New arrival from @OxUniPress Andrew Porwancher, The Jewish World of Alexander Hamilton.
— John Wilson (@jwilson1812) July 24, 2021
"The nation that dares to privilege its own interest, we are told, is one that is certain to disregard international laws and treaties, renege on its commitments, repudiate the bonds of common humanity, and aggrandize itself at the world’s expense." True? https://t.co/Wjif960TYD
— Modern Age (@ModAgeJournal) December 11, 2020
Another nice review of "Progressivism: The Strange History of a Radical Idea," this time in @ModAgeJournal. We were fortunate to have Dr. Watson as our second guest on the show. Have a listen. https://t.co/P3ctTN4Asz https://t.co/EjVBrBSozP
— Ill Literacy: Books with Benson (@IllBooks) September 16, 2020
Was Alexander Hamilton a Great Man? (essay by William Murchison) https://t.co/egIOgSWnM5
— ImaginativeConservat (@imaginativecons) September 2, 2020
"It might be appropriate to revise the Haivry/Hazony binary thesis just a bit - starting with Thomas Jefferson." https://t.co/iyNWiw7VwA
— The American Conservative (@amconmag) August 31, 2020
Today’s American nationalism is a reappearance of the moderate, liberal nationalism of the American Founders, most famously manifested in the thought of Alexander Hamilton, Carson Holloway and Bradford P. Wilson write. https://t.co/KlwLbr1Had
— Public Discourse (@PublicDiscourse) July 16, 2020
.@drsamuelgregg's response to Carson Holloway and Bradford P. Wilson, who argue that Gregg's analysis goes “astray partly by overlooking some relevant aspects of Hamilton’s thought, and partly by implicitly mischaracterizing today’s American nationalism.” https://t.co/TpcxYuK6mF
— Public Discourse (@PublicDiscourse) July 17, 2020
Was Alexander Hamilton a Great Man? (essay by William Murchison) https://t.co/5WDaowgeQQ
— ImaginativeConservat (@imaginativecons) July 11, 2020
"I share Vermeule’s vision of a conservative future which relies more on the assertive sword of 'Ahmari-ism' " https://t.co/driX9JxMxw— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) May 7, 2020
In general, the pro-centralization party was dismayed at the democratic and egalitarian consequences of the Revolution. Too many plebeians were getting elected to state legislatures. Instead of a decentralized, democratic federation, the centralizers wanted a quasi-aristocratic “empire of liberty,” led by wealthy men of leisure, authorized to build a state that would rival the empires of Europe. The Constitution, in comparison to the Articles, grants the central government extensive powers to impose taxes, micromanage trade, raise an army and a navy, and otherwise undertake the activities expected of a late-18th century nation aspiring to international greatness.
Viewed this way, the Constitution was an attempt by conservatives to create a fiscal-military state. Our civic religion trumpets the Constitution as a triumph of freedom. In reality, as historian Sheldon Richman argues, “it was a counter-revolution, in many ways a reversal of the radical achievement represented by America’s break with the British Empire.”
