Is Hamilton Bashing Productive for the Liberty Movement?

[Galileo Galilei]

Is Alexander Hamilton Bashing Productive for the Liberty Movement?

Given that Hamilton was a Patriot in the Revolutionary War, signed the Constitution, co-authored the Federalist Papers, served in the First Cabinet, was best friends with George Washington, and helped get Thomas Jefferson elected in 1800, do we not risk alienating potential recruits to the liberty movement by incessant Hamilton bashing?

There are a lot of libertarians, tea partiers, constitutionalists, and conservatives out there who have read the Federalist Papers, you know.

Is it not better to try to understand Hamilton's decision making? He was a Founding Father, after all.

For example:

* Hamilton's reaction the Whiskey Rebellion was very heavy handed and harsh. But did Hamilton not just overreact? Did he not fear potential civil war? Remember, this was in the aftermath of Shay's Rebellion.

* Hamilton's bank proposal was more of a panic reaction to the national debt caused by the Revolutionary War. And Hamilton's bank set a precedent for a small temporary national bank, with no power to print fiat currency or operate in utter secrecy. The fed violates this precedent. In other words, Hamilton could be used as an argument to audit the Fed and then reduce it's powers.

I don't agree with Hamilton on a lot of things, but to vilify him seems like a bad idea to me.

[Fozz]

A pro-Hamilton libertarian is like a pro-Obama conservative.

[Kludge]

No - neither is Hamilton-supporting.

Tl;dr.

[Danke]

Being non-productive is liberating.

[Smitty]

Hamilton demonstrated the hypocrisy of the new government before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights.

It's taken me over 5 decades to realize it,...but freedom for the masses wasn't of particular importance to the founders.

Taking control was the first priority. After taking control, the first item of business was taxation.

Governments do what governments do.

[Galileo Galilei]

A pro-Hamilton libertarian is like a pro-Obama conservative.

How so? What if you are like many who have read the Federalist Papers in law school, but don't know much about American history? Show us where in the Federalist Papers it argues for an elastic interpretation of the general welfare or commerce clause. Show us where the Federalist Papers support the war on drugs or the war on terror? Show us where Hamilton argues for the department of education? Or Obamacare? The NEA? Etc.

[Galileo Galilei]

Hamilton demonstrated the hypocrisy of the new government before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights.

It's taken me over 5 decades to realize it,...but freedom for the masses wasn't of particular importance to the founders.

Taking control was the first priority. After taking control, the first item of business was taxation.

Governments do what governments do.

So we should not just bash Hamilton, but all the Founding Fathers?

[Smitty]

So we should not just bash Hamilton, but all the Founding Fathers?

I'm not suggesting that you bash anybody. But one needs to realize that the new American government used its power to extort taxes from the populace a mere decade or so into its existence.

[ClayTrainor]

So we should not just bash Hamilton, but all the Founding Fathers?

Simply bashing anyone is a waste of time and will only create confrontation, but yes if we are being honest with ourselves, all of them are more than worthy of constructive criticism. Some more than others.

[Galileo Galilei]

I'm not suggesting that you bash anybody. But one needs to realize that the new American government used its power to extort taxes from the populace a mere decade or so into its existence.

Not really. The new government under Washington accounted for less than 2% of the gross national product. 124 years later in 1912, the federal government still only accounted for 1.75% of the GNP.

You should read the Federalist Papers. Even the anti-Federalists didn't like the AoC. The states were starting to fight over control of western lands, among other things.

[heavenlyboy34]

Is Alexander Hamilton Bashing Productive for the Liberty Movement?

Given that Hamilton was a Patriot in the Revolutionary War, signed the Constitution, co-authored the Federalist Papers, served in the First Cabinet, was best friends with George Washington, and helped get Thomas Jefferson elected in 1800, do we not risk alienating potential recruits to the liberty movement by incessant Hamilton bashing?

There are a lot of libertarians, tea partiers, constitutionalists, and conservatives out there who have read the Federalist Papers, you know.

Is it not better to try to understand Hamilton's decision making? He was a Founding Father, after all.

For example:

* Hamilton's reaction the Whiskey Rebellion was very heavy handed and harsh. But did Hamilton not just overreact? Did he not fear potential civil war? Remember, this was in the aftermath of Shay's Rebellion.

* Hamilton's bank proposal was more of a panic reaction to the national debt caused by the Revolutionary War. And Hamilton's bank set a precedent for a small temporary national bank, with no power to print fiat currency or operate in utter secrecy. The fed violates this precedent. In other words, Hamilton could be used as an argument to audit the Fed and then reduce it's powers.

