Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution, Federalist #23
A Publius/Billthedrill Essay | 27 May 2010 | Publius & Billthedrill

Posted on 05/27/2010 8:04:01 AM PDT by Publius

Hamilton Makes Some Lists

In this short paper, Hamilton breaks down the proper arenas for the federal government activities and builds the case for a vigorous government to handle the assigned tasks.

Federalist #23

The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed

To the Preservation of the Union

Alexander Hamilton, 18 December 1787

1 To the People of the State of New York:

***

2 The necessity of a constitution at least equally energetic with the one proposed to the preservation of the Union is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.

***

3 This inquiry will naturally divide itself into three branches:

4 Its distribution and organization will more properly claim our attention under the succeeding head.

***

5 The principal purposes to be answered by union are these:

***

6 The authorities essential to the common defense are these:

7 These powers ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them.

8 The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed.

9 This power ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such circumstances, and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense.

***

10 This is one of those truths which, to a correct and unprejudiced mind, carries its own evidence along with it, and may be obscured, but cannot be made plainer by argument or reasoning.

11 It rests upon axioms as simple as they are universal:

***

12 Whether there ought to be a federal government entrusted with the care of the common defense is a question, in the first instance, open for discussion, but the moment it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow that that government ought to be clothed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust.

13 And unless it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits. unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted as a necessary consequence that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community in any matter essential to its efficacy, that is, in any matter essential to the formation, direction, or support of the national forces.

***

14 Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it, though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise.

15 Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money, to govern the army and navy, to direct their operations.

16 As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the states, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the “common defense and general welfare.”

17 It was presumed that a sense of their true interests and a regard to the dictates of good faith would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.

***

18 The experiment has, however, demonstrated that this expectation was ill founded and illusory, and the observations made under the last head will, I imagine, have sufficed to convince the impartial and discerning that there is an absolute necessity for an entire change in the first principles of the system; that if we are in earnest about giving the Union energy and duration, we must abandon the vain project of legislating upon the states in their collective capacities; we must extend the laws of the federal government to the individual citizens of America; we must discard the fallacious scheme of quotas and requisitions as equally impracticable and unjust.

19 The result from all this is that the Union ought to be invested with full power to levy troops, to build and equip fleets, and to raise the revenues which will be required for the formation and support of an army and navy in the customary and ordinary modes practiced in other governments.

***

20 If the circumstances of our country are such as to demand a compound instead of a simple, a confederate instead of a sole, government, the essential point which will remain to be adjusted will be to discriminate the objects, as far as it can be done, which shall appertain to the different provinces or departments of power, allowing to each the most ample authority for fulfilling the objects committed to its charge.

21 Shall the Union be constituted the guardian of the common safety?

22 Are fleets and armies and revenues necessary to this purpose?

23 The government of the Union must be empowered to pass all laws and to make all regulations which have relation to them.

24 The same must be the case in respect to commerce and to every other matter to which its jurisdiction is permitted to extend.

25 Is the administration of justice between the citizens of the same state the proper department of the local governments?

26 These must possess all the authorities which are connected with this object and with every other that may be allotted to their particular cognizance and direction.

27 Not to confer in each case a degree of power commensurate to the end would be to violate the most obvious rules of prudence and propriety, and improvidently to trust the great interests of the nation to hands which are disabled from managing them with vigor and success.

***

28 Who is likely to make suitable provisions for the public defense, as that body to which the guardianship of the public safety is confided, which as the center of information will best understand the extent and urgency of the dangers that threaten, as the representative of the whole will feel itself most deeply interested in the preservation of every part, which from the responsibility implied in the duty assigned to it will be most sensibly impressed with the necessity of proper exertions, and which by the extension of its authority throughout the states can alone establish uniformity and concert in the plans and measures by which the common safety is to be secured?

29 Is there not a manifest inconsistency in devolving upon the federal government the care of the general defense, and leaving in the state governments the effective powers by which it is to be provided for?

30 Is not a want of cooperation the infallible consequence of such a system?

31 And will not weakness, disorder, an undue distribution of the burdens and calamities of war, an unnecessary and intolerable increase of expense, be its natural and inevitable concomitants?

32 Have we not had unequivocal experience of its effects in the course of the revolution which we have just accomplished?

***

33 Every view we may take of the subject as candid inquirers after truth will serve to convince us that it is both unwise and dangerous to deny the federal government an unconfined authority as to all those objects which are entrusted to its management.

34 It will indeed deserve the most vigilant and careful attention of the people to see that it be modeled in such a manner as to admit of its being safely vested with the requisite powers.

