Hamilton never argued for a BIG government centralized or no. He did want a government capable of national defense and national development. You can not point to one word of a Hamilton argument for a monarch. Discussions reported second hand, and out of context at the Constitutional Convention don't count. Show me where Hamilton argued for a monarch. Mr. Hamilton’s ‘plan of government’ speaks for itself:
A Federal judiciary, serving for life;
A Federal executive, serving for life;
A Federal senate, serving for life;
And an absolute Federal veto over every State law.
It’s really quite amusing: what could have been Mr. Hamilton’s greatest contribution to the republic, a ‘plan of government,’ is something the ‘Hamilton groupies’ tend to avoid like the plague. Given the nature of his proposal - and its absolute and utter rejection by the constitutional convention - that’s certainly not a big surprise...
Love of fantasies overrides concern with the truth.
That would seem to describe your apparent preference for a central government bureaucracy ‘serving for life’...
Hamilton pushed for a strong government and one of the ways he achieved it was to propose one even stronger than what he knew would be acceptable. Like a negoitiator asking for a pay raise far higher than he knew he could get.
Care to provide a few quotes from Mr. Hamilton that might substantiate your claims? “Discussions reported second hand, and out of context at the Constitutional Convention don't count”...
Government land to citizens and even non citizens was older than the Republican party.
Absolutely correct: in an effort to promote a Federal union, the State of Virginia donated land (that extended as far as the future State of Minnesota) to the common Federal government, on the condition that the land be granted to veterans of the War of Secession from Britain...
;>)
Lifetime appointments are not equivalents to Big government.
Veto of state laws may actually reduce the layers of government but has nothing to do with the size of the fedgov.
So his "plan" of government hardly "speaks for itself."
Other errors in your post include attributing to me a preference for life-time appointments to a "central government bureaucracy" whatever THAT is. And THIS admirer of Hamilton does not try and avoid any statement he ever made however, I do insist on accuracy and context, something that rarely accompanies his critics comments.
Hamilton referenced Madison's observation that man is "a compromising animal" as the determinate of his strategy at the convention and that his goal was to pitch the government as "high" as possible meaning as strong or "energetic" as possible. This is no secret and virtually all students of Hamilton (including his enemies) recognize it as true.
Much of the West east of the Mississippi was land claimed by Virginia and other states did the same. NY was big on land grants to soldiers. However, I was referring more to the land given the settlers of the trans-Mississippi West in the 19th century.
To return to Hamilton's "plan", the constitution of the United States can be said to be as much Hamilton's "plan" for government as much as it was any man's. No man did more to create it and have it ratified than Hamilton. No man did more to make the government it created work than Hamilton. Some nebulous and /or hypothetical "plan" of Hamilton means little when compared to the REAL Hamilton plan which begins " We the People of the United States...."
Now THAT'S a plan.