I don't agree with Hamilton on a lot of things, but to vilify him seems like a bad idea to me.


Your reading assignment is "Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today" (http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution-Americans/dp/0307382842)

[Galileo Galilei]

Simply bashing anyone is a waste of time and will only create confrontation, but yes if we are being honest with ourselves, all of them are more than worthy of constructive criticism. Some more than others.

Constructive critism, yes. But what is constructive? 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.

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.

[heavenlyboy34]

Not really. The new government under Washington accounted for less than 2% of the gross national product. 124 years later in 1912, the federal government still only accounted for 1.75% of the GNP.

You should read the Federalist Papers. Even the anti-Federalists didn't like the AoC. The states were starting to fight over control of western lands, among other things.

But for different reasons. The Anti-Federalists wanted a clear bill of rights to limit the FedGov, but the Federalists wanted to expand the Regime and its power. :p The Federalists succeeded. :mad::p

[Smitty]

Not really.

Yes, really.

The new American government forcibly took revenue from the people and imprisoned those who resisted in 1794.

The percentages aren't important. The precedent is.

[Fozz]

I'm not suggesting that you bash anybody. But one needs to realize that the new American government used its power to extort taxes from the populace a mere decade or so into its existence.

Well, maybe that is because the Articles of Confederation clearly did not work, and many of our founders were concerned that too weak of a government would lead to the kind of chaos that was happening in France (remember this is the 1780s-90s).

[Galileo Galilei]

Your reading assignment is "Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today" (http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution-Americans/dp/0307382842)

I already read it when it came out. It's an excellent book in many ways. It has a lot of facts, some of which I hadn't been aware of. But after reflecting upon it, the book blames Hmailton for many things that other people did much later.

For example, today's Fed prints fiat currency. But Hamilton's bank did not issue fiat currency. So why blame Hamilton for fiat currency in the 20th century? Why not credit Hamilton with following the Constitution as to the part where it prohibits fiat currency?

In 1913, we had a serious blow to our Constitution. The States changed the Constitution of the Founders, and turned it into something else. Then the Federal Reserve Act followed soon afterward.

[Galileo Galilei]

Yes, really.

The new American government forcibly took revenue from the people and imprisoned those who resisted in 1794.

The percentages aren't important. The precedent is.

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.

[heavenlyboy34]

I already read it when it came out. It's an excellent book in many ways. It has a lot of facts, some of which I hadn't been aware of. But after reflecting upon it, the book blames Hmailton for many things that other people did much later.

For example, today's Fed prints fiat currency. But Hamilton's bank did not issue fiat currency. So why blame Hamilton for fiat currency in the 20th century? Why not credit Hamilton with following the Constitution as to the part where it prohibits fiat currency?

In 1913, we had a serious blow to our Constitution. The States changed the Constitution of the Founders, and turned it into something else. Then the Federal Reserve Act followed soon afterward.

The same reason we blame the Bernanke/Greenspan FED for the current disaster-creating the moral hazard to begin with.:mad:

[Galileo Galilei]

The same reason we blame the Bernanke/Greenspan FED for the current disaster-creating the moral hazard to begin with.:mad:

Not even Ron Paul blames Bernake. Ron Paul blames the congress for not doing its job.

[Smitty]

Well, maybe that is because the Articles of Confederation clearly did not work.

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.

[Galileo Galilei]

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.

You should read a book about the Mexican Revolution.

[Smitty]

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.

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.

[robert68]

From The Constitution as Counter-Revolution: A Tribute to the Anti-Federalists (www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-5-4-3.pdf)
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.


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.

[ClayTrainor]

Constructive critism, yes. But what is constructive?

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.

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.

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.

[tjeffersonsghost]

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....

[purplechoe]

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....

very well said, Hamilton was a gangster banker who wanted a central banking system so... yeah, bash the hell out of him!

[Galileo Galilei]

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.

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.

[Galileo Galilei]

From The Constitution as Counter-Revolution: A Tribute to the Anti-Federalists (www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-5-4-3.pdf)
by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel:

This is a lie. James Madison never violated his instructions. Neither did George Washington or governor Edmund Randolph or George Mason.

[JeNNiF00F00]

..

[Galileo Galilei]

very well said, Hamilton was a gangster banker who wanted a central banking system so... yeah, bash the hell out of him!

