Alexander Hamilton's 250th Birthday
Not only is today the 6th Anniversary of the start of the travesties at Guantanamo, it is the 250th birthday of the person I feel was the greatest and most historically neglected founding father, Alexander Hamilton.
For those who want to read one of the finest treatments ever of Hamilton's life and contributions, read Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton. I'm pleased to remind that the book won the George Washington Book Prize, the largest cash award for a book on America's founding era from the C.V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience at Washington College.
I also recommend my colleague Michael Lind's Hamilton's Republic: Readings in the American Democratic Nationalist Tradition.
One of the filters through which I think about modern politics is the missive: "Washington reigned, Hamilton ruled, and Jefferson complained. . ."
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
The CV Star Center, eh? Well I'd expect the swindler from AIG to give money to the author of a book on Hamilton, who would probably be among the worst of the corporate fat cats were he alive today...
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 11, 2008 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
While the warmest 'founding folk' spot in my heart is not for Hamilton. It gladdens me to reminded about him.
Although I would lived quite happily for the rest of my days without the self focused commercial . . . Did you pay TPM for the ad space? If not . . . Think theft and send TPM a check to redeem yourself.
January 11, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hamilton calls out some strong emotions. I read the biography and feel Hamilton is misrepresented by many.
The man who is supposedly a fat-cat-friend benefitted from affirmative action, when his fellow island citizens ponied up to send him to NY for college. He was never personally rich, as I recall. Touchy about honor because of illegitimate birth.
And if he was such a friend to power, why did he argue for personal arms as a check on federal power, as well as a check on state power?
I admire his writing above most others, espcially in the Federalist Papers.
I think of him as simply modern, knowing that sound finances and good credit are necessary for a state to thrive.
January 11, 2008 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's OK Tom, we can scare the die-hard liberals:
Personally, my preferences are for Madison's authorship in the Federalist Papers though.
January 11, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've often pointed to the writing where Hamilton (I think) argues in favor of federal law being the "supreme law of the land." One argument goes: when the provisions and action s of federal power reach to the individual citizen he will pay more attention to its exercise. I found some resonance with current practices, where there seemed to be a retraction of federal presence, with hoped-for inattention by citizens.
As to Second-Amendment issues, while the Court may or may not decide one way or another, the actual writing is annoyingly imprecise, and it would be nice to replace it. Even if, as the Papers imply, the amendment was in fact talking about individual ownership of military-quality weapons, it could not have meant that framers should house cannon. And wiith other military items, especially explosives in general, being quite important for military force, the amendment seems tp miss the point by now. Arguments around it become nonsensical as a result.
I'm a gun owner but am uncomfortable with extensive private ownership of miltary arms. And that applies in force to private militias. Can we imagine that the Founders would have been content to see mercenary forces on their territory?
January 12, 2008 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You do not need Hamilton for that argument:
It is the 14th Amendment which need be often defended from the so-called "original intent" people, because that is an argument they use to get around its clear textual dictates. The 14th Amendment is lawfully enacted superseding addenda. One cannot just leap willy-nilly over it in their search for original intent. This is a major part of Ron Paul's deceit, which can be transparently seen in his 2007 legislative proposal:
Which seeks to strip away from Federal Courts, their power to adjudicate state legislation which is repugnant to The Constitution for:
This is clearly a cowardly assault upon the 14th Amendment. Cowardly, because it does not explicitly, through the legitimate Amendment process, seek to amend the 14th. It is also direct evidence that Paul's claim to be a libertarian is a farce, because no libertarian would ever attempt to limit the people's access to the Federal Courts, who were seeking redress for harm done to them by a State law which was repugnant to the Constitution.
January 12, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reference Hamilton because the Constitutional clause does not make his particular argument. It does not try to sell itself, while the Papers writers were selling it to New York.
Every time I hear the Reagan formulation, "getting government off the backs of Americans" I think of the result---Americans not noticing the corruption and manipulation occuring while government is absent from their personal lives.
Good to point to 14th amendment. It was particularly infuriating to see it turned inside out in order to protect Bush.
January 12, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a gun owner but am uncomfortable with extensive private ownership of miltary arms. And that applies in force to private militias. Can we imagine that the Founders would have been content to see mercenary forces on their territory?
