Category — Alexander Hamilton

The Enlightenment concepts of first principles and natural rights were important to the Founders. They served as the basis for the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and many other founding documents.

It is a huge assumption that the government will never claim responsibilities only tenuously related to its enumerated powers. The federal government has embraced countless responsibilities never intended by the Framers. In this, those responsible for its extension, have followed Hamilton almost to the letter. In the context of the times, persuading the states to ratify and accord the federal government the authority it needed to pay its debts and keep the states from squabbling was crucial. In the context of our time, his arguments seem dangerously broad.

In Federalist 23, Hamilton turns his focus to the extent of the power to be delegated to the federal government by the new Constitution. He points out that the federal government is the obvious place for “NATIONAL INTERESTS” to be looked after. He argues that the authority wielded by the federal government has to match the responsibility it undertakes and that the Articles of Confederation, provide an excellent example of what happens when they don’t.

In Federalist No. 22, Hamilton continues his arguments about the inadequacies of the government under the Articles of Confederation, explaining its many deficiencies in everything from commerce to a consistent system of laws.

A letter in which Alexander Hamilton recalls some of the events of the Constitutional Convention, and defends himself against charges that he is a monarchist.

In Federalist 21, Hamilton covers three topics. The government under the Articles of Confederation was incapable of enforcing its own laws, neither could it offer any protection to States against usurpation of local power by malignant factions. Finally, advocates of a VAT tax might have a look at this Federalist essay. Hamilton argues that the only way for the Federal government to function is to give it the right to collect taxes directly from the people, largely (but not exclusively) in the form of consumption taxes. It is interesting to note that he does not preclude the collection of property taxes.

Those interested in enlarging their understanding of the Constitution have a unique resource in the Pacificus – Helvidius Debates. Liberty Fund has performed a great service by bringing together, for the first time, all the documents relevant to the Debates in a single, readable volume.

Individual rights were not a significant issue during the Constitutional Convention, but a Bill of Rights certainly became a major issue during ratification. Those who fought for a Bill of Rights weren’t looking for a government guarantee of an itemized list of rights. Even the anti-Federalists believed that rights came from God, not the government. These Constitutional dissenters were demanding that government be restricted from interfering with their rights. In other words, they wanted it made crystal clear where the government dare not tread.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation. In the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention, a lady asked Dr. Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.” Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.”

In Federalist No. 19, Madison and Hamilton provide another history lesson to their readers. While No. 18 focused on ancient Grecian republics, this essay deals with more contemporary examples, namely that of the Germanic states and the Swiss cantons.