35 If any plan which has been, or may be, offered to our consideration should not upon a dispassionate inspection be found to answer this description, it ought to be rejected.

36 A government, the constitution of which renders it unfit to be trusted with all the powers which a free people ought to delegate to any government, would be an unsafe and improper depositary of the national interests.

37 Wherever these can with propriety be confided, the coincident powers may safely accompany them.

38 This is the true result of all just reasoning upon the subject.

39 And the adversaries of the plan promulgated by the Convention ought to have confined themselves to showing that the internal structure of the proposed government was such as to render it unworthy of the confidence of the people.

40 They ought not to have wandered into inflammatory declamations and unmeaning cavils about the extent of the powers.

41 The powers are not too extensive for the objects of federal administration, or in other words, for the management of our national interests, nor can any satisfactory argument be framed to show that they are chargeable with such an excess.

42 If it be true, as has been insinuated by some of the writers on the other side, that the difficulty arises from the nature of the thing, and that the extent of the country will not permit us to form a government in which such ample powers can safely be reposed, it would prove that we ought to contract our views and resort to the expedient of separate confederacies which will move within more practicable spheres.

43 For the absurdity must continually stare us in the face of confiding to a government the direction of the most essential national interests without daring to trust it to the authorities which are indispensable to their proper and efficient management.

44 Let us not attempt to reconcile contradictions, but firmly embrace a rational alternative.

***

45 I trust, however, that the impracticability of one general system cannot be shown.

46 I am greatly mistaken if any thing of weight has yet been advanced of this tendency, and I flatter myself that the observations which have been made in the course of these papers have served to place the reverse of that position in as clear a light as any matter still in the womb of time and experience can be susceptible of.

47 This, at all events, must be evident, that the very difficulty itself, drawn from the extent of the country, is the strongest argument in favor of an energetic government, for any other can certainly never preserve the Union of so large an empire.

48 If we embrace the tenets of those who oppose the adoption of the proposed Constitution as the standard of our political creed, we cannot fail to verify the gloomy doctrines which predict the impracticability of a national system pervading entire limits of the present Confederacy.

Hamilton’s Critique

One almost wishes for clarity’s sake that Hamilton had chosen to begin his Federalist series with this piece – it is concise, organized and to the point. It is not, unfortunately, quite complete, but it is clear from the text what he next has to develop (4).

The overall topic is an “energetic” government, meaning one invested with powers sufficient to achieve its assigned objectives (3), and a discussion of the perils of a government that is not sufficiently invested with those powers. So what, in brief, are those objectives?

5 The principal purposes to be answered by union are these:

It is the first two of these points that will compose the principal emphasis of this piece. They relate to the employment of power on behalf of existing institutions against threats both external and internal, and Hamilton is making a plea that the power granted be sufficient to the demand, as in his view, it has not been to date.

One sees the employment of the phrase “common defense” in the Preamble to the Constitution, describing one of the root functions of the very government itself. To Hamilton this required the ability to raise armies, build fleets, delineate their behaviors, direct their operations, and provide for their support (6). In Federalist #22, there is the complaint that the existing federation was deficient in all of these particulars, either through difficulties in the funding mechanisms, central command, or the inability to force the states to pay their allotted share.

The question, then, was how much power ought to be granted the new government to effect these ends? And what limits must be placed on it to prevent abuse? Hamilton’s answer shocks the reader even now.

7 These powers ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them.

Without limitation. Even with the qualification that the powers Hamilton is describing are apparently – at least at the moment – restricted to the confines of national defense, this seems a rather sweeping demand. Nor are these the reckless words of a theorist unaccustomed to their application on the field of battle. Hamilton had lived through the prosecution of a war in the presence of crippling limitations on the abilities of the government to support that effort, and he had seen a victory tainted by penury and ingratitude for the soldiers who had delivered it. Hence the uncompromising demand: one central command, not thirteen, one war chest, one set of strategic objectives.

13 And unless it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits. unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted as a necessary consequence that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community in any matter essential to its efficacy, that is, in any matter essential to the formation, direction, or support of the national forces.

But is Hamilton speaking only of time of war? He is not. It is clear from 7 that placing any such stipulation is an impossibility.

7 These powers ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them.

It is essentially a blank check written to the federal government on behalf of the common defense, once it is decided (12) that the common defense is a legitimate concern of the federal government. The problem Hamilton is addressing turns out to be larger than the demonstrable failures (16, 17) of the existing government in that function during the War of Independence. His opponents would be justifiably alarmed that the cure might be worse than the disease. It is, however, the most cogent application of Hamilton's general principle that an effective federal government must be empowered to deal directly with the citizen.

