

What DiLorenzo offers is not a biography of Hamilton, but instead a critical examination of his ideas and a historical exploration of how they have shaped American history. DiLorenzo contrasts the statist, mercantilist, and nationalist philosophy of Hamilton with the strict constitutionalism of Jefferson. He portrays Hamilton as a schemer, quoting contemporaries who felt that he was intentionally confusing in his economic proposals as a means of hoodwinking the uninitiated. Above all, DiLorenzo shows how Hamilton’s interventionist ideas have had disastrous consequences for America up to the present.

Hamilton’s vision for the nation included a strong sense of nationalism, zealous protectionism, enthusiasm for central banking, and methods of constitutional interpretation like the doctrine of “implied powers” that essentially stripped away the Constitution’s restraints on the central government. DiLorenzo depicts Hamilton and his intellectual followers as technocrats who view society as a lump of clay for them to fashion with their expert hands. They couldn’t grasp the spontaneous order of the free market.

To borrow a phrase from Adam Smith, Hamilton was the quintessential “man of system.” In his ideal society he and others who were blessed with inside knowledge of “the common good” would arrange things just so, thereby creating the ideal society. DiLorenzo points out explicit parallels between Hamilton’s thinking and Rousseau’s idea of “the general will,” under which government officials would “force people to be free.” Individual liberty holds no importance for such people.

DiLorenzo employs Austrian and Public Choice insights to expose the lasting harm we have suffered owing to Hamilton’s assortment of big-government ideas. Those ideas later metastasized into the “American System” of Henry Clay (the term was Hamilton’s) and the wide-ranging interventionism of Abraham Lincoln. They reached their nadir in the disastrous year 1913, with the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment (providing for direct election of U.S. senators), passage of the federal income tax, and the establishment of the Federal Reserve. DiLorenzo sees that terrible trio as destroying what was left of Jeffersonianism and shackling the nation, perhaps permanently, with Hamilton’s ruinous vision.

The book makes a persuasive case about the harm we endure because of “the curse,” but DiLorenzo left me wondering about the relative fragility and robustness of different institutional arrangements. He discusses how constitutional words and phrases like “necessary” and “general welfare” were either grossly misinterpreted or used to usher in all sorts of state interventions, and he refers to the Confederate States of America’s attempts to remedy some of these problems in their own Constitution. But the kind of restraint that would have satisfied Jeffersonian strict construction begs to be explored in greater detail.

Only a few years elapsed between the ratification of the Constitution and the violent suppression of Pennsylvania tax rebels (which Hamilton himself led), and not too many years later the United States were (yes, the plural was once used) experimenting with central banking. How did we get so far from Jefferson’s vision so quickly?

DiLorenzo blames “Hamilton’s Disciple,” Chief Justice John Marshall, for misreading the Constitution, but I have to wonder if his famous decisions were so obviously a misreading and misapplication. Some libertarians like to believe the Jeffersonian minimalist interpretation is the “real” Constitution while the expansive Hamiltonian view is indefensible, and DiLorenzo seems to accept that view without questioning it.

The exact, intended meaning of the Constitution—if that can even be discerned—is not the focus of DiLorenzo’s book, however. Hamilton’s Curse explores the intellectual history of some of the ideas that helped transform the United States from a country where the government mostly left people alone into one where the government interferes in their affairs constantly. DiLorenzo reminds us of Richard Weaver’s famous quotation that “ideas have consequences” and proceeds to show the terrible consequences of Hamilton’s ideas.

http://fee.org/freeman/hamiltons-cu...olutionand-what-it-means-for-americans-today/

 

[Ender]

http://fee.org/freeman/hamiltons-cu...olutionand-what-it-means-for-americans-today/

I agree completely with DiLorenzo.

 

[HVACTech]

How do you manage to come away with folks looking to restore a republic being idiots from what I've typed?

Are you trying to interpret what I've written again? Or is this a case of putting words in my mouth?

Everybody I knew in '08 that was involved with RP had high hopes of shutting down major portions of the current federal government.

