CLICK IMAGE UPOVE TO ENLARGE

As I have maintained for some time that my assessment, of the overall main cause and attribute for the decline of the virtuous principles of ethical values and morality in America...also the ever increasing vises of greed, Miserness, selfishness, the disregard for the value of human life in comparison to the value of monetary or financial gain, the ever increasing corruption taking root in our government and not to mention the ever growing power and over stepping of the state... and discarding the laws and principles set forth our our Constitution...has been in direct consequence of Capitalism which was injected in to the very fabric of our society over two hundred years ago and has been ever since very stealthily and quietly manifesting it self and has been gradually eating at the very core and foundation of our beloved Republic and our system of government.....The term Capitalism, contrary to what many may believe was not in fact a term first used or referred to by Adam Smith...but rather it is a term which had been first coined by Alexander Hamilton..The terminology which Smith had used to describe his economical system was (‘commercial society’) or ( Commercial state )...which simply put, defines a system of economics which has a very strong government or state presence...I wish at this moment to take the opportunity and stress a very important point if I may.....That in my view and opinion, whenever at any time...the structure of any society is placed primarily on the bases of economy rather then the pillars of virtue, morality, ethical and moral convictions....ultimately such a society will inevitably lead to becoming a society whereby its citizens are reduced to nothing more then slaves, with only the purpose of serving there wealthy masters, the minority elite....Those whom are the holders and directors of the wealth and the economy within any such society....... please refer to the following definition of Commercial state:

''The commercial state concept (and its important variant, commercial society) is sometimes associated with Adam Ferguson's concept of civil society and refers to a government or political state devoted primarily to the promotion and advancement of commercial interests. Ferguson, Adam Smith and other representatives of theScottish Enlightenment (and who referred to themselves as the literati) were more likely to use the term commercial society. The underlying idea of the commercial state can also be linked to the American School of Economics (and in particular to the legacy of the political and economic approach of Alexander Hamilton). In its modern manifestation, national, state and local governments which pursue business and commercial development and other forms of economic and industrial development through tax policies and forms of positive incentives and inducements may properly be termed commercial states. Practical commercial state activities include governmental economic development efforts including encouraging plant re locations, tax rebates, zoning easements and assorted other incentives and concessions. ''

Further more....I think that it is absolutely paramount that I point out that for over two centuries....Adam Smith, has been referred to as the father of the free market or Economical system or ( Laissez-faire ) economy, which is basically a system which is totally and completely void of any and all state or government involvement or interference...at all levels...PERIOD!.....Please refer to the fowling definition of a Laissez-fair econom:

laissez-faire, (French: “allow to do”), policy of minimum governmental interference in the economic affairs of individuals and society. The origin of the term is uncertain, but folklore suggests that it is derived from the answer Jean-Baptiste Colbert, controller general of finance under King Louis XIV of France, received when he asked industrialists what the government could do to help business: ....the reply was... “Leave us alone.” The doctrine of laissez-faire is usually associated with the economists known as Physiocrats, who flourished in France from about 1756 to 1778. Belief in laissez-faire was a popular view during the 19th century; its proponents cited the assumption in classical economics of a natural economic order as support for their faith in unregulated individual activity. The British economist John Stuart Mill was responsible for bringing this philosophy into popular economic usage in his Principles of Political Economy (1848), in which he set forth the arguments for and against government activity in economic affairs.Laissez-faire was a political as well as an economic doctrine. The pervading theory of the 19th century was that the individual, pursuing his own desired ends, would thereby achieve the best results for the society of which he was a part. The function of the state was to maintain order and security and to avoid interference with the initiative of the individual in pursuit of his own desired goals. But laissez-faire advocates nonetheless argued that government had an essential role in enforcing contracts as well as ensuring civil order (ONLY).

As clearly shown in the two examples above neither Hamilton nor Smiths, systems in any way advocate or promote the exclusion of government but rather they substantiated the contrary. In order to best understand the true motives behind Smiths economical theory, it is best to refer to one specific passage in his work '' The Wealth Of Nations '' which points to a list comprised of what Smith identified as 18 appropriate roles of government in the mid-18th century, which clearly reflects upon his advocating of a large centralized government's active roll in the economical affairs of society...a view point which Hamilton, clearly shared with Smith :

Here is a list extracted from Wealth Of Nations:

-the Navigation Acts, blessed by Smith under the assertion that ‘defence, however, is of much more importance than opulence’ (WN464);

-Sterling marks on plate and stamps on linen and woollen cloth (WN138–9);