18 ...if we are in earnest about giving the Union energy and duration, we must abandon the vain project of legislating upon the states in their collective capacities; we must extend the laws of the federal government to the individual citizens of America; we must discard the fallacious scheme of quotas and requisitions as equally impracticable and unjust.

In 20 through 28 Hamilton employs the Socratic Method to lead the reader by successive questions to the conclusion that the proper repository of national interests is in fact in the national government, and that at least in the matter of the common defense, the failure to grant sufficient power to the governing body led nearly to its ruination. Suddenly in 33 there is an expansion of this argument into a scope that his opponents would insist had been Hamilton's real aim from the beginning.

33 Every view we may take of the subject as candid inquirers after truth will serve to convince us that it is both unwise and dangerous to deny the federal government an unconfined authority as to all those objects which are entrusted to its management.

Hamilton is no longer speaking strictly of the common defense. The term is quite specific and bears repetition: “ those objects which are entrusted to its management.” Whatever the object is, if the federal government is entrusted to manage it, it is to be given unrestricted authority over it. It is a clear and unequivocal demand for a wholesale transfer of unlimited power to the central authority, and the guardians of the authority of the states, Patrick Henry in particular, would feel themselves fully vindicated to read it.

The attentive reader recalls the opening paragraph where Hamilton delineated other necessary concerns of such a union, specifically with respect to commerce and political intercourse between states, and between them and foreign countries (5). Hamilton considered this a proper placement of national interest, logically enough, because it allowed for one set of policies instead of thirteen, one strong voice with a single message instead of thirteen with conflicting ones. Where else to place mediation between states of any sort but in the national interest? In fact, this is precisely what the proposed Constitution stated in Article I, Section 8:

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes...

But this, coupled with the broad Hamiltonian principle that any object placed under federal authority must be subject to unlimited federal authority, provided not merely an avenue for abuse but a freeway. Who is to state that regulation of commerce within a state is not a necessary adjunct of the power to regulate interstate commerce? Could federal law possibly find its way into the commercial intercourse between common citizens? Could it possibly interfere with a farmer selling wood to his neighbor, his wife’s eggs to the ladies of the town?

It could and it did. But in Hamilton's view it would be impossible, as it clearly oversteps the restrictions in the Commerce Clause above. In any commonsense view, it does. But the granting of unlimited federal authority does not recognize common sense; it is a force that recognizes only other force in its limitation. It was not yet established that such a force might be found through judicial review in the Supreme Court, as it has since Marbury v. Madison (1803), but in fact even this means that the only limitation on federal authority in any matter in which it might claim jurisdiction is the federal government itself in one form or another.

The refusal on Hamilton's part to acknowledge the expansionist tendencies of unchecked authority would be a principal theme of his opponents in the days to come. Those tendencies would lead in time to a slow but steady encroachment on the part of government authority over the ostensibly inviolable rights of its citizens, a struggle that has been a signal characteristic of American government from the very beginning.

Discussion Topics



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Free Republic
KEYWORDS: federalistpapers; freeperbookclub

1 posted on 05/27/2010 8:04:01 AM PDT by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 14themunny; 21stCenturion; 300magnum; A Strict Constructionist; abigail2; AdvisorB; Aggie Mama; ...
Ping! The thread has been posted.

Earlier threads:

FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution
5 Oct 1787, Centinel #1
6 Oct 1787, James Wilson’s Speech at the State House
8 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #1
9 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #2
18 Oct 1787, Brutus #1
22 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #1
27 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #2
27 Oct 1787, Federalist #1
31 Oct 1787, Federalist #2
3 Nov 1787, Federalist #3
5 Nov 1787, John DeWitt #3
7 Nov 1787, Federalist #4
10 Nov 1787, Federalist #5
14 Nov 1787, Federalist #6
15 Nov 1787, Federalist #7
20 Nov 1787, Federalist #8
21 Nov 1787, Federalist #9
23 Nov 1787, Federalist #10
24 Nov 1787, Federalist #11
27 Nov 1787, Federalist #12
27 Nov 1787, Cato #5
28 Nov 1787, Federalist #13
29 Nov 1787, Brutus #4
30 Nov 1787, Federalist #14
1 Dec 1787, Federalist #15
4 Dec 1787, Federalist #16
5 Dec 1787, Federalist #17
7 Dec 1787, Federalist #18
8 Dec 1787, Federalist #19
11 Dec 1787, Federalist #20
12 Dec 1787, Federalist #21
14 Dec 1787, Federalist #22

2 posted on 05/27/2010 8:05:27 AM PDT by Publius (Unless the Constitution is followed, it is simply a piece of paper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius
we must extend the laws of the federal government to the individual citizens of America;

In other words, we must not have a federal system, but a national one.

"It had been insisted upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form of government consolidated the union; .... Those who were called anti-federalists at that time, complained that they were in favor of a federal government, and the others were in favor of a National one; the federalists were for ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others did not until amendments were made [the Bill of Rights].Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and anti-rats."

Elbridge Gerry


3 posted on 05/27/2010 8:13:56 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius
Was Hamilton already thinking outside the bounds of the Constitution, and why?

IMHO Hamilton was already thinking outside bounds of the Constitution before there was one! He and some others never wanted a republic in the first place and never stopped in their efforts to undermine that result.

4 posted on 05/27/2010 8:15:55 AM PDT by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius
How would Hamilton have reacted to Wickard?

He would probably have welcomed it.

5 posted on 05/27/2010 8:19:28 AM PDT by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius
awesomeness Publius. Thank you for all of the links. I have only read the current post half way through. I have not read all the way through the summary and thus believe I don't have much to offer. However it is clear our government and media have far outreached the will of the people of the United States government and at least one of those are enemies of the people of the United States.

Reading through this I realize the only education most schools (from grade to collegiate level) receive these days is about multicultural and Marxist thought--which separate us and tears apart the threads of our country's founding principles. It is all mindless dribble. These papers are thought provoking and red meat for the heart, mind, and soul of the American spirit.

The fruit falls very, very far from the tree of the original destiny of our country and it is time to take it back.

Your contributions help in for and guide in this direction. Thank you.

6 posted on 05/27/2010 8:34:12 AM PDT by GOP Poet (Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
IMHO Hamilton was already thinking outside bounds of the Constitution before there was one! He and some others never wanted a republic in the first place and never stopped in their efforts to undermine that result.

IMO Hamilton understood the Constitution probably better than anyone. He knew it was a Trojan Horse--if you happened to be under the misguided notion that the Constitution contained "few and defined" powers. He knew it would provide the massive centralization of power he favored. He knew it would obliterate the state governments' power (he despised them anyway.) In the first years under the system, he ran circles around Madison and Jefferson. They look like utter fools next to Hamilton. For all the talk of Madison and Jefferson, it's Hamilton who truly left his mark on this nation. Madison and Jefferson are monuments to what never was.

.

7 posted on 05/27/2010 8:35:27 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bigun; Publius
Wickard

Hell, Scalia recently used Wickard in his opinion upholding the war on marijuana, to the delight of the majority of "conservatives." The modern "conservative" movement is for the most part Hamiltonian, which is to say, big government nationalist. They only seem to be for limited government because the opposition is the socialist party.

8 posted on 05/27/2010 8:37:48 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GOP Poet
people of the United States government

Your contributions help in for inform and guide in this direction.

9 posted on 05/27/2010 8:37:49 AM PDT by GOP Poet (Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Huck

When the federal government itself becomes the SOLE judge of the limits of it’s power there are no longer any limits!

If the limits are ever to be restored we the people are going to have to restore them!


10 posted on 05/27/2010 8:43:55 AM PDT by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
When the federal government itself becomes the SOLE judge of the limits of it’s power there are no longer any limits!

True. It's an inherent flaw in the system---unless you're a Hamiltonian. And let's not get into another Article 3 dustup. We've done enough of that.

If the limits are ever to be restored we the people are going to have to restore them!

Impossible. "Restoring the limits" is like a baseball team that's losing 9-0 advocating "restoring the score" to its original limits. The system was set up and operated. 200 years of accrued power and precedent will not be undone without revolution or collapse. And when/if that happens, it would be extreme folly to keep the same bad system that got us here in the first place.

11 posted on 05/27/2010 8:48:17 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Huck
IMO Hamilton understood the Constitution probably better than anyone. He knew it was a Trojan Horse--if you happened to be under the misguided notion that the Constitution contained "few and defined" powers. He knew it would provide the massive centralization of power he favored. He knew it would obliterate the state governments' power (he despised them anyway.) In the first years under the system, he ran circles around Madison and Jefferson. They look like utter fools next to Hamilton. For all the talk of Madison and Jefferson, it's Hamilton who truly left his mark on this nation. Madison and Jefferson are monuments to what never was.

I don't disagree with you at all but that does not change the intent of the founders one whit nor does it change the plain words written in the Constitution. Hamilton, Marshal and their friends accomplished a lot to be sure but they never lived to see their dream to fruition! That only came after Lincoln and his war ripped the country apart and reformed it to their liking. .

12 posted on 05/27/2010 8:51:38 AM PDT by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
I don't disagree with you at all but that does not change the intent of the founders one whit

Sure it does. It's a fallacy to lump the framers all together. And it's impossible to know with certainty what their "intent" was. I actually agree with Scalia on that one---that intent is meaningless. The meaning of the words is what matters.

Hamilton was one of the original framers. Hell, you might say he is THE original framer. He and Madison (who I can only assume was Hamilton's dupe at that point) hatched the whole plan of a consolidated government. They laid the groundwork at Annapolis. They had drafts ready before they even got to Philly. And this was a surprise to the other delegates, who understood their purpose to be improvements to the Articles--not a change in FORM of government.

Washington was with Hamilton all the way. So don't give me this stuff about "intent of the founders." It doesn't wash. Marshall was a delegate and signer of the Constitution as well.

As for Lincoln, I don't blame him. I think he was correct. Lincoln wasn't the problem. The Constitution was the problem. Lincoln was upholding the supreme national government he swore an oath to uphold. Hell, Washington and Hamilton personally marched into Pennsylvania with troops to put down a simple whiskey tax rebellion.

13 posted on 05/27/2010 9:09:20 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Impossible. "Restoring the limits" is like a baseball team that's losing 9-0 advocating "restoring the score" to its original limits. The system was set up and operated. 200 years of accrued power and precedent will not be undone without revolution or collapse. And when/if that happens, it would be extreme folly to keep the same bad system that got us here in the first place.

I'm really sorry you see it that way. I don't! I agree with James Wilson:

"Liberty and security in government depend not on the limits, which the rulers may please to assign to the exercise of their own powers, but on the boundaries, within which their powers are circumscribed by the constitution. With us, the powers of magistrates, call them by whatever name you please, are the grants of the people . . . The supreme power is in them; and in them, even when a constitution is formed, and government is in operation, the supreme power still remains. A portion of their authority they, indeed, delegate; but they delegate that portion in whatever manner, in whatever measure, for whatever time, to whatever persons, and on whatever conditions they choose to fix."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson (Lectures, 1790-1791)

14 posted on 05/27/2010 9:11:22 AM PDT by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
"Liberty and security in government depend not on the limits, which the rulers may please to assign to the exercise of their own powers, but on the boundaries, within which their powers are circumscribed by the constitution.

And when your Constitution is as full of holes as ours, you get what you get.

With us, the powers of magistrates, call them by whatever name you please, are the grants of the people . . . The supreme power is in them; and in them, even when a constitution is formed, and government is in operation, the supreme power still remains. A portion of their authority they, indeed, delegate; but they delegate that portion in whatever manner, in whatever measure, for whatever time, to whatever persons, and on whatever conditions they choose to fix."

And unfortunately, the "people" who created and ratified our constitution gave way too much power to the national government.

15 posted on 05/27/2010 9:15:42 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

It’s impossible for a very practical reason as well-—the “people” of America are stone-cold ignorant.


16 posted on 05/27/2010 9:16:39 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
I'm not sure Hamilton would have welcomed Wickard. What Hamilton wanted was a vigorous Executive running a vigorous federal government that aided the commercial and speculative classes in their all-important goal of making money. If a vigorous federal government could help them make money, fine. However, he would not have wanted a vigorous federal government getting in the way of making money, and he would never have wanted a vigorous federal government nationalizing and running entire industries, especially the banking industry, which was near and dear to his heart.
17 posted on 05/27/2010 9:17:59 AM PDT by Publius (Unless the Constitution is followed, it is simply a piece of paper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Huck
For all the talk of Madison and Jefferson, it's Hamilton who truly left his mark on this nation.

I would recommend Alexander Hamilton: A Biography, by Forrest McDonald. His theme is Hamilton the Lawgiver.

18 posted on 05/27/2010 9:20:09 AM PDT by Publius (Unless the Constitution is followed, it is simply a piece of paper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Perhaps you are right. My personal distaste for Hamilton gets in the way of my objectivity sometimes I’m afraid.


19 posted on 05/27/2010 9:36:20 AM PDT by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Publius

I appreciate the recommendation, plus the States Rights’ book by the same author. I’m taking a little time off in a few weeks. I think I’m gonna try and order these books for beach reading.


20 posted on 05/27/2010 10:02:06 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Publius

A BTT for the afternoon crowd.


21 posted on 05/27/2010 1:37:17 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson