“Jeffersonian?” Others were not silent on the subject. What was it that Mr. Washington said regarding the “necessary evil?” “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
In contrast to your misrepresentation, Hamilton's constitutional proposal differs from the British system in two important respects. First, it negates the principle of hereditary aristocracy. In Hamilton's system, the Senate, Assembly, and Executive are all elected representatives. Moreover, they serve at the pleasure of the people, represented in assembly -- the power of impeachment and removal was much more active in Hamilton's system than it is in the constitution we ultimately adopted. Second, regardless of the propaganda, Hamilton's system was a national republic, not a union of sovereign states...Hamilton's proposal was never seriously considered at the Convention, but it had much to commend it. It was a work of startling originality and genius, unique among the other proposals, which were largely national outgrowths of existing colonial and individual state structures.
A few pints. First, “in contrast to your misrepresentation,” I have never suggested that Mr. Hamilton’s “system” represented anything but “a national republic” – that was one of its major faults. Second, you suggest that Mr. Hamilton’s plan would have ‘negated the principle of hereditary aristocracy.” With what would he have replaced it? A government which was empowered, like Britain’s, "to pass all laws whatsoever.” “In contrast to your misrepresentation,” such a suggestion was hardly “a work of startling originality and genius,” nor did it have “much to commend it.” The people of the American States can hardly be said to have respected the concept:
“But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one [British] statute it is declared, that parliament can "of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever." What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power?”
Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms, 1775
Nor did those Englishmen who valued liberty think very highly of it:
“That act, it is well known, declares, ‘That this kingdom has power, and of right ought to have power to make laws and statutes to bind the colonies, and the people of America, in all cases whatever.’ Dreadful power indeed! I defy anyone to express slavery in stronger language...”
Richard Price, Observations on the nature of Civil Liberty, 1776
But at the constitutional convention we would have found Mr. Hamilton proposing to place the same type of "enormous," "unlimited," and "dreadful" power in the hands of the new government. But “it negates the principle of hereditary aristocracy,” you tell us. Guess what? So did “the French Revolution.”
You are certainly free to daydream regarding the supposed benefits of Mr. Hamilton’s plan of government. I would suggest that others, however, consider what FDR’s ‘New Deal’ or LBJ’s ‘Great Society’ might have looked like, if our government had been constitutionally empowered "to pass all laws whatsoever”...
As for Lind, I care not a whit for him or his misunderstanding of history -- I was only pointing out that your use of him to characterize Hamiltonianism was dishonest, since Lind clearly does not fully understand what that term entails. But then, I'm not sure that you do either.
The greatest part of Mr. Lind’s book consists of the writings of others: Hamilton, Lincoln, Washington, Marshall, Webster, Jay, Adams, and Wilson, for example. He presents historical documentation that supports his views – a concept you ‘clearly do not fully understand’...
;>)
Clearly. That explains much of the prolixity of your posts.
you suggest that Mr. Hamilton’s plan would have ‘negated the principle of hereditary aristocracy.” With what would he have replaced it?
Elections.
A government which was empowered, like Britain’s, "to pass all laws whatsoever.”
In the British constitutional system limits the powers of Parliament by common law, custom, and 1689 Bill of Rights. They cannot pass whatever they want to. I see your understanding of their system is as thorough and detailed as your understanding of American government.
But at the constitutional convention we would have found Mr. Hamilton proposing to place the same type of "enormous," "unlimited," and "dreadful" power in the hands of the new government.
You haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Hamilton's legislative and executive branch would have functioned as a national republic, in the same manner as the one we ended up with. Those bodies were all elected and answerable to the people. Impeachment was always available as a remedy for those who abused their authority.
But “it negates the principle of hereditary aristocracy,” you tell us. Guess what? So did “the French Revolution.”
That one didn't work out that way -- it gave France the Napoleonic imperial system. But only after hundreds were murdered in the Terror.
I would suggest that others, however, consider what FDR’s ‘New Deal’ or LBJ’s ‘Great Society’ might have looked like, if our government had been constitutionally empowered "to pass all laws whatsoever”...
More irrelevancy. You've mastered this art form.
The greatest part of Mr. Lind’s book consists of the writings of others: Hamilton, Lincoln, Washington, Marshall, Webster, Jay, Adams, and Wilson, for example. He presents historical documentation that supports his views – a concept you ‘clearly do not fully understand’...
He does not do this -- Lind's book is a series of essays, selected by him, that he supposes illustrates Hamiltonian nationalism. Lind included FDR and LBJ because of their fondness for activist federal government, but Hamilton neither supported a federal welfare state nor the socialist dictum of equality of results. And if you knew anything about Hamilton at all, you would know this.