6 votes

The Constitution that was never meant to be

I have always been very fond of Alexander Hamilton. Every since i started reading history, i had fallen in love with him right away.

His story is really quite fascinating. He was born in the Caribbean. His mother and father had never married because of a previous marriage by the mother. When it was discovered that her previous husband was prepared to divorce her on grounds of adultery, James, Hamilton's father abandoned them.

Alexander was almost entirely self taught. He spent most of his youngest years learning to read from the books in the family library. He was extremely bright, and although couldn't go to school(as he was a bastard child) he learned dedication and perseverance, as he taught himself to read and write. A trait that would be a mark of his character for years to come. His mother died when he was 11. Her belongings ended up being claimed by her previous husband, all except for the books that he grew up on. within a few years he found work as a clerk for a shipping company on the island on which he lived. He was a determined workaholic, with nothing better to do but devout his energy to serving his employer, or enhancing his intellectual capital.

He was so incredibly bright and hard working, that members of the community of the island actually pooled their money to send him off to north america to be educated. He spent the the next years up until the revolutionary war being educated in New Jersey and at Columbia(what was then called Kings)College in New York. Interesting factoid, Hamilton would have much preferred to have attended college in Princeton n.j. There are only a few founding fathers whom it is said without which this nation would have never been born. I would contend that Hamilton was chief among them. If he had gone to Princeton, it is quite possible that his opinions would have been molded to a alternative sentiment than that of the prevailing revolutionary attitudes in Kings.

Alexander was a loyal devotee to the model of government that the British had established. he fiercely believed in individual rights and advocated for the same treatment by the government that was afforded to British citizens. At first Hamilton thought there may be hope politically for addressing the grievances of the colonialists, but soon after things became apparent that war was on the horizon, Hamilton decided to throw his lot in with the revolution. In everything he did, Hamilton displayed almost supernatural athleticism, drive and ability. He was promoted extremely quickly through the officer ranks, led armies to imperative victories, and had a thoroughness and attention that was so highly regarded, that he was soon promoted to the position as Washington's aide de camp.

I could go on about Hamilton's life, or his accomplishments. I think what i mentioned will suffice for now. As you can see he was certainly a remarkable character. What i haven't mentioned until this point is how dedicated to justice and freedom he was. He believed in meritocracy, averse to any and all forms of bigotry, and was one of the few founding fathers who ferociously advocated the abolition of slavery.


So why has Alexander gone down in history as the bane of libertarian existence. It would be easy for the zio-rothschild conspiracy theorists to carelessly dismiss him as the agent of the house of rothschild, whose mission was to create the national bank, and start siphoning off all the wealth of the country into a vault underneath some mansion in Germany. Less likely, but equally absurd would be that Hamilton was of the same crony ilk hat our modern day corporatist power structure is of. The truth is alot less underhanded, and alot more tragic.

As was mentioned before, Hamilton was a devotee of the British system of government. He viewed the success of the British empire as a tribute to efficacy and strength. He would rather the colonies stayed as subjects to the crown if he knew that they would guarantee the colonists the same rights of citizenship. As it stood Hamilton would be content just to recreate the British system in america. This is not a personal attach on his character. Maybe his ignorance, but not his integrity. He was until the day he died dedicated to creating a rival nation that would grow to become superior to the mother country they had all left.

Mercantilism was school of economic thought that was most heavily subscribed to in those times, especially by those who were studying to potentially become bureaucrats or ministers in public life. Hamilton fully subscribed to this economic model, believing that the dominance of Britain in the world economy was a proof of its effectiveness. Hamilton was almost completely ignorant of the classical liberal scholars whose ideas would be a precursor to the austrian school we are all familiar with. What he understood however, with great clarity was that in order to develop the mercantilist economy he believed was necessary to strengthen the nation, enough power had to be centralized in the hands of the bureaucratic elite so that they might manage it.

For those who are not familiar with the term, you might liken it to something akin to fascism. It can be defined as government regulation of industry, commerce, and other economic activity.

This is a description of the original intent of the commerce clause as described by Calvin n Johnson in the William and Mary Bill of Rights journal:

The third power listed in the Constitution’s description of federal powers gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, with indian tribes and among the states. In the original debates over adoption of the Constitution, “regulation of commerce” was used, almost exclusively, as a cover of words for specific mercantilist proposals related to deep-water shipping and foreign trade. The Constitution was written before Adam Smith, laissez faire and free trade came to dominate economic thinking and the Commerce Clause draws its original meaning from the preceding mercantilist tradition. All of the concrete programs intended to be forwarded by giving Congress the power to regulate commerce were restrictions on international trade giving subsidy or protection to favored domestic merchants or punishing imports or foreign producers.

As one sifts through the constitution, one finds that it is riddled with subtle nuances, shrewdly entrenching the mercantilist roots of our economic system into our founding document. Adam Smith and the rest of the classical liberals would come to thoroughly rebuke the ides of mercantilism and protectionism, but unfortunately not until it had infested the minds of politicians, and empowered big finance and industry to take command of the state and the power granted to it by the constitution.

It was not that it was the aim of Hamilton and his allies was to destroy freedom in this country, They were not evil people. They were simply concerned with harnessing the power of the nations industry and direct it in ways that would be beneficial to all of her citizens.

Our Constitution, was written for the very purpose of centralizing this power. it was never written to guarantee the rights of the individual or the states. It was an insidious and deceitful attempt to fool the people in the US to give the power of industry over to the politicians who might recreate the glory of the British empire.

A good place to start learning about the real history of the constitution is in the book: Hologram of liberty, By Kenneth Royce


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Again, the Constitution

Again, the Constitution wasn't America's beginning. It was our end. It guaranteed the massive centralized leviathan we have today. This should be obvious to any person who truly understands liberty and the way the size of gov will always be inversely proportional to the amount of freedom in a society.

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Hamilton was horrible

He thought that presidents and senators should be elected for life, he believed the 'general welfare clause' meant the govt had the authority for redistribution of wealth schemes, he was the star in the first sex-scandal at the top level of govt and the fact that Jefferson couldn't stand him tells me all I really need to know about him.
I think Aaron Burr did the world a favor.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

History in the words of those who made it.


But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.

Many stupid people are out there wondering what meaning there is in text. Who cares?


Hamilton was one of the so called Federalists.

They wanted POWER.

The got it.

The story isn't that difficult to understand.

Criminals want power, but there is this nagging problem with crime.

The victims don't like it.

So the victims figure out ways to defend against it.

So the criminals figured out how to fool the victims into thinking that the criminals are their only, one and only, hope in defense against guess who?



Thanks for post

My understanding of the wretched constitution has been reinforced. It accomplished every objective intended...to our mutual detriment.

It really is a terrible document for preserving individual liberty and a wonderful document for establishing a powerful state.

Not impressed with Hamilton ...

... in the least.

He was in favor of a dictatorship in America. He was in favor of, and worked towards the achievement of, a central bank. He was a nationalist (strong, centralized government) rather than a federalist (weak, decentralized government). Despite this, he called his faction the "Federalists," which means he was dishonest -- a politician, not a statesman. He left the Constitutional Convention in a hissy fit because his ideas were not popular.

Alexander Hamilton led to Henry Clay, who led to Abraham Lincoln, the most despicable president in history.

I couldn't care less about Hamilton's upbringing nor his intellectual brilliance. His ideas were terrible. The only reason he was in favor of the Constitution was because it was a more centralized government than the Articles of Confederation, and he was opposed to the Bill of Rights.

Bad guy. Not good guy.

Your view seems to be fairly heavily biased against him

I am not claiming that Hamilton was a hero for freedom. Just that he was an economically misguided, but good man who had the best intentions at heart.

I am also showing you the legacy he left us in the constitution, which is in its nature a mercantilist document, and that the writers of which knew full well what the outcome would be in its ratification.

The roots of the fascist system we are all subject to now stem directly from the document you revere so much.


It is so ironic and naive

that all of this hating on the Founding generation and the constitution come from people here who should know better. If not for the constitution, all of our libertarian thought would not even be happening. People the world over would still be fighting to get the most basic of freedoms. Without it, this land that we call these United States would either have led in the way that France later went, or divided itself up into warring nations on a European model. This would certainly have left us with a history where nowhere in the world today would we even be having this discussion of losing freedoms that we would (hopefully) be fighting for the first time.

No effin way. Without the sophistry of The Supreme Court

and the indifference of newly enfranchised morons, the Constitution would have constrained the FedGov. Unfortunately, the Constitution is not self enforcing and it cannot protect us from ourselves.

Leges sine moribus vanae

From the back of Hologram of Liberty:

"Civic Belief #1

Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from federal tyranny.

Civic Belief #2

The Federal Government has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict constitutional bounds.

If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen?

As Lysander Spooner described it over a century ago:

"The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it."

Think about that. By either the Constitution's purposeful design, or by its unintentional weakness, we suffer a federal colossus which takes a third of our lives and regulates everything from axles to yarn.

So, why aren't Americans free? Perhaps we weren't really meant to be!

For example, the feds "monitor" themselves through the Supreme Court, like students grading their own tests! Where is any "check and balance" in that? There is no constitutional way to repeal Supreme Court rulings, and this was no accident. The Framers could have (as did the swiss) quite easily confined the Federal Government, but they didn't want to.

The "Founding Lawyers" of 1787 left the federal fleas in control of their own flea powder, and that's why we have an unchallengeable government today. Cleverly designed to be weak, the Constitution is more form than substance, or else Freedom would ring in America. "


The constitution is an inanimate object. It cannot prevent

anything. And with all due respect to Ron Paul, (most) people DO NOT love liberty. They fear it. Liberty will come back into fashion only when the people fear despotism MORE. We ain't there yet.

Leges sine moribus vanae

The only point that i was trying to suggest

Is that the constitution was never meant to prevent anything.


Yes, the Founders

knew that a moral citizenry would be the only kind that can keep and would deserve liberty. Somehow there is a significant group here that seems to believe that realizing the need for one, and trying to regulate one are one and the same. The former leads to trying to live a live as an example, the latter force and violence.


I make the case where there are 8 spheres of governance
[ international / national = federal / state / county / township / estate / domicile = home / self ]
hence the argument between 'Federalists and Nationalists' is partially misleading.

As an additional point and because conscience is our connection to the Divine, self-governance is the closest approximation to natural rights (hence in more agreement with Jeffersonian ideals), while federal scope of power is the 2nd farthest (~Hamiltonian)

More here