Alexander Hamilton, arguably the worst of the founding fathers

September 25th, 2009 3:08 pm  |  by Mike Miller  |  Published in Banking, Big Government, Constitution, Economics, Federal Reserve, History, Liberty, Market Regulation, Money, Politics, Taxes, congress, government spending, law, states rights, thomas dilorenzo  |  1

One book near the top of my must-read list is Thomas DiLorenzo’s Hamilton’s Curse.  Having previously read The Real Lincoln and listened to DiLorenzo speak in person and on talk shows like Baltimore’s Ron Smith Show, I am already a fan.  Today at the Future of Freedom Foundation, George C. Leef references DiLorenzo’s book as he gives his own scathing rundown of how Hamilton and his legacy has greatly ruined this country.  Here’s a small piece:

…Hamilton looks pleasant enough in his portrait on our $10 bill, but he was an arrogant egomaniac.

Hamilton was a determined opponent of Jefferson’s laissez-faire philosophy at every turn. When it came to trade, he demanded high protective tariffs because he thought, in the mercantilistic tradition, that if a nation produced “its own” goods rather than purchasing them from “other countries” it would become stronger. Mercantilism was inseparable from economic nationalism — the foolish and destructive idea that political boundaries have great economic significance. (We still suffer grievously from this idiocy, of course.) Individual American consumers would be harmed by artificially high prices for items they might have bought less expensively from producers in other countries, but Hamilton was not concerned about the problems of individuals. His obsession was with “strengthening” the nation.

In the early years of the United States, Hamilton battled against Jefferson’s reading of the Constitution as placing severe limits on federal authority. To Hamilton and his Federalist allies, the wording of the Constitution, especially the enumerated powers of Congress, meant nothing more than an intellectual game of trying to invent interpretations that gave the government “inherent” powers that it was not specifically given. Contrary to the sensible, restrictive reading of the Constitution defended by Jefferson, Hamilton insisted that the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses were meant to give the federal government almost limitless powers.

Leef then goes on to discuss the traitorous presidencies of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and disasters in the form of the 17th Amendment, the income tax, and the Federal Reserve Act.  I highly recommend reading the entire article.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Responses

  1. Jimmy Jones says:

    September 30th, 2009 at 7:57 pm (#)

    I believe DiLorenzo's wrong here . He takes Hamilton's idealogy entirely out of context. For example, Hamilton certainly did not approve of protectionist policies, in fact encouraged laissez-faire….with Britian, drawing the ire of Jefferson's anti-federalists who wished only trade with revolutionary France, a nation certainly ended up not near as democratic as Britian after the rise of Napoleon. Also, it's ironic that Jefferson fans approve of his reading of the constitution, with a strict interpretation of the document. However, they convientlyforget the fact that Jefferson wished to create a new constitution every 19 years!

Leave a Response

You must be logged in to post a comment.