Posted on 03/04/2010 9:53:45 PM PST by PizzaDriver
Where in the heck to you get that tid-bit of misinformation?
Oh I don't know. How about history?
Hamilton's plan, the so-called "British Plan", explicitly called for the abolition of state sovereignty. Its highlights were:
“There are many people in history that have a background
Some things are out right intolerable or given that time in history it is a given.”
I think what you said is true, but I’m not sure of the point. I, at least, would not take that to mean their actions were justified, just because of the times. Understandable, maybe, but not right is not right.
For example the idea of “revenge” and of “defending one’s honor” by means of duals, lasted well into the late 1800s at least. As far as I’m concerned it was always a stupid idea, no matter how much it was once embraced.
Strangely, some of that stupid view remains in today’s penal law.
Hank
Your link does not support that claim. However, that same website refutes it in another article. See Hamilton and the British Plan.
From the link I sent you.
1. Like the final draft, as found at Article 1, Section 1, Hamilton’s plan included a bicameral legislature. Hamilton envisioned that each house would have an active “negative” on each other, while the system in the final draft is more passive.
2. Similar to the final draft’s Article 1, Section 2, Hamilton’s Assembly was elected by the people, though for three year terms.
3. Hamilton’s Senate was elected for life from districts rather than from the states. The method of indirect election is similar to the Electoral College defined in Article 2, Section 1 of the final draft.
4. Again predicting the Electoral College, Hamilton’s executive, the Governor, was elected for life, by the Senatorial electoral districts. He had a veto, as found at Article 1, Section 7. He also would have been commander-in-chief of the military, would have negotiated treaties, appointed his own cabinet officers, and had the pardon power, powers vested in the President by Article 2, Section 2.
5. Instead of a fixed line of succession, as found at Article 2, Section 1, Hamilton’s Governor would be replaced by a temporary Governor appointed by the Senate until a new Governor was elected.
6. Except for the power to declare war, which was granted to the Congress as a whole in Article 1, Section 8, Hamilton’s Senate had some of the same powers as that of the final draft.
7. Hamilton’s unnamed judicial branch had a dearth of original jurisdiction, but shared the life term of the final draft’s justices as found at Article 3, Section 1.
8. Hamilton’s draft gave his legislature the power to constitute lower courts within the states, just as the final draft does in Article 3, Section 1.
9. Hamilton’s plan includes a lengthy section about impeachment, and includes most of the details found in the final draft at Article 1, Section 2 and Section 3 and Article 2, Section 4.
10. Hamilton’s plan took the supremacy concept a few steps further than the Supremacy Clause, at Article 6, by allowing the national government to veto any state law and by mandating the veto power and appointment method of state governors.
11. Hamilton’s plan again went beyond the final draft by not only mandating that the states not keep armies or navies, as at Article 1, Section 10, but also gave the national government power over the state militias.
Most of the similarities you are citing are in the Virginia Plan, from which the constitution was mostly constructed, and of which Hamilton had a copy when he wrote his British Plan
From the link I sent you.
Soon after his speech, Hamilton left the Convention, only to return later. Outvoted by his fellow New Yorkers at every turn, he grew frustrated. But when he did return, he sat on the influential Committee of Style, which presented the Convention with the Constitution in nearly the form we know today. Aside from his work on this committee, for which Gouvernour Morris's work is more renowned, Hamilton had very little effect [on] the outcome. However, in the struggle for ratification, Hamilton became a champion of the new Constitution, and was one of the main contributors to the Federalist Papers.
Madison's, Virginia plan gave national veto power over any state legislation.
Paterson's New Jersey plan had laws set by congress taking presidence over state laws.
Pickney's plan also gave national veto power over stated legislation.
His 'fellow New Yorkers' were both anti-Federalists appointed by Governor Clinton specifically to frustrate the convention and outvote Hamilton.
The point remains. He had little effect on the outcome.
I'd agree that with the drafting, his impact was marginal, but he did have valuable input and that input did not vary significantly from others as the Lou Rockwell idiots contend.
In terms of ratification of the final document by the States, however, via the Federalist papers, Hamilton's effect was absolutely crucial. Without his efforts then, it likely would not have been successful and we would not have that document today.
I'll agree he was not the 'Indispensable Man' that Washington was, but in terms of the most important Framers, he was certainly among the top few.
Do a little research or reading on ‘The Whiskey Rebellion”. That was a near-civil war pitting Hamilton against the farmers of western Pennsylvania. Hamilton wanted to tax rural folk for using the cheapest and best way to store or market their surplus.
Hamilton was every bit as elitist and as self-serving as Burr.
That is a 10 on any scale!
Now find a way to put Albert Gallatin on the obverse.
i know
I like that. :-)
If not for Hamilton, tyrants would have destroyed all free governments. Jefferson’s vision of agriculture based society was naive. Without industrial might, we would have watched the world be devoured — including the U.S.
If you want to remove a face, make it Grant.
This one definitely paints Hamilton in a bad light.
So which would-be tyrants {other than Burr} did Hamilton Quash?
Just how did Hamilton’s disgust for small distillers{as tax dodgers} defend other nations from Tyrants?
JKW
Hamilton’s economic steering of our nation paved the way to win World War Two and to defeat the Soviet Empire. Without Hamilton’s vision, it would have strictly been Jefferson’s vision of an agricultural society. We could have fed the Brits while they were bombed to the Stone Age.
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.