Tag Archives: The Federalist Papers

Post-Election Thoughts: The Electoral College

15 Tuesday Nov 2016

Posted by in Constitution, Populism

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

tyranny-of-the-majority-cartoon

Among the targets of disillusioned Hillary Clinton voters is the much-maligned electoral college. The EC is misunderstood by most voters, from what can be judged on social media. Few seem to have any idea why it exists. Donald Trump condemned the EC during the recent campaign, echoing a typically populist attitude, yet it actually worked in his favor. And most are happy to accept the EC’s results when it works in their favor, but otherwise the EC strikes them as nonsensical.

Here’s how it works: a state’s electoral votes are equal to the total number of seats it has in Congress: two senators plus the number of congressional districts in the state. Therefore, a state’s relative influence in the college is larger with fewer congressional districts (which are a function of population and land area). For example, suppose that each congressional district has a population of 1,000,000 (The actual average is closer to 750,000). A state with one congressional district gets three electors for its one million inhabitants. A state with two congressional districts gets four electors, or two votes per million inhabitants. A state with a ten congressional districts gets 12 electors, or 1.2 per million inhabitants. Therefore, voters in small states have more leverage on the outcome of presidential elections than voters in large states. Does that make sense as a mechanism for selecting the nation’s chief executive?

The Constitutional Convention

The purpose of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 was to forge an agreement between the individual states regarding a system of governance. This 1986 article by Shlomo Slomin in The Journal of American History provides an excellent account of the lengthy discussions that took place at the convention over how to select the chief executive. It was perhaps the lengthiest debate at the convention, as documented by Slomin. In the effort to create a durable union, a major concern was that a majority of voters were concentrated in states with interests, both economic and social, that differed from the interests of small states. One fear was that the executive would always be selected from one of the large states.

The first proposals involved selection of the president by legislative bodies (a position which endured until late in the summer):

“Whereas the Virginia Plan provided for a popularly elected legislature with the representation of each state proportional to the size of its population, the New Jersey Plan proposed that the legislature remain …the representative body of the states, with each state entitled to one vote…. In effect, therefore, at the very outset of the convention, the large and small states were at loggerheads over the method of selecting an executive no less than they were over the composition of the legislature.“

Obviously, the New Jersey Plan was much more extreme in its departure from proportional representation than the final, agreed-upon EC. (Note that New Jersey was relatively small at the time.) The problem was finally referred to a committee late in the summer, which presented its plan a few days later. Each state legislature would choose electors, who would in turn elect the president. States would have the option of turning over the choice of electors to their voters. To paraphrase Slomin slightly, it removed the decision from Congress for selection of a president in favor of an independent, ad hoc body. The EC had a single purpose, would not meet at one central location, and would immediately disband, so there was little chance of corruption or “cabal” influences. In terms of votes, it was an exact replica of Congress. Originally, each elector was to vote for two individuals, but could vote for only one from their own state.

“The delegates, it appears, were pleased with the Electoral College scheme, which so successfully blended all the necessary elements to ensure a safe and equitable process for electing a president and which reserved considerable influence for the states.“

The Constitution embodies other provisions that ensured a balance of power, all of which helped to bring disparate interests together into one federalist union. This includes the fact that we have two senators in Congress from each state. Alexander Hamilton wrote favorably of the EC in the Federalist Papers. The method of electing a president was subject to the same balancing of interests.

The founders had other reasons to think the EC was advisable. One was that it was impossible for many citizens, especially those in less populous regions, to truly “know” the presidential candidates. State electors, it was hoped, would relieve the citizenry of an impossible duty to perform a final vetting process. That rationale, however,  might not be very compelling in the era of modern communication and social media.

Another concern that arose was the appeasement of the southern, slave states. The issue of slavery was a lightning rod, but the northern states offered another “sweetener” to the south: the so called “three-fifths rule”, whereby three-fifths of the slave population would be counted in the total for allocating legislative representation. Even with that rather ugly adjustment, the southern states were generally less “populous”, but not as a rule. After all, Virginia was by far the largest state at the time of the convention. Certainly, the EC was an extra inducement to those states to approve the Constitution, but slavery had less to do with it than some have asserted, as the popular vote was never a serious contender for passage at the convention.