I don't think that mercenaries like Blackwater are "militias." A private militia is more like people in the "militia movement."
"You say I'm a dreamer. We're two of a kind. Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"
January 12, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Survivalist militias in the mountains might have some true aurtomatic rifles and a couple of single-shot .50 cal heavy guns. Blackwater has rockets and helicopters, as well as automatic rifles. They are military forces, and I don't care what they're called. They make me nervous.
January 12, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I loved Chernow's bio. I don't think it was so negative about Jefferson, nor that we should be. It does argue strongly for a Hamilton I can admire unreservedly, as opposed to one often presented by conservatives, and I'm looking forward to a TV documentary in development with Richard Brookheiser as narrator for the conservative side of the story. It also of course argues for Burr as someone not so much on Jefferson's side in the political and ideological debates then as simply an unprincipled opportunist. I've been meaning to look at the new book on Burr to see if there's another side to that as well.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 11, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Clemons sounds like a damn, dirty Federalist and his insult of Jefferson will not go unanswered. As a Hoosier, let me point out the one accomplishment of Jefferson that overshadows any and every thing accomplished by the Federalists: the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory. The Federalists--whose merchant/shipping New England power base had no room for Western expansion--were more interested in having the Western wilderness revert back to England so that the Democrat-Republicans could not expand their electoral power base. They saw the trans-Appalachian farmers as little more than a base for taxation that could be dragooned into compliance by federal troops. Jefferson couldn't even go to Congress for approval of the acquisition for fear of Federalist resistance.
Also, if you want to read about America's greatest and even-more-overlooked Treasury Secretary, read up on Swiss-born Democrat-Republican Albert Gallatin. His forward-looking sophistication puts that hot-headed Bermudan to shame. He actually had to apply his skills during the crucial period that forged America during the Westward expansion and the War of 1812. I recommend the book by L.B. Kuppenheimer. I also recommend Lind's book. He is America's finest political thinker despite his Hamiltonian leanings. But, he also admires that fine Democrat-Republican (eventual Whig), Henry Clay, so I forgive him.
January 11, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that Indiana was in the Lousiana purchase, of course.
That event turrned out rather well, but was not without controversy. Not least, why would a payment to Napoleon transfer title to land that belonged to Spain (much less the indigenous inhabitants) to the United States. There also was some dispute by the Spaniards as to which lands were even included in the purchase. The Spanish interpretation was an area roughly comprising Louisiana and Arkansas. The US interpretation as we know was somewhat larger. There was a similar issue with the borders of Texas some years later.
Some of the books you mention look interesting. You may also want to look at the The Spanish Frontier in North America by David J. Weber.
January 11, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for clarifying my implication that Indiana was part of the purchase. (We were in the Northwest Territory ceded after the Revolution.) I meant to imply I was speaking from the perspective of someone from beyond the Eastern Seaboard.
You're correct about the controversy as well. It was definitely a case of very aggressive U.S. interpretation of the Spanish territory and Napoleon's desire to deny the British as much of North America as possible. (We wanted Florida in the bargain, too!) I'll check out the book you suggest. Tucker and Hendrickson address this in "Empire of Liberty - The Statecraft of Thomas Jefferson." Flores's "Southern Counterpart to Lewis and Clark: The Freeman and Custis Accounts of the Red River Expedition of 1806" is enjoyable as well--but not so much as Lewis and Clark.
January 11, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
A bit of a gloss. Jefferson's complaints were often in opposition to The Federalists' attempt to empower governmental overreaches into the realm of individual liberty.
It was the Federalists' odious enactments: The Alien and Sedition Acts, which were a significant contributing factor for Jefferson's Presidency, as well as the demise of The Federalist Party.
The Natural Right of Expatriation is one that is completely forgotten in contemporary analysis of immigration. Here's some original intent that predates The Alien and Sedition Acts:
What reminiscing trip back into original intent would be complete without TJ himself?
January 11, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
Has anyone read "The Whiskey Rebellion" by William Hogeland? Apparently Hamilton tried to tempt Washington into sedition, all as part of a scheme to satisfy bondholders. Sounds like a jerk, to me.
.
And what is it with this "Hamilton Project" at the Brookings Institution that Robert Rubin is part of? I thought Brookings was halfway decent. Rubin, on the other hand ...
January 13, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink