Forum Post: Whisps of Aristocracy from the benifactor of a meritocracy

Actually, it is my opinion that the meritocracy existing during the binding of the colonies for war was requisite for the emergence of so many great minds of the cause. The closed doors of an aristocracy and the great societal divides in the rest of world could not have produced the “fertile ground”; a phrase some historians use to describe the time of the founding, which produced the likes of Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and yes, Alexander Hamilton.

The great paradox I see in what was Hamilton’s past and what would become his policies is that his central tenant was greatness was to be found only among the wealthy, not the common. If this were true , then he himself should not have been given the opportunities he had. Further, he, even with contrary events occurring all around him, maintained that among the rich alone one could find freedom from avarice and disinterest in power. Therefore, he felt it was proper to tie the interest of the moneyed class to the fate of the young nation and the government thereof to the benefit of the same. Chernow quotes Hamilton; “That valuable class of citizens forms too important an organ of the general weal not to claim every practicable and reasonable exemption and indulgence.”

Neither the rampant greed that led to the very first bubble and crash in the new United States, a direct result of Hamilton’s plans, nor the skullduggery of his close friend Duer which doomed his plan for the nation’s first major foray into manufacture, would shake Hamilton from his conclusions. The adages that money leads to power, and that power almost invariably leads to corruption seemed to have escaped him. A central tenant to my personal philosophy is that net worth is not equal to self worth, and the relation between the two often grows with inverse proportionality; it seems Hamilton would not agree, at least not in practice.

From what little he said during the Federal Convention of 1787 which produced The Constitution, to his writings and speeches, he felt, it seems clear to me, that an aristocracy, with a prominent slant towards monarchy was the proper form for the federal government. Even in this later stage, in my opinion, you can see the paradox within Hamilton’s mind. When discussing political parties, Hamilton, as well as the others was clear in his disdain. Chernow quotes Hamilton as calling political parties “the most fatal disease”. He also quotes James Kent, one of the first Supreme Court justices, saying “Hamilton said in The Federalist Papers, in his speeches, and a hundred times to me that factions [political parities] would ruin us and our government had not sufficient energy and balance to resist the propensity to them and to control their tyranny and the profligacy.” Hamilton, believed party politics to be “parochial” and the practice of lesser government officials; surely . A testament to the extent of the contradiction, he led The Federalist Party; the precursor to the modern day Republican party.

http://blog.readingthinkingandwriting.com/?p=51