Fragile Democracy

It’s long been known that unrestrained democracy and majority rule can have negative consequences, including severe instability, without safeguards. The EC represents one such safeguard, functioning as a protection against a tyranny of the majority. If you’ve ever dealt with so much as a neighborhood association, you know that it’s a real phenomenon. Slomin found little evidence that the tarnished history of absolute majoritarianism was of any influence at the convention, but the founders were aware of it. The fact that legislative solutions to the electoral problem were widely accepted from the start of the convention probably reflected their awareness. Here is John Adams on the subject:

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.“

In any case, the possibility of a union in which large states were dominant was obviously an issue for small states, and delegates from large states recognized the potential imbalance and the threat it presented to the success of the convention.

Today’s Imbalance

Today, only nine states account for over half of the U.S. population. (Fifteen states account for over two-thirds.) Ten states accounted for more than half of the presidential vote count in 2012, which suggests that voter turnout in 2012 was slightly lower, on average, in the most heavily-populated states. Suppose we were to do it all over: if, for example, densely-populated states have interests that do not align with rural states, and if the latter are considered economically or culturally important, then the EC can be viewed as a worthwhile concession to offer in exchange for participation.

The Interstate Compact

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a group of states that will pledge their electors to the winner of the national vote, but only when enough states join to total 270 electors. The compact now has ten member states plus DC, for a total of 165 electoral votes. These states are solidly “blue”, having voted for the Democrat in elections over many cycles. There are two states, with 36 electoral votes, in which legislation to join the compact is pending: Pennsylvania, which was carried by Donald Trump in last week’s election, and Michigan, which appears to have been carried by Trump. Something tells me the compact legislation will be risky for most legislators in those two states, but we’ll see. The voters of any state, under some circumstances, can have more leverage over the outcome of a presidential election when its electors are pledged to the winner of the in-state vote, rather than following the national popular vote. This can occur any time a majority of a state’s voters happen to disagree with a thin national majority.

If states with 270 or more electors vote as a block, it diminishes the importance of each state’s voters, who might well disagree with the national popular vote in the future, if not already. The members of the compact, including California, would have had to vote for George W. Bush in 2004, despite the desires expressed by their citizens at the polls. Hamilton would not have approved of the compact; he wrote that a state’s electors should not be influenced by parties outside the state. Unfortunately, that rule was not clearly set forth in the Constitution.

Accidental Genius

Sean Rosenthal just articulated a powerful defense of the EC appearing at FEE.org. He notes that the founding founders expected a fractured political landscape, with many parties vying for public office. They were wrong in that regard, he believes, because they agreed to two-year terms in the House of Representatives. Rosenthal cites Duvergers’s Law, combined with “first-past-the-post” voting for representatives, for the devolution to a two-party system in the U.S.: voters tend to avoid candidates who might help elect their least-favorite candidate.

Given the existence of a system dominated by two-parties, the EC ensures stability by working against a concentration of power. Rosenthal reminds us that the EC transforms one federal election into 51 local elections. That reduces the chance of tampering by the party in power at the federal level. It also reduces the incentive for electoral fraud at the local level, since a greater margin of victory cannot gain the votes of additional electors. Rosenthal believes that these benefits would be powerful even if the number of each state’s electors was reduced by two, which would then cause the EC to approximate the results of the popular vote. As I noted earlier, the founders seemed to think that the EC would promote stability, and that belief was not conditional on the number of major presidential contenders.

Other Notes On the EC

Another approach to the pledging of electors is used by Maine and Nebraska. They allow congressional districts to use their single vote independently, based upon the popular vote in the district. Certainly this is the most empowering approach for an individual district’s voters. I’m sure many voters in down-state Illinois would love it!

There are plausible criticisms of the EC, such as discouraging voter turnout in non-“swing” states, and of course the disadvantaging of third-party candidates. On the other hand, some have argued that the EC can help the interests of minority voters by encouraging candidates to focus on winning their votes. And relatively small states like Mississippi have a proportionately large minority population, so the EC should help to advance their interests.

