Hamilton got 33 and 52 wrong, I believe, because he was lying. He was making disingenuous arguments to have the constitution passed. First, he attended the constitutional convention where he, in part, argued for the outright dissolution of the states then finally acquiesced to the federal system because, he believed, it properly set up a system where the national government would reign supreme and eventually take over.
He plays an active role in the take over of the national government in at least two areas. First the Whiskey Rebellion,
{/quote}A source of government revenue was needed to pay the bond holders to whom the debt was owed. By December 1791, Hamilton believed that import duties, which were the government’s primary source of revenue, had been raised as high as was feasible.[4] He therefore promoted passage of an excise tax on domestically distilled spirits. This was to be the first tax levied by the national government on a domestic product.[5] Although taxes were politically unpopular, Hamilton believed that the whiskey excise was a luxury tax that would be the least objectionable tax that the government could levy.[6] In this he had the support of some social reformers, who hoped that a “sin tax” would raise public awareness about the harmful effects of alcohol.[7] The whiskey excise became law in March 1791.[8] {/quote}
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=2555190%2C1
Other historical texts make it clear that Hamilton was picking a fight with the Westerners. He himself was a trader from the Caribbean and that the fact he “believed that import duties, …, had been raised as high as was feasible” was from his own self interest. In Hamilton’s mind, the whiskey tax was win-win.
Note that, “The whiskey tax was repealed after Thomas Jefferson’s “Democratic-Republican” Party, which opposed Hamilton’s Federalist Party, came to power in 1800.” But the damage was done, i.e. the Federal Government had established that it could impose laws that violated the spirit of the Constitution where it was written, “all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Second the “First National Bank”,
{quote} Officially proposed by Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, to the first session of the First Congress in 1790, the concept for the Bank had both its support and origin in and among Northern merchants and more than a few New England state governments. It was, however, eyed with great suspicion by the representatives of the Southern States, whose chief industry, agriculture, did not require centrally concentrated banks, and whose feelings of states’ rights and suspicion of Northern motives ran strong.
The bank’s charter expired in 1811 under President James Madison. The bill to recharter failed in the House of Representatives by one vote, 65 to 64, on January 24, 1811.{/quote}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States
The most damaging result for the establishment of the First National Bank was the precedent of opening the “Elastic Clause” of the Constitution with the decision of McCulloch vs. Maryland where it was decided that the national laws could be more than “Absolutely Necessary”. As we’ve found out over the past 200+ years, the set of laws “more than absolutely necessary” includes the set of laws that are almost totally unnecessary to execute the constitutional duties of the national government
Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch over me accusing a founding father of lying, take these three sentences:
13 No doubt from the information of the members of the county.
23 The circumstances that may distinguish its situation in one state from its situation in another must be few, simple and easy to be comprehended.
34 The method of laying and collecting this species of taxes in each state can, in all its parts, be adopted and employed by the federal government.
They are Obamaesque. They imply certainty when they are uncertain or imply uncertainty when they are certain. For instance take:
23 The circumstances that may distinguish its situation in one state from its situation in another must be few, simple and easy to be comprehended.
Who can argue with that? No one wants to. The things I comprehend are few, simple and easy for you to comprehend, right? Well they are to me. {I say with a glint in my eye} You on the other hand, think the things you comprehend are simple to understand, right? Well they aren’t to me. {I say with a smile on my face} Yet each of us hears the words “be few, simple and easy” the same even though we would apply them differently to those other than ourselves.
Now change some of the words:
23 The circumstances that may distinguish its situation in one state from its situation in another must be many, complex and difficult to be comprehended.
Who wants to argue with it? Everyone! It’s muddled, belittles the reason of the listener, makes the world too complex to be dealt with, etc. etc. Time proves them true, however. The situations of taxation ARE many, complex and difficult to comprehended.
I believe Hamilton knew his arguments were disingenuous and was arguing them for the expedient purpose of establish a supreme national government that would work according to his own desires. It’s my guess that Hamilton’s nose was up Washington’s backside and his character was ultimately revealed by how he died. Washington was certainly not the first nor the last leader to confuse loyalty with competence.
Very well said!
I concur on all points!