Hamilton opposed the war on drugs. Nothing degrades our liberty more than the evil Drug War.

[robert68]

This is a lie...

Says only you.

[demolama]

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.

[FrankRep]

Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today (http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution-Americans/dp/0307382842)
- Thomas DiLorenzo

http://www.randomhouse.com/images/dyn/cover/?source=9780307382849&height=300&maxwidth=170

[BuddyRey]

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.

[Galileo Galilei]

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.

How did this work out? Robert Morris went to debtors prison and Hamilton was shot to death.

[demolama]

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.

[Galileo Galilei]

Hamilton was opposed to democracy. So Hamilton's legacy was not followed when the 17th Amendment was ratified.

[demolama]

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)

[Galileo Galilei]

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)

Most wanted SOME democracy, as the House had majority support.

[demolama]

Most wanted SOME democracy, as the House had majority support.

absolutely... they didn't want to destroy all democracy

[Aratus]

if by the grace of their critics both sec. alexander hamilton and potus andrew jackson were thought to have napoleonic ambitions and neither man in his life took french monies, unlike perhaps (monsieur?) veep burr...?

[John Taylor]

How so? What if you are like many who have read the Federalist Papers in law school, but don't know much about American history? Show us where in the Federalist Papers it argues for an elastic interpretation of the general welfare or commerce clause. Show us where the Federalist Papers support the war on drugs or the war on terror? Show us where Hamilton argues for the department of education? Or Obamacare? The NEA? Etc.

Precedent. Read Col. John Taylor's comment on Hamilton's constitutional construction regarding only one issue, the tariff, below in my signature line. Precedents kill written constitutions with a thousand cuts, for no constitutional usurper will ever admit that HIS actions are usurpations, yet at the end of the day, a mountainous amount of precedent allow for the law to be turned on its head.

[Galileo Galilei]

Precedent. Read Col. John Taylor's comment on Hamilton's constitutional construction regarding only one issue, the tariff, below in my signature line. Precedents kill written constitutions with a thousand cuts, for no constitutional usurper will ever admit that HIS actions are usurpations, yet at the end of the day, a mountainous amount of precedent allow for the law to be turned on its head.

Hamilton didn't set any precedents. He was just a cabinet official.

[Aratus]

george washington defined our presidency's customs by his actions...

[FreeTraveler]

Aaron Burr acted 30 years too late.

Hamilton was scum. Digging up his grave to pee on his bones wouldn't be out of line.

Productive or not, some things just need doing.

[TNforPaul45]

Hamilton didn't set any precedents. He was just a cabinet official.

Bull larky.

Hamilton was a member of a large group of people who held loyalist tendencies to the mother country and the monarchy, but had the common sense to keep their mouths shut and follow the flow of the times when the liberty movement started up.

The precedent that Hamilton started was that he was one of the first to start actively injecting central state policies into government structure, and those quiet loyalists in hiding started to slowly come out and follow in line behind him. They thought that they could be clever and just slowly move the country back to a English government, but this time they would be the monarchy, and hold all the power.

This is the precedent that Hamilton started, one that exploded in the civil war when the right of a few to govern all was decided at gunpoint, and continues to explode today as the federal imperial state continues to grow and suck the marrow from our bones.

The Hamiltonian lack of faith in their fellow man is the very spark of logical reasoning that leads a person of that disposition to believe that they must force obedience of others for "their own good." This is the curse, as Dr. DiLorenzo so eloquently put it in his book on Hamilton.

[Aratus]

when potus george washington has thomas jefferson and alexander hamilton debate... did he do this for a reason...?

[Galileo Galilei]

Bull larky.

Hamilton was a member of a large group of people who held loyalist tendencies to the mother country and the monarchy, but had the common sense to keep their mouths shut and follow the flow of the times when the liberty movement started up.



You mean the Federalists and the people from the Hartford Convention who tried to sabotage the War of 1812?

Check.

Or do you mean this?

The REVOLUTIONARY WRITINGS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON
Liberty Fund Books
http://www.amazon.com/REVOLUTIONARY-WRITINGS-ALEXANDER-HAMILTON/dp/0865977062

Hamilton was not a late comer to the Revolution. He was a trusted assistant of George Washington and was already there during the crossing of the Delaware in 1776.

[Travlyr]

Hamilton has been demonized without proper evaluation. All the founding fathers intentions should be analyzed.

Bashing Hamilton without full knowledge of the facts is counter-productive.