Conclusion

The Electoral Collage is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and was a crucial device in achieving an acceptance of the document by all the states. The delegates to the convention might have been able to overcome objections to proportional representation without the EC, but other, less desirable, concessions probably would have been necessary. Our country might look very different today without it. The EC certainly inures to the benefit of voters in smaller states who differ in their views from majority opinions. If we had to hold the convention all over again, some form of the EC would probably be necessary to achieve consensus, and obviously that has nothing to do with slavery. The EC is consistent with the federalist approach to governance, which is instrumental to maintaining the stability of the Republic. And voters can change their minds: even voters in large states might one day find themselves in a national minority. The Electoral College is undoubtedly a better way to protect the interests of those voters in the long-run than the Interstate Compact. It will probably survive the latest challenge, as it has survived many others in the past.

The Progressive Underclass

09 Friday Sep 2016

Posted by in Poverty, Welfare State

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

filling-out-forms

The underclass has not fared well under government policies enacted in explicit efforts to improve its members’ well being. If there is any one point on which I agree with Donald Trump, it is his recent assertion that “progressive” policies have been disastrous for minorities. Indeed, there is evidence that many public programs have been abject failures, even in terms of achieving basic goals. Some programs have managed to improve the immediate lot of the impoverished, but they have done so without freeing the beneficiaries of long-term dependency,  and perhaps have encouraged it. An underlying question is whether there is something endemic to these public initiatives that guarantees failure.

Arguments that public programs have such weaknesses are often based on the negative incentives they create, either for the intended beneficiaries (certain anti-poverty programs) or for employers who might otherwise work with them (absent minimum or “living” wages or regulatory obstacles). Then, of course, there are public services that are effectively monopolized (public schools) because they are “too important” to leave in the hands of private enterprise, with little recognition of the shoddy performance that is typical of institutions operating free of competitive pressure. And government action such as environmental policy often has a regressive impact, costing the poor a far greater share of income than the rich, and causing direct job losses in certain targeted industries.

A post from The Federalist Papers on “The Top 5 Ways Liberal Policies Hurt The Poor” is instructive. In addition to the welfare incentive trap, it highlights the failure of public schools to serve the educational needs of the poor, the minimum wage as a system of marginalization, urban gun control as a sacrifice of defenseless victims, and the extension of rights to illegal immigrants at the expense of U.S. citizens, especially low-skilled workers.

A fine essay by Kurt Williamsen entitled “Do Progressive Policies Hurt Black Americans?” focuses on three general areas of failure: public education, the workplace and welfare. He notes that certain educational innovations have met with success, yet are ridiculed by the progressive left because they promote competition.  He cites the dismal consequences for blacks of various labor and employment laws: “prevailing wage rates, the minimum wage, union bargaining power, occupational and business licensing laws, and affirmative action laws to comply with federal and state contracting requirements“. Even more astonishing is that the original motive for some of these policies, such as minimum wages and prevailing wage laws, was to keep unskilled blacks from competing with white union labor. They still work that way. Williamsen also discusses the fact that the welfare state has essentially left low-income blacks running in place, rather than lifting them out of dependency. Unfortunately, those programs have also inflicted large social costs, such as the disintegration of family in the black community:

“Welfare programs had an insidious effect on black culture — more so than white culture — because of the way they were designed. With dramatically more blacks than whites being in poverty and with less future prospects when the War on Poverty got started, young black women often had children out of wedlock, beginning a cycle of enduring poverty and welfare wherein they relied on welfare as a main source of income, as did their children. Welfare provided more money for young women with fatherless children, on average, than the same young women could have made if they were employed. If a woman became married, she would lose benefits, making it beneficial for her to either just hook up with men or cohabitate, rather than marry.“

Redistributionist policies have long been criticized for creating incentive problems among recipients of aid. Some of those problems have been corrected with the Earned Income Tax Credit, which operates as something of a negative income tax, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which incorporates work requirements. However, as Vanessa Brown Colder at the CATO Institute points out, there is a need for further reforms to the many underperforming programs.

Like any large government program, redistribution also damages incentives for those who must pay the tab, generally those at higher income levels. High taxes ultimately discourage investment in capital and in new businesses that could improve the employment and income prospects of low-income segments. Here is Andrew Lundeen at The Tax Foundation:

“When fewer people are willing to invest, two things happen. First, the capital stock (i.e. the amount of computers, factories, equipment) shrinks over time, which makes workers less productive and decreases future wages.“

Redistributionists do their intended beneficiaries no favor by advocating for steeply progressive tax structures, which simply discourage investment in productive risk capital, impairing growth in labor income. This chart from Dan Mitchell shows a cross-country comparison of capital per worker and labor compensation. Not surprisingly, the relationship is quite strong. The lesson is that we should do everything we can to improve investment incentives. Punitive taxes on those who earn capital income is counterproductive.

Mitchell emphasizes a few other statist obstacles to empowering the disadvantaged here, including a brief discussion of how land-use regulations harm the poor. He quotes Leigh Franke of The Urban Institute:

“Restrictive land-use regulations, including zoning laws, are partially to blame for the stagnant growth… Land-use regulations may be intended to protect the environment or people’s health and safety, and even to enhance the supply of affordable housing, but in excess, they restrict housing supply, drive up home prices, and limit mobility. …More and more zoning restrictions meant less construction, fewer permits, and a restricted housing supply that drove up prices even further. …cities often have stringent zoning laws, a restricted housing supply, and high prices, making it nearly impossible for lower-income residents and newcomers, who would likely benefit most from the opportunities available, to find affordable housing.“

On the topics of local housing, labor laws, services, and regulatory burdens, Scott Beyer covers the maladies of that most progressive of cities, San Francisco. The city’s policies have helped create one of the nation’s most expensive housing markets  and have made the city’s distribution of income highly unequal. It is no coincidence that the politics of most of our declining cities are dominated by the progressive left.

Here is another fascinating example of negative unintended consequences arising from intervention on behalf of a disadvantaged group: so-called “Ban the Box” (BTB) initiatives. These laws prevent employers from inquiring about a job applicant’s  crime record, at least until late in the hiring process. Mitchell recently cited a study finding that BTB laws are associated with a reduction in employment opportunities for minorities. This disparate impact might be the result of more subtle screening by employers, demonstrating a reluctance to interview individuals belonging to groups with high crime rates. Apparently, employers are willing to give minorities a better chance when information on crime history is disclosed up-front.

Deleterious forms of intervention may vary from one disadvantaged group to another. For example, Native Americans have long been handicapped by federal control of their lands and their natural resources. Regulation of activity taking place on reservations is particularly burdensome, including a rule under which title to land must:

“… be passed in equal shares to multiple heirs. After several generations, these lands have become so fractionated that there are often hundreds of owners per parcel. Managing these fractionated lands is nearly impossible, and much of the land remains idle.“

Progressives often vouch for interventionism on the belief that thpse policies are ethically beyond question, such as climate change regulation. Of course, the science of whether anthropomorphic climate change is serious enough to warrant drastic and costly action is far from settled. The existence of high costs is deemed virtually irrelevant by proponents of activist environmental laws. Those costs fall heavily on the poor by raising the cost of energy-intensive necessities and by raising business costs, in turn diminishing employment opportunities. This is more pronounced from a global perspective than it is for the U.S., as emphasized in “Protect the poor – from climate change policies“, at the Watts Up With That? blog.

The world’s poor secure massive benefits from trade, but progressive policies often seek to inhibit trade based on misguided notions of “fairness” to workers in low-wage countries. And trade restrictions tend to benefit relatively high-wage workers by shielding them from competitive pressure. Brian Doherty in Reason talks about the nationalism of the Bernie Sanders brand, and how it undermines the poor. Donald Trump’s trade agenda has roughly the same implications. Protectionism should be rejected by the under-privileged, as it increases the prices they pay and ultimately reduces employment opportunities.