Reality has shown that the voting public is more concerned with continued welfare-n-warfare than limiting federal anything....

What does it matter what anybody thinks the "Original Intent" was when the constitution was drafted, or ratified, what the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists wrote means nothing to entrenched bureaucrats, government functionaries and welfare recipients of all stripes and they vote in droves, as if their very livelihood depends on it........

Until/unless this growing majority of Americans can be divested of their ability to legislate and vote for largess those who actually produce will be left debating how it was supposed to be if only all the others had listened.......Is there a purpose to such forms of mental masturbation or self flagellation?

Do you think that by educating the average American about what the "Original Intent" of the constitution might have been that you can convince him that he needs to give up his government check and actually grow or make something others will buy?

Even the most ignorant in these hills knows government is out of control but the fear of no government goodies outweighs the fear of government itself.

So really............How is what Madison wrote 200 years ago going to effect anything today?

in a Republic. you have the rule of law. in this case, our Constitution.
in our Republic we do not need to...

"Do you think that by educating the average American about what the "Original Intent" of the constitution might have been that you can convince him that he needs to give up his government check and actually grow or make something others will buy?

we are not a Democracy. we are NOT concerned with the average American.
but we do need the smart ones to get active.

all we need to do is change-out a majority of the 535. who are responsible for dropping the ball.
this IS doable, but we need more educated people.

THAT is what Ron Paul was and is all about.

and yes! it would be a flippin r3VOLution if we could pull it of.
THAT is why the Rally for the Republic was held. Ron Paul had already dropped out by that time.
did I answer your questions?

peace.

 

[HVACTech]

Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution–and What It Means for Americans Today

The more historical research I read and the more I contrast what economists write with what non-economists write, the more I am convinced that the bulk of history and biography should be redone. Thomas DiLorenzo, an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland, explains why: “Most historians are not educated in the field of economics, and political biographers in particular tend to interpret a politician’s actions in terms of his stated motives.”

What DiLorenzo offers is not a biography of Hamilton, but instead a critical examination of his ideas and a historical exploration of how they have shaped American history. DiLorenzo contrasts the statist, mercantilist, and nationalist philosophy of Hamilton with the strict constitutionalism of Jefferson. He portrays Hamilton as a schemer, quoting contemporaries who felt that he was intentionally confusing in his economic proposals as a means of hoodwinking the uninitiated. Above all, DiLorenzo shows how Hamilton’s interventionist ideas have had disastrous consequences for America up to the present.

Hamilton’s vision for the nation included a strong sense of nationalism, zealous protectionism, enthusiasm for central banking, and methods of constitutional interpretation like the doctrine of “implied powers” that essentially stripped away the Constitution’s restraints on the central government. DiLorenzo depicts Hamilton and his intellectual followers as technocrats who view society as a lump of clay for them to fashion with their expert hands. They couldn’t grasp the spontaneous order of the free market.

To borrow a phrase from Adam Smith, Hamilton was the quintessential “man of system.” In his ideal society he and others who were blessed with inside knowledge of “the common good” would arrange things just so, thereby creating the ideal society. DiLorenzo points out explicit parallels between Hamilton’s thinking and Rousseau’s idea of “the general will,” under which government officials would “force people to be free.” Individual liberty holds no importance for such people.

DiLorenzo employs Austrian and Public Choice insights to expose the lasting harm we have suffered owing to Hamilton’s assortment of big-government ideas. Those ideas later metastasized into the “American System” of Henry Clay (the term was Hamilton’s) and the wide-ranging interventionism of Abraham Lincoln. They reached their nadir in the disastrous year 1913, with the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment (providing for direct election of U.S. senators), passage of the federal income tax, and the establishment of the Federal Reserve. DiLorenzo sees that terrible trio as destroying what was left of Jeffersonianism and shackling the nation, perhaps permanently, with Hamilton’s ruinous vision.

