Posted by Matt Hawes on 12/16/08 3:07 PM   [Newer: "The Fed Who Blew the Whistle"] [Older: Ron Paul Interview Tonight]

In today's Mises Daily Article, George F. Smith examines the actions and legacy of Alexander Hamilton, pulling in numerous quotes from Thomas DiLorenzo's new work, Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution - and What It Means for Americans Today.

Review the country's founding, and it isn't immediately obvious where the state's heavy hand first made its mark. Nowhere in the Declaration, for example, do we find a footnote calling for high taxes and a central bank to support our inalienable rights. It's hard to imagine that the patriots who fought at Breed's Hill or Yorktown were inspired by visions of a massive redistribution of their wealth to special interests. But when we consider the Constitution's "general welfare" clause, we start to wonder. Was it colonial shorthand for anything goes, provided sufficient political support?

Thomas Jefferson said no; Congress did not have unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, "but were restrained to those specifically enumerated." His political rival Alexander Hamilton, on the other hand, had two answers. As the author of Federalist #84, in which he referred to constitutions "as limitations of the power of government itself," he might agree with Jefferson, at least publicly. But later, as Treasury secretary under Washington, he dropped the façade of government restraint. As long as any proposed legislation was "in the public good," he considered it lawful under the Constitution....

More than two hundred years after his death, Hamilton would be one of the few Founders (maybe the only one) proud of what the federal government has become. 

The year 1913, specifically, saw the introduction of several laws that would enhance the power of D.C. over the states and further his nationalist vision.

In 1913, government acquired effective control of the country's wealth and strengthened its rule over the states by passing three laws: the income tax, the direct election of senators, and the federal reserve act. The first two arrived as the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments; the "currency bill" was slipped in just before Christmas. All three, per Hamilton's rhetoric, were promoted under cover of "the public interest." All three were cons — abuses of confidence by public officials. All three "delivered a death blow to the old Jeffersonian tradition in American politics," and brought about "the final, decisive victory for the Hamiltonians."

Hamilton's disciples have had their day, leaving our country a mess in the wake of their triumph.  It is now up to those of us who hold the limited government view to restore the Jeffersonian ideal of limited government, a battle we must be every bit as committed to winning as those who labored to institute the nanny state.

Visit mises.org for the rest of the article, and thanks to tleser for sending it along. 

Posted 12/16/08 3:22 PM Tom Leser Melbourne, FL

This is article is an amazing historical account of how a Revolutionary War hero could not resist the power of the "One Ring" even after independence and peace was attained, and is probably the most notorious national figure in all of American history. If a time machine ever gets invented I'm going straight to Aaron Burr 20 years prior. Please pass this one along, it's important that true American history is understood and the causes of our problems can be traced to the root! This one hits them all and could even be a movie script. From Keynes, to Lincoln, to Morgoth himself Alexander Hamilton.

Posted 12/16/08 3:33 PM Caleb Kinley Hot Springs, AR

I know quite a few people who believe Hamilton was a traitor.

Posted 12/16/08 3:36 PM Tom Leser Melbourne, FL

That's good, because he WAS a traitor.

Posted 12/16/08 4:43 PM JohnnyYuma61 Covington, TN

Just an observation, the Constitution (Preamble) clearly states, "provide for common defense" and "PROMOTE the general welfare", not provide. The Smithsonian Institute currently has the dueling pistols that Hamilton and Burr used. Burr challenged Hamilton, so Hamilton chose the weapons, a set of pistols his family had. The Smithsonian magazine revealed that both pistols had hair triggers, something that Burr didn't know. Hamilton's bullet hit a bough above Burr's head, and Burr's bullet fatally wounded Hamilton in the abdomen.

Posted 12/16/08 6:59 PM Andrew Sica Woodbury, CT

Hamilton's Curse is a fantastic book... And Hamilton was a traitor.

Posted 12/16/08 8:35 PM Major C Sharp garden grove, CA

Is a person who believes in strong federalism automatically a traitor? Then, some of the greatest leaders fall under that requirement: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt... just to name a few. Thomas DiLorenzo, himself, is a critic of Abraham Lincoln and supporter of the Confederacy. He clearly supports the enemies of the Union and should he be labeled a "traitor" as well then? Hypocrisy... Hamilton had his own flaws. He favored a far too broad interpretation of the Constitution and was too adherent to British political systems. However, he is part of the reason why the Constitution exists now as he wrote 51 out of 85 essays as part of the Federalist Papers. Might I remind how Thomas Jefferson won his election as well? Hamilton threw his support behind him over Burr. His ideals might be misguided but traitor? I would not jump so quickly to that...

Posted 12/16/08 9:47 PM jakgaph cumberland, RI

For anyone who enjoyed this article, I suggest you go to mises.org and register for their "daily e-mail". This article was sent to me via e-mail, and basically every day I get one of equal quality..."One a day keeps the tyranny at bay" here is a direct link http://www.mises.org/content/elist.asp

Posted 12/17/08 02:40 AM habussey Aliso Viejo, CA

to Major C Sharp, The confederacy's government was much closer to what the founders, more specifically Jefferson, had in mind. It was a weaker central government. and Lincoln and Roosevelt as some of the greatest presidents? maybe if you like aggressive expanses in the role of the government and the power of the presidency. In my book, Abe is probably in the bottom ten

Posted 12/17/08 03:49 AM Tom Leser Melbourne, FL

habussey, I agree. I wonder if Major C even read that article. How about we just praise John McCain and Barrack Obama now! I mean WHAT good have Hamilton and Lincoln done?!?!?! His argument on getting Jefferson elected is like saying "Well if it weren't for his 'cheater' guns than Aaron Burr might have been the one killed!" Jefferson WON because he represented the liberty and freedom. Hamiton did NOT belong in strong federalism either and that's an insult to even suggest, he was a MONARCHIST! I disagree habussy, Lincoln's in the bottom two, if not the worst of all time on what he did with his war on our own nation that had nothing to do with slavery.

Posted 12/17/08 11:54 AM C00kieM0nster Oxnard, CA

Agree with Habussey. Lincoln was racist as all other of his time, wanted a central bank, and killed states rights. His cause was not so noble, merely a power grab.

Posted 12/19/08 01:14 AM woody11973 Lorain, OH

Excuse me, WHERE does the Constitution say that any States are not allowed to leave? The Civil War was about this, not slavery. Slavery needed to end, but not for this. I have not read the bio of Jefferson Davis, I do not know anything more than history class. I have read that he was a US Senator prior to the Civil War. After the war, some in the Senate wanted to put him on trial for treason. He begged, until his death, to be put on trial. The Senate, however, would not. Why? Sounds like he may just have had a very good case & some knew this.

Posted 12/19/08 03:42 AM Mike Roux Rock Hill, SC

I, too, would like to know what part of the Constitution outlaws the formation of a confederacy, because that undermines almost everything I've ever seen, read ,or heard. Just asking.....

Posted 03/11/09 8:51 PM a-v-d-2004 Peggs, OK

Wasn't Hamilton's own view of "promote the general welfare", understood in the sense that the government needs the necessary tools to fulfill it's enumerated duties. His argument, that I recall, was never a broad sweeping clause, but a clause that allowed officials a means by accomplishing an ends. Which was Madison's comments almost exactly. Hamilton's argument for the central bank was how could the government tax and coin money without a bank? From my study of Hamilton, it seems, he is closer to limited government than most think. And has been hijacked by socialists to promote thier views over the years.