Certainly progressives always hope to assist the disadvantaged, but their policies have created a permanent dependent class. The simple lessons are these: working, producing and hiring must be rewarded at the margin, not penalized; interfering with wages and prices is counterproductive; all forms of regulation are costly; programs must be neutral in their impact on personal decisions; and property rights must be secure. Historically, economic freedom has lifted humanity from the grips of poverty. In virtually every instance, government micro-management has done the opposite. Unfortunately, it is difficult for progressives to overcome their reflexive tendency to “do something” about the poor by invoking the ever-klutzy power of the state.

Hamilton, Jefferson & Miranda’s Propaganda

12 Sunday Jun 2016

Posted by in Constitution, Slavery

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

image

I know too well to take any history I get from the theatre with a grain of salt! Nevertheless, I’d really like to see Hamilton on Broadway. It’s a hugely successful musical by Lin-Manuel Miranda about the life of Alexander Hamilton, one of our nation’s founding fathers, inspired by the book Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow. I’ve heard much of the show’s music, infused with R&B and rap/hip-hop; it’s more appealing to me than I’d ever have expected of rap. The show has been nominated for a record 16 Tony Awards (the ceremony is tonight), and of course it’s a very hot ticket. The last time I checked, the cheapest seats available were about $650 each for the last row in the house, and that was about 45 days out! With a party of four, that’s a cool $2,600 for an evening of theatre. I think we’ll wait for the touring production to roll through the midwest next year.

In Hamilton, all of the founding fathers are cast as people of color, a controversial decision that led to a recent uproar over a casting notice encouraging non-white performers to audition for leads. The casting of the founding fathers is an interesting artistic decision. One writer, Spencer Kornhaber in The Atlantic,  says that the “colorblind” casting:

“… is part of the play’s message that Alexander Hamilton’s journey from destitute immigrant to influential statesman is universal and replicable….“

That’s admirable, as far as it goes. I believe Kornhaber comes closer to Miranda’s  true motivation for the casting decision a paragraph later:

“… movements like Black Lives Matter, and renewed calls for the consideration of reparations, are built on the idea that ‘all’ remains an unfulfilled promise—and that fulfillment can only come by focusing on helping the specific populations that suffer greatest from America’s many inequalities rooted in oppression. … While Hamilton does not explicitly take a side, the simple fact of its casting suggests which way it probably leans.“

In broad strokes, the following is true about the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and arguments over its adoption: Alexander Hamilton favored provisions that tipped power in favor of the central government at the expense of the states, while Thomas Jefferson favored more stringent limits on central powers and strong states’ rights, or federalism as it is commonly known. It’s also true that over the years, Hamilton’s constitutional legacy tended to receive little emphasis in historical narratives relative to Jefferson’s. In the musical, Hamilton is portrayed as a hero to those who would benefit from a powerful and benevolent central government, particularly slaves, while Jefferson is portrayed in less flattering terms. Miranda’s casting implies that the relative emphasis on federal power versus states rights would surely have been reversed had the founding fathers been people of color.

A friend of mine saw the show before it became quite so hot. His kids are “theatre kids”, as mine were up to a certain age. I have great respect for my friend’s intellect and I am sympathetic to his political orientation, which I’d describe as libertarian with strong Randian influences. Here is his brief review of Hamilton:

“I loved Hamilton — it was a great night of theater. I even like the music — which is rap/hip-hop style that I haven’t found enjoyable, at least until now. My biggest concern about the play is its portrayal of Jefferson and Madison, who don’t come off well. Jefferson is a party boy more interested in partying in Paris than in seriously running a new nation. Both are portrayed as instigators in digging up dirt on Hamilton to use against him politically. Yes, they would have benefited from Hamilton’s womanizing scandals, but did they actively seek out that kind of trash? The play says yes…

And of course the play takes the position, I’d argue, that nothing Jefferson writes or says can be taken seriously because he is a slaveholder….the Bank of the U.S. is regarded by the play as a wonderful creation, thanks to Hamilton.“

I’ve read a number of accounts confirming Miranda’s treatment of Jefferson in the show, and the influence it apparently has on viewers without much background in political thought, American history, and the U.S. Constitution. I’ve lost the link, but one writer quoted his teenage daughter as saying “That Jefferson, he’s the WORST!”

There are a number of historical inaccuracies in Miranda’s book of Hamilton. An important fact contradicting the show’s vilification of Jefferson is that he, Madison and Aaron Burr:

“…did not approach Hamilton about his affair [as represented in the show], it was actually James Monroe and Frederick Muhlenberg in 1792. Monroe was a close friend of Jefferson’s and shared the information of Hamilton’s affair with him. In 1796, journalist James Callendar broke the story of Hamilton’s infidelity. Hamilton blamed Monroe, and the altercation nearly ended in a duel. “

In no way did Chernow implicate Jefferson as a participant in blackmail against Hamilton over the affair with an “emotionally unstable” Maria Reynolds. That is entirely Miranda’s invention. His fictionalized Jefferson is a conniving devil, a disgraceful misrepresentation.

Let’s get one other thing out of the way: it is not reasonable to condemn individuals or their actions of 220 years ago outside the context of general attitudes and practices of that period. That’s not to condone those attitudes and practices, however. Last year, I quoted Warren Meyer on this point:

“Meyer mentions the recent incident involving Ben Affleck, who asked the host of a PBS documentary to omit any mention of a slave-owning Affleck ancestor:

‘So an ancestor held opinions about slavery we all would find horrifying today. But given the times, I can bet that pretty much every relative of Affleck’s of that era, slaveholder or no, held opinions (say about women) that we would likely find offensive today.’“

By all accounts, Chernow’s book about Hamilton is an excellent biography, but not without its faults. Charles Kessler states that Chernow relies on other biographies rather than original source material, and that Chernow misrepresents the attitudes of Jefferson and James Madison on commerce; like Hamilton, they viewed it as a “civilizing influence of the highest order“. I’m the first to vouch for the importance of well-functioning capital markets, but apparently Chernow is under the mistaken impression that capitalism itself is intricately tied to powerful banks, particularly central banks like the Federal Reserve! And Chernow exaggerates the difference in the views of Jefferson and Hamilton on the Constitution itself. Here is Kessler:

“A huge gulf remains between Hamilton’s loyalty to what he called a ‘limited Constitution’ and today’s ‘living Constitution,’ which seems capable of justifying virtually any activity that the federal government sees fit to undertake.“

Both Jefferson and Hamilton recognized that abolition would have represented a huge obstacle to forming a new nation. And there was the related problem, recognized by both men, of whether and how to compensate slave owners in the event of abolition. It should go without saying that a failure to reach an agreement between the colonies at the Constitutional Convention would not have led to abolition of slavery by other means. The contrary is implicit in any argument that the constitutional compromise was wholly unjust. It might have been hoped that forming a union would establish a framework within which dialogue on the issue could continue, though ultimately, a fractured union and a war was necessary to finally  emancipate the slaves.

Yes, Jefferson held slaves and had a strong economic interest in keeping them. In his circle of wealthy landowners, slavery was considered a normal part of life. However, Jefferson also publicly advocated various plans to free slaves, one as early as 1779. Here is a clause from Jefferson’s rough draft of the Declaration of Independence, before it was revised by other members of the Committee of Five and by Congress, in reference to “his present majesty”, King George:

“he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of [the] Christian king of Great Britain, determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce ….“

While the clause was explicitly critical of trade in slaves, as distinct from ownership, it reveals the thinking of a man who was very progressive for his time. As for outright abolition, it is easy today to be critical of Jefferson’s proposals, which called for gradualism and, later, even deportation of freed slaves to Santo Domingo. Those proposals were based in part on fear shared by many authorities of an economic crisis and civil disorder if slaves were freed en masse. Jefferson certainly did not view slaves as equals to white men, but that was not unusual in those times; he did call for training them in certain skills as a condition of granting them freedom.

Hamilton’s record on slavery is not quite as heroic as Miranda’s musical would have you believe. He was highly ambitious and something of a social climber, so he was reluctant to air his views publicly regarding abolition. He married into a prominent New York slaveholding family, and there are records of his role in returning slaves captured by the British to their previous owners. From historian Michelle DuRoss (linked above):

“… when the issue of slavery came into conflict with his personal ambitions, his belief in property rights, or his belief of what would promote America’s interests, Hamilton chose those goals over opposing slavery. In the instances where Hamilton supported granting freedom to blacks, his primary motive was based more on practical concerns rather than an ideological view of slavery as immoral.“

Hamilton’s is known to have advocated manumission: freeing slaves who agreed to serve in the fight against the British. That position was a practical matter, as it would help in the war effort, and it might have played on the patriotic instincts of slaveowners who would otherwise insist on compensation. His mentor, George Washington, himself a reluctant slave owner, undoubtedly saw the practical value of manumission.

Hamilton’s real constitutional legacy came in two parts: first was his strong support for the Constitution during the ratification process and his (anonymous) contributions to The Federalist Papers. Later came his relatively broad interpretation of provisions granting certain powers to the federal government: the power to issue currency, the commerce clause and the “necessary and proper clause”. He also proposed a few ideas that were never adopted, such as lifetime terms in office for the president and members of the Senate. He did not propose any constitutional provision for the abolition of slavery or for granting full constitutional rights to slaves.

Hamilton was a major proponent of establishing a so-called national bank, known as the Bank of the United States when it was chartered in 1793. This allowed the new country to issue currency and was used as a way to eliminate war debts that were, by then, greatly diminished in value. Hamilton’s central bank meant great rewards to any investor who held the debt, especially those who had purchased the debt at a steep discount. Unfortunately, this was tantamount to monetizing government debt, or paying off debt by imposing an inflation tax (which reached 72% in the bank’s first five years of operation). The establishment of the bank also removed a major restraint on the growth of the federal government. Moreover, Hamilton was a protectionist, advocating tariffs on foreign goods and subsidies to domestic producers. It is little wonder that some have called him the “father of crony capitalism”.

Jefferson was quite possibly a bon vibrant in the best sense of the term, as opposed to the “party boy” depicted by Miranda. He was a man of great intellect, capable and actively conversant in philosophy, science and the practical arts. He wrote the Declaration of Independence, itself a forceful testimonial to natural rights. His constitutional legacy was powerful if indirect: he was a mentor to James Madison, who wrote the first draft of the Constitution. Jefferson was an advocate of majoritarian rule but also sought to protect individual rights against a tyranny of the majority. To that end, he advocated government limited in function to the protection of rights. In short, he was a classical liberal.

There were certainly contradictions between Jefferson’s philosophy and actions. Slaveholding was one, as already noted, but that was not unusual among southern aristocrats of the time, and Jefferson at least recognized the ethical dilemma and publicly offered policy solutions. But as a slaveholder, he made an odd spokesperson for the interests of the “yeoman farmer”, an agrarian individualist in the popular mind and a myth that persists to this day. Jefferson also advocated protectionist policies, such as an embargo on U.S. exports starting in 1807.

Yes, there were abolitionists at the time of our nation’s founding. Both Hamilton and Jefferson were quite sympathetic to the principle of abolition, but both recognized the practical difficulty of pushing it forward without endangering the founding of the nation, and both had personal and probably selfish reasons to avoid fighting that battle. The musical Hamilton glosses over this reality in the case of Hamilton himself, and at the same time condemns Jefferson. Miranda might just as well condemn Abraham Lincoln for his initial support of the original 13th (Corwin) Amendment in the early 1860s, which was never ratified. Ultimately, in 1865, a different 13th Amendment was ratified, accomplishing what would have been evident from the original text of the Constitution but for the so-called “three-fifths compromise”. That provision essentially counted a slave as 3/5s of a “free person” for purposes of apportioning representation and taxes, an idea originally proposed by Madison and revived by Alexander Hamilton himself!

I will still see the musical Hamilton when I get an opportunity. Lin-Manuel Miranda is a man of great talent, but he has misrepresented crucial facts about the Founders of the nation. Those interested in the truth, including those who teach our children, should not take it seriously as an account of history.