The book makes a persuasive case about the harm we endure because of “the curse,” but DiLorenzo left me wondering about the relative fragility and robustness of different institutional arrangements. He discusses how constitutional words and phrases like “necessary” and “general welfare” were either grossly misinterpreted or used to usher in all sorts of state interventions, and he refers to the Confederate States of America’s attempts to remedy some of these problems in their own Constitution. But the kind of restraint that would have satisfied Jeffersonian strict construction begs to be explored in greater detail.

Only a few years elapsed between the ratification of the Constitution and the violent suppression of Pennsylvania tax rebels (which Hamilton himself led), and not too many years later the United States were (yes, the plural was once used) experimenting with central banking. How did we get so far from Jefferson’s vision so quickly?

DiLorenzo blames “Hamilton’s Disciple,” Chief Justice John Marshall, for misreading the Constitution, but I have to wonder if his famous decisions were so obviously a misreading and misapplication. Some libertarians like to believe the Jeffersonian minimalist interpretation is the “real” Constitution while the expansive Hamiltonian view is indefensible, and DiLorenzo seems to accept that view without questioning it.

The exact, intended meaning of the Constitution—if that can even be discerned—is not the focus of DiLorenzo’s book, however. Hamilton’s Curse explores the intellectual history of some of the ideas that helped transform the United States from a country where the government mostly left people alone into one where the government interferes in their affairs constantly. DiLorenzo reminds us of Richard Weaver’s famous quotation that “ideas have consequences” and proceeds to show the terrible consequences of Hamilton’s ideas.

I made it this far before my BULLSHIT detector went off.

"DiLorenzo contrasts the statist, mercantilist, and nationalist philosophy of Hamilton with the strict constitutionalism of Jefferson.

thats BULLSHIT and you SHOULD know it Ronan.

Hamilton and Madison were the primary authors. ONLY because they did not have computers. there were MANY involved.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/countdown-to-the-constitution-a-rough-draft-of-the-constitution/

"This agreement masked the critical issue that the Convention had debated throughout – was this to be a union of states or of people?"

what answer did they come up with? dumbass.

Thomas Jefferson fully supported the Federation. AS RATIFIED!!

stop posting disinformation. you should be ashamed of yourself.

response? (or did I write that too concisely? for your slow mind..)

 

[tod evans]

in a Republic. you have the rule of law. in this case, our Constitution.
in our Republic we do not need to...

"Do you think that by educating the average American about what the "Original Intent" of the constitution might have been that you can convince him that he needs to give up his government check and actually grow or make something others will buy?

we are not a Democracy. we are NOT concerned with the average American.
but we do need the smart ones to get active.

all we need to do is change-out a majority of the 535. who are responsible for dropping the ball.
this IS doable, but we need more educated people.

THAT is what Ron Paul was and is all about.

and yes! it would be a flippin r3VOLution if we could pull it of.
THAT is why the Rally for the Republic was held. Ron Paul had already dropped out by that time.
did I answer your questions?

peace.

We're back to voting.......

I suppose there's really only three options though.....

1) Put up with it.

2) Vote to change it.

3) Physically fight to change it.

What course did those guys 200+ years ago decide on?

I suppose things were a bit different then, The King only supported about 10% of the population and he taxed people on money they actually worked to earn...........

 

[Anti Federalist]

"This agreement masked the critical issue that the Convention had debated throughout – was this to be a union of states or of people?"

Thomas Jefferson fully supported the Federation. AS RATIFIED!!

Too bad Hamiltonian "living document" ideals took root.

Then it doesn't matter, does it now, because the CONstitution could mean whatever the government judges say it means.

Which is exactly where we are.

 

[HVACTech]

We're back to voting.......

I suppose there's really only three options though.....

1) Put up with it.

2) Vote to change it.

3) Physically fight to change it.

What course did those guys 200+ years ago decide on?

I suppose things were a bit different then, The King only supported about 10% of the population and he taxed people on money they actually worked to earn...........

seriously bro? you are going to ask me to defend myself on this statement?
it was to be a federation of "STATES" NOT people. is my answer.

it was designed as a federation.. a government FOR and OF the governments involved.
a league a union...

 

[heavenlyboy34]

We're back to voting.......

I suppose there's really only three options though.....

1) Put up with it.

2) Vote to change it.

3) Physically fight to change it.

What course did those guys 200+ years ago decide on?

I suppose things were a bit different then, The King only supported about 10% of the population and he taxed people on money they actually worked to earn...........

That^^ And the King's boot did not press nearly so hard on the neck of the average colonist as POTUSes have for 150+ years. IMHO, pre-revolution 'Muricans had a much better life and standard of living than the average Englishman of the time. They had the benefit of inheriting the best cultural traits of Enlightenment Europe and generations of industrious and thoughtful 'Muricans.

 

[HVACTech]

Too bad Hamiltonian "living document" ideals took root.

Then it doesn't matter, does it now, because the CONstitution could mean whatever the government judges say it means.

Which is exactly where we are.

I am STILL not sure... that you understand the meaning of the term "Federation"..

you DO seem to understand that it DID NOT apply to the people though....

 

[HVACTech]

That^^ And the King's boot did not press nearly so hard on the neck of the average colonist as POTUSes have for 150+ years. IMHO, pre-revolution 'Muricans had a much better life and standard of living than the average Englishman of the time. They had the benefit of inheriting the best cultural traits of Enlightenment Europe and generations of industrious and thoughtful 'Muricans.

I AM aware that you support a "constitutional Monarchy"

that is SO Magna Carta of you!!

you should also be ashamed of yourself.

(HB wants a King. Eduardo has clearly failed)

 

[tod evans]

seriously bro? you are going to ask me to defend myself on this statement?
it was to be a federation of "STATES" NOT people. is my answer.

it was designed as a federation.. a government FOR and OF the governments involved.
a league a union...

You're the one who brought up "change-out a majority of the 535" and unfortunately that requires people, lots of people.

People are why we suffer under the government we have today.

People comprise states and it's apparent you want to discuss only states but that's not going to cut it as long as people vote in/out the 535....

 

[tod evans]

///

 

[HVACTech]

You're the one who brought up "change-out a majority of the 535" and unfortunately that requires people, lots of people.

People are why we suffer under the government we have today.

People comprise states and it's apparent you want to discuss only states but that's not going to cut it as long as people vote in/out the 535....

at best, you are stating, that we are getting the government that we deserve.
I cannot argue this FACT.

however, it is in fact true. that our founders made Democracy illegal.
(this is a little known feature)
it WAS necessary to include the Democratic PROCESS. to allow the people to express their will.

most of the people that I meet are just ignorant and ill informed.
Human Liberty is.. indeed worth fighting for.



or..

you are like HB...
(sorry, it was weird just writing that!)
and support a Constitutional Monarchy?

or.. will pure, unadulterated Anarchy. ONLY suffice?

(I am a Min-Archist. and also a Deist. btw)

 

[Anti Federalist]

I am STILL not sure... that you understand the meaning of the term "Federation"..

you DO seem to understand that it DID NOT apply to the people though....

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

That means that it applies to whomever government SAYS it applies to, federation or otherwise.

 

[HVACTech]

That means that it applies to whomever government SAYS it applies to, federation or otherwise.

negative. what that says...
is that power rests with our representatives. NOT..

" whomever government SAYS it applies to"

are you off your meds? or really just that slow to learn?



I will toss you a bone dude..
our founders sought to diffuse " power" and push it down...
the idea was to prevent the accumulation and concentration of "power"
they pushed it down. alright, all the way.. to the local sheriff...
and YOU can do better?

heh,

 

[Anti Federalist]

at best, you are stating, that we are getting the government that we deserve.

I cannot argue this FACT.

So then the document HAS failed, since it did not take this clearly evident flaw in human nature into account.

Jefferson saw it and wrote into the DoI:

and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

 

[Anti Federalist]

negative. what that says...
is that power rests with our representatives. NOT..

" whomever government SAYS it applies to"

are you off your meds? or really just that slow to learn?

And the reps have said it applies to people, and the government judges backed them up.

 

[Ender]

I made it this far before my BULLSHIT detector went off.

"DiLorenzo contrasts the statist, mercantilist, and nationalist philosophy of Hamilton with the strict constitutionalism of Jefferson.

thats BULLSHIT and you SHOULD know it Ronan.

Hamilton and Madison were the primary authors. ONLY because they did not have computers. there were MANY involved.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/countdown-to-the-constitution-a-rough-draft-of-the-constitution/

"This agreement masked the critical issue that the Convention had debated throughout – was this to be a union of states or of people?"

what answer did they come up with? dumbass.

Thomas Jefferson fully supported the Federation. AS RATIFIED!!

stop posting disinformation. you should be ashamed of yourself.

response? (or did I write that too concisely? for your slow mind..)

Not exactly- and BTW, name-calling doesn't support your cause - just sayin'.

In 1789, after long deliberations and impassioned speeches, the United States Constitution was born. Of the forty signees of the U.S. Constitution, only six of them had also signed the Declaration of Independence. Did Thomas Jefferson sign the Constitution? No, he was serving as Minister to France during the time of the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson returned to the United States only six months after the Constitution took effect and was soon appointed as the Secretary of State in President George Washington's administration. Did Thomas Jefferson write the Constitution? No, he was actually a supporter of the smaller government structure originally proposed in the Articles of Confederation and did not want its revision to mean a stronger, more centralized union. If Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution, he would have preferred leaving many of the enumerated powers in the hands of state governments and may have included checks and balances similar to those he envisioned when he drafted the Virginia Constitution. Without the influence of Thomas Jefferson, Bill of Rights mainstays such as the right to bear arms and religious freedom may not have held up so strongly. Although someone like John Adams might be considered father of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson would ascend to the presidency on principles that advocated for restraint of federal powers and a return to the the agrarian democracy he envisioned.

The difference between the democratic ideals of Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution created in 1789 were not enough to bar him from calling it the greatest the world had ever seen. Its execution, however, brought him great worry as he was disinclined from trusting a few men with great power over so many others. While diplomatic service in France drew away Thomas Jefferson, Constitutional Convention delegates met with the intention of revising the Articles of Confederation. With this resolution in mind, it became inevitable that the gentleman who made their way to Philadelphia would be making significant changes. From afar, Thomas Jefferson admired the mission of the delegates who gathered to draft a new Constitution, but his birth as an anti-Federalist in reaction to the strong, nationalist version they produced shows that Jefferson may have been a contentious member of the debate had he been present. After James Madison proposed the vague but strongly nationalist Virginia Plan, the delegates appointed to the Committee of Detail, headed by John Rutledge, put together a draft that included powerfully federalist language. A number of clauses added to the Constitution were compromises on issues that Jefferson would have cared to influence, including the Necessary & Proper Clause which gave the national government all unenumerated powers, and the Fugitive Slave Clause which required the capture and return of all runaway slaves to their original state. The three-fifths compromise, which counted African American slaves as part of the population but only to be counted as three-fifths of a citizen, gave the Southern states greater power and was based upon pseudo-economic calculations from an agreement in the Articles of Confederation.

"The Constitution to which we are all attached was meant to be republican, and we believe to be republican according to every candid interpretation. Yet we have seen it so interpreted and administered, as to be truly what the French have called, a monarchie masque." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert R. Livingston, 1800.

 

[Anti Federalist]

the idea was to prevent the accumulation and concentration of "power"

If that was the idea, how did it fail so spectacularly?

 

[HVACTech]

Not exactly- and BTW, name-calling doesn't support your cause - just sayin'.



"The Constitution to which we are all attached was meant to be republican, and we believe to be republican according to every candid interpretation. Yet we have seen it so interpreted and administered, as to be truly what the French have called, a monarchie masque." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert R. Livingston, 1800.

well, I have now searched both yahoo and google for..

"monarchie masque."

and found nothing but BULLSHIT.



"there IS no spoon" heh,