Open Left

Umm... (0.00 / 0)

Snark?

He did not support "the monarchy for life", whatever that means. It's one of the smears that his political enemies spread against him, like that he profited off off his government service (no evidence of it), was secretly an agent of the British (no evidence), and, perhaps most absurdly, was Washington's illegitimate son (no evidence).

This is a man who dropped out of college in order to enlist with the continental army, organized his friends into forming what has been the oldest continually commissioned artillery unit in the US military, served honorably and at the front lines in the Revolutionary War, and basically devoted his life to the US, without having profited off of it.

His two HUGE failings were that he had a talent for making enemies, and a lack of talent at politics. Ooh, and he had an affair with a woman who blackmailed him and was insane enough to divulge its most intimate details because he thought that it would exonerate him--it did not, and instead all but ended his political career.

That whole monarchy thing was one of those urban legends like how Washington had wooden teeth (ivory, actually, which, um, kind of makes sense) and Grant kept falling off of his horse because he was drunk. And I'm not sure what you mean by "was a strong proponent of the national - as opposed to the federal". He wrote the FEDERALIST Papers.

Oh, and the clause that you're referring to actually specifically made provisions for people in Hamilton's position, so he could have been president, at least constitutionally:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

And what's up with that last line?

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 00:38:13 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]

shows you how much i know abotu hamilton beyond innuendo :) (0.00 / 0)

i thought he supported washington cnotinuing to run forever, which is where the monarchist thing came from.  In any case, he was a strong propnent of statism (speaking relatively).

that's itneresting about the clause - i hadn't realised or had forgotten that.  will have revisit my history.

The last line was a reference to his writing the Federalist papers :) The whole point of federalism at THAT point was to create a stronger central government from where the articles of confederation had stood, and I think of the three main authors (i can't remember the third - jay?) hamilton leaned furthest towards a strong central government beyond what was eventually agreed to through that hideous series of compromises we call the constitution.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:14:14 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]

But "state" is not the same thing as "nation" (0.00 / 0)

I think that Hamilton saw the "nation" as one, as opposed to the 13 nation view that people like Jefferson held (from whom there is a direct line through Calhoun to the Civil War), united through a central state, but not necessarily dominated let alone oppressed by it, which was Jefferson's fear (not entirely without justification, given that at the time there had never been a non-oppressive central state), because of protections written into the constitution.

He was truly ahead of his time, in so many ways and on so many levels. If anyone actually played successful 11D chess in US history, it was Hamilton. Obama would be lucky to succeed at only 2 or 3 of those levels. He clearly understood that to succeed, grow and prosper, the country would have to have certain legal, financial, economic and administrative structures and processes in place, but was also wise enough to realize that there would have to be various protections and checks and balances in place to guard against tyranny and corruption. Clearly, he was somewhat more successful at the former than the latter, but he probably got it as well as was possible at the time, and created a solid framework for future reform.

And yes, Jay was the third author, but illness prevented him from writing more than a handful of chapters. It was mostly Hamilton and Madison's work.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 16:16:17 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

p.s. (0.00 / 0)

i think you underestimate his political skills :)

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:15:07 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]

I meant on a personal level (0.00 / 0)

Publically, he was quite masterful, although many of his reforms ended up creating him many political enemies since he pushed them through very aggressively, and eventually, he no longer had the political capital to push any more through--especially after Washington, his patron, left office--and basically left government. Perhaps this was the only way to do what he wanted to do, but clearly, his political style was not sustainable in the long run.

He was, really, the exact opposite of today's Dems in terms of political approach. He was the consummate partisan, to the point where he was viscerally hated by his adversaries--a favor which he returned. In a way, he was much more like Bush, in terms of being hyperpartisan, but with brains, logic and even heart. And look as what he had to show for it. So while I agree that he was politically very successful in getting his many reforms through, on a personal level, he ended up destroying himself politically in the process.

We could use a few Hamilton-like Dems these days. I.e. Obama's attack dog in congress, or as cabinet secretary--for progressive reform, of course.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 16:02:51 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]