[ClayTrainor]

Hamilton has been demonized without proper evaluation. All the founding fathers intentions should be analyzed.

Bashing Hamilton without full knowledge of the facts is counter-productive.

Well said. The same logic should apply for anyone we choose to criticize, really...

[Anti Federalist]

Hamilton opposed the war on drugs. Nothing degrades our liberty more than the evil Drug War.

:confused::confused::confused:

[CCTelander]

Hamilton was a mercantilist scumbag who deserves no respect whatever.

[Misesian]

Yes we should, but libertarians know how to properly "bash" in order to make a point. A local Austro-libertarian elected official makes a joke that Aaron Burr would be the greatest American ever if he had shot Alexander Hamilton 20 years sooner.

I "bash" Lincoln appropriately to Republicans even though that's risky since they worship him, and even though the guy was on our side by opposing the Mexican American war. However there's so many negative grounds that we have to enlighten people about individuals like Hamilton and Lincoln and it's counter-productive to this revolution to pussy foot around it so we don't offend people.

Don't make things personal, don't come off as a pompous-@$$, BUT to ignore how Hamilton was a key figure in likely destroying our Constitutional Republic before the ink is even dry is a huge disservice to liberty. Were it not for Hamilton we might not have even had Lincoln (War of aggression on the south would've have been able to be financed w/out the central bank). Just like I tell Republicans that were it not for Lincoln there likely would've been no FDR (due to secession).

Our end here is LIBERTY, if we must "bash" even Jefferson for unconstitutional land acquisitions and his moments of warmongering then we must too, though keeping things in perspective Jefferson really was a libertarian.

Also, I'm personally not all ecstatic about these people reading the federalist papers, after all those were the papers designed to expand central government. What we need to get these people to understand is, that the ANTI-FEDERALIST papers are the ones they also need to read especially since these were the "limited government" pro-liberty wing of the framers.

[Aratus]

lets do keep in mind good ole george washington could have had a roman sucession
that established a kingship if he defined the succession by his cousins rather than by
an innate jeffersonian meritocracy. not until gen'l andrew jackson do we have direct
elections for our presidents. it also took a while for our senators to be directly elected.
slinging political "mud" in full at treasury sec' hamilton sorta splatters gen'l washington.

[Rancher]

If Hamilton haters will bash him with facts and logical arguments, then do it. But mostly what I see in this thread so far are emotional ad hominem attacks.

[Travlyr]

However there's so many negative grounds that we have to enlighten people about individuals like Hamilton and Lincoln and it's counter-productive to this revolution to pussy foot around it so we don't offend people.

It's not about pussy footing around and offending people, it's about honesty. Hamilton may be accurately portrayed as an elitist, yet as Secretary of the Treasury his coinage of money was consistent with sound money techniques. When and how is Hamilton responsible for the fiat money system?


The Original U.S. Dollar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar

On April 2, 1792, Alexander Hamilton, then the Secretary of the Treasury, made a report to Congress having scientifically determined the amount of silver in the Spanish milled dollar coins that were then in current use by the people. As a result of this report, the Dollar was defined[6] as a unit of measure of 371 4/16th grains (24.057 grams) of pure silver or 416 grains of standard silver (standard silver being defined as 1,485 parts fine silver to 179 parts alloy[7]).

In section 20 of the Act, it is specified that the "money of account" of the United States shall be expressed in those same "dollars" or parts thereof. All of the minor coins were also defined in terms of percentages of the primary coin — the dollar — such that a half dollar contained ½ as much silver as a dollar, quarter dollars contained ¼ as much, and so on.


"to ignore how Hamilton was a key figure in likely destroying our Constitutional Republic before the ink is even dry is a huge disservice to liberty."
In order to believe this statement, then you have to be in the Constitutional Republic is destroyed camp. I disagree. The Constitutional Republic is alive and well, the people are still ignoring their duty to correct the wrongs, but the people still have the final say. That is the definition of a Republic.


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=republic

republic
c.1600, "state in which supreme power rests in the people," from Fr. république, from L. respublica (abl. republica), lit. res publica "public interest, the state," from res "affair, matter, thing" + publica, fem. of publicus "public" (see public).

[Galileo Galilei]

Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today (http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution-Americans/dp/0307382842)
- Thomas DiLorenzo

http://www.randomhouse.com/images/dyn/cover/?source=9780307382849&height=300&maxwidth=170

in other words, Di Lorenzo doesn't have the balls to go at George Washington.

:eek: