tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post3008346319176161925..comments2023-11-03T01:07:27.013-07:00Comments on THE rEPUBLICAN OBSERVER: Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-19441926346085183542011-08-09T15:15:20.508-07:002011-08-09T15:15:20.508-07:00That's an excellent question. Hamilton favored...That's an excellent question. Hamilton favored free trade assuming Great Britain would agree, but in lieu of Britain becoming a free trader--something that didn't happen until 1846--Hamilton advocated a limited (both in scope and time) protection of the American market to spark the creation of domestic commerce and manufactures. It's important to remember that the state of economic theory up to 1804--the year Hamilton died--was very primitive. Adam Smith favored free trade for Great Britain, but only in 1776 when Great Britain had already become the world's premier industrial and commericial power. Neither Smith nor Hamilton thought it was necessarily wise policy to not protect the home market to some extent during more primitive periods of development. And, of course, neither were mercantilists--Smith from the standpoint of economic theory, while Hamilton, of course, fought an eight year war against the tyrannical abuses of mercantilist ministers and was not interested in recreating the British navigation acts in the United States.Alexander V. Marriotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-79393313579999028662011-07-23T06:59:27.113-07:002011-07-23T06:59:27.113-07:00Alexander, do you know if Hamilton's favoring ...Alexander, do you know if Hamilton's favoring commerce was from a mercantilist standpoint as opposed to a free-market oneMichaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-65544677561574950542011-07-19T11:06:53.283-07:002011-07-19T11:06:53.283-07:00Yes, the Bank of the United States is certainly a ...Yes, the Bank of the United States is certainly a legitimate area of complaint, but it's important to remember that Hamilton was not very original on this point. The Bank was modeled on the Bank of England--a private/public partnership that could finance the public debt plus have the added benefit of extending a steady supply of credit throughout the country. Jefferson and Madison railed against the Bank when proposed and passed, but when both men came into power, both accepted it as a valuable institution that leant stablility to the government's financing. When the Bank failed to gain recharter in 1811, despite President Madison's backing, the country was left without a valuable means of securing credit internally and externally just as it was about to go to war. After the conflict the much more famous "monster" Second Bank of the United States was chartered. The point here is not that Hamilton was right because he eventually got even many of the Jeffersonians to agree the Bank was a good idea, but that the state of economic thought at the time was progressing towards a more consistently pro-capitalism and expressly laissez faire attitude that in the 1830s and 1840s led to the death of the second bank, protectionism, and most state and federal internal improvement projects.Alexander V. Marriotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-71739256328241292902011-07-18T18:36:44.233-07:002011-07-18T18:36:44.233-07:00Oh ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I think the ot...Oh ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I think the other problem with him is his sponsoring of the Bank of the United States.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-78314058047228685282011-07-18T14:41:00.014-07:002011-07-18T14:41:00.014-07:00Hamilton was not a monarchist. There is no basis i...Hamilton was not a monarchist. There is no basis in the historical records for such a claim. However, such a claim always has and always must rest on Hamilton's speech in the Constitutional Convention where he expressed his deep worries and fears over the ability of a republic of such expansive size to survive--particularly from the corruption of foreign influence. He proposed an elective presidency to serve during good behavior (so, yes, possibly for life, like the modern Supreme Court Justices--though they are not, of course, elected) as a hedge against that and to take away the temptation of the ambitious men who would seek such an office to engage in dangerous behavior to remain in office during the periodic elections. It was rejected by his colleagues and he accepted that, moved on, and fought for the ratification of the Constitution as drafted harder than just about anyone else save James Madison and James Wilson.Alexander V. Marriotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-69598023815196445832011-07-17T22:23:02.578-07:002011-07-17T22:23:02.578-07:00I think the issue is that he was a monarchist and ...I think the issue is that he was a monarchist and said that presidencies should last forever.Michaelnoreply@blogger.com