-enforcement of contracts by a system of justice (WN720);

-wages to be paid in money, not goods;

-regulations of paper money in banking (WN437);

-obligations to build party walls to prevent the spread of fire (WN324);

-rights of farmers to send farm produce to the best market (except ‘only in the most urgent necessity’) (WN539);

-Premiums and other encouragements to advance the linen and woollen industries’ (TMS185);

-Police’, or preservation of the ‘cleanliness of roads, streets, and to prevent the bad effects of corruption and putrifying substances’; ensuring the ‘cheapness or plenty [of provisions]’ (LJ6; 331);

-patrols by town guards and fire fighters to watch for hazardous accidents (LJ331–2);

-erecting and maintaining certain public works and public institutions intended to facilitate commerce (roads, bridges, canals and harbours) (WN723);

-coinage and the mint (WN478; 1724);

-post office (WN724);

-regulation of institutions, such as company structures (joint- stock companies, co-partneries, regulated companies and so on) (WN731–58);

-temporary monopolies, including copyright and patents, of fixed duration (WN754);

-education of youth (‘village schools’, curriculum design and so on) (WN758–89);

-education of people of all ages (tythes or land tax) (WN788);

-encouragement of ‘the frequency and gaiety of publick diversions’(WN796);

-the prevention of ‘leprosy or any other loathsome and offensive disease’ from spreading among the population (WN787–88);

-encouragement of martial exercises (WN786);

registration of mortgages for land, houses and boats over two tons (WN861, 863);

-government restrictions on interest for borrowing (usury laws) to overcome investor ‘stupidity’ (WN356–7);

-laws against banks issuing low-denomination promissory notes (WN324);

-natural liberty may be breached if individuals ‘endanger the security of the whole society’ (WN324);

-limiting ‘free exportation of corn’ only ‘in cases of the most urgent necessity’ (‘dearth’ turning into ‘famine’) and moderate export taxes on wool exports for government revenue (WN879).

So after observing the the content of the list above... it is undoubtedly clear that Adam Smith, was in fact contrary to what many Economists and advocates of the Free market system have assumed for over two centuries was and still is in fact..INCORRECT.... Smith, was in fact not a doctrinaire or advocate of laissez-faire economy..after all . I think that it also important to note that a lot of Smiths work had been in fact influenced by one other economist and political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whom was perhaps also the true father of modern Socialism/Communism:

'' I shall only add, that the dedication to the republic of Geneva, of which Mr. Rousseau has the honour of being a citizen, is an agreeable, animated, and I believe too, a just panegyric; and expresses that ardent and passionate esteem which it becomes a good citizen to entertain for the government of his country and the character of his countrymen. (EPS, 254) ''

[Adam Smith praise of Jean-Jacques Rousseau]

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state"

[Adam Smith, in support of government

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), Geneva’s most famous citoyen, was a philosopher whose work had a definite influence on Adam Smith. Although Smith did translate a section of, as well as recommend, Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality (fascinatingly, Smith’s choses excerpt is one in which Rousseau discusses the drive for recognition) for theEdinburgh Review in 1755/6, he does not cite Rousseau in either The Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS) or The Wealth of Nations (WN). Still, dominant themes from Rousseau resonate in both of these works. In TMS, for instance, the Rousseauian preoccupation with the drive to be recognized and esteemed by others is given sustained attention. And, WN is replete with Rousseauian criticisms of the ways in which many historical institutions of justice have been used as a conceit of the wealthy to preserve inequalities that favor their interests.

Thus is it any surprise when we find that as I have depicted in the image above this page...Both Karl Marx and Fredrick Engles, held both Smith and his works in very high regard..whereby Marx, even copied many of Smiths, works and adapted it for his own?...So, we must ask our selves this question. If Smith was indeed truly an advocate of a free market system, or a economy void of, or at least a economy with a restricted/limited influence of government or state...would Marx and Engles have held his work with such high regard and praise?.

'' Smith is the (Martin) Luther of Political economy''

-Friedrich Engles

Marx's economic and philosophic manuscript of 1884 discloses the crucial importance of Adam Smiths work for his own project. The first important formation of Marx's theory, is found in Paris Notebooks of 1844. In which he divides his manuscript in three columns...1-The wages of Labor..2-The profit of Capital....3-and the rent of land....Thus reproducing Smith's tripartite division of political economy. Hence Smith was a decisive influence on the development of Marx's theory whereby from the beginning to the end of his intellectual labors...Marx's vocabulary, problems and systematic intentions were highly influenced by Smiths work.

-Commentaries about Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the man and his works which had profoundly influenced Adam Smith and his ( The Wealth Of Nations ).

David A. Bell : Why the World’s First Celebrity Intellectual Still Matters",New Republic, June 22nd, 2012. ( The New Republic (TNR) is a liberal American magazine of commentary on politics and the arts)The New Republic (TNR)

'' Rousseau’s major contribution to the foundation of socialist thought is in his rejection of human sinfulness and his commitment to human improvement through institutional change. With this foundational belief, he set the stage for perfectionist political doctrines that moved focus from “the next world” of Christianity by arguing thatthis world can be transformed into “heaven on earth.”

-David A. Bell

Francis Stuart Campbell, pen name of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1943), Menace of the Herd, or, Procrustes at Large, Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, p. 41

'' National Socialism is the fulfillment of Continental "liberalism" which stems largely from Rousseau […] The continental Liberals never were liberals in the English sense [i.e., never were classical liberals ]; their "liberalism" was nothing else but the struggle against the existing order and the old tradition. Foolishly enough the English Liberals supported their continental "coreligionists," never being fully aware of the abyss which actually divided them. ''

-Francis Stuart Campbell- Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

John Taylor Gatto (2009), Weapons of Mass Instruction: A Schoolteacher's Journey Through the Dark World of Compulsory Schooling, p. xxi,/h5>

'' What truly makes the French Revolution the first fascist revolution was its effort to turn politics into a religion. (In this the revolutionaries were inspired by Rousseau, whose concept of the general will divinized the people while rendering the person an afterthought.) ''

-John Taylor Gatto

Jonah Goldberg (2007). Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. NY: Doubleday,/h5>

Robespierre’s ideas were derived from his close study of Rousseau, whose theory of the general will formed the intellectual basis for all modern totalitarianisms. According to Rousseau, individuals who live in accordance with the general will are “free” and “virtuous” while those who defy it are criminals, fools or heretics. Those enemies of the common good must be forced to bend to the general will. He described this state-sanctioned coercion in Orwellian terms as the act of “forcing men to be free.” It was Rousseau who originally sanctified the sovereign will of the masses while dismissing the mechanisms of democracy as corrupting and profane. Such mechanics -- voting in elections, representative bodies, and so forth -- are “hardly ever necessary where the government is well-intentioned,” wrote Rousseau in a revealing turn of phrase.

-Jonah Goldberg

Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae (1990), p. 232.

'' Fascism owed something to the Enlightenment idea that society need not be determined by tradition, but could be organized according to a blueprint derived from universal principles. The Enlightenment thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s notion that society should be governed by one such universal ideal, the ‘general will’, is especially relevant, since it was taken up by the most revolutionary of the French Revolutionaries, the Jacobins. The Jacobins justified violence as a means to construct a new order and weed out those who opposed the general will (or the nation). They were ready to force people to be free. ''

-Camille Paglia

In order for us now to better understand the truth behind Capitalism and its objective. We must now turn our focus on the Father of Capitalist system...Alexander Hamilton. Basically Hamilton was in fact a devout Monarchist, and secretly harbored strong desires to establish a Monarchical style of government in America, after our victory in the war of Independence against Britain. ...however he knew very well that the American, people also not to mention many of the founding fathers would not in any way accept such a monstrosity especially since we had just achieved our independence from Britain...so he went about contriving a secret plan in how to inject a system in to America... which would in time transform our free Republic in to just that...a Monarchical style system with a powerful centralised government....now how did he exactly go about doing that??....he used Adam Smiths economical system as the foundation which to build his scheme on....because he knew he couldn't achieve his objective by political means alone..he had to disguise it...in other words he needed a Trojan horse...and in Smiths Wealth Of Nations, he found it...because Smith very clearly advocated a economical system which required...no...advocated a strong government presence and involvement in a societies economy....and so Hamilton knew that by adapting Capitalism, as the main economical system for America...it would in time give rise to a power and strong government which in time would transform our Republican system in to a Monarchical style of government.....however under the Articles of Confederation which protected the individual rights and freedoms of each state and with a small federal government...such a scheme would have been impossible..because in order for his plan to work...it would require that the Federal government would have equal and undisputed powers and control over all states....so therefore he had to once and for all eliminate the Independence and safety valve of the states which was the Articles...so...it was for this reason that he and his accomplice Madison, sat about drafting our countries current document....which would do just that...it would take away a great portion of the states powers and in time it would replace our countries Republican system of government with a Monarchical like government....and as history has shown..that is exactly what happened. Bellow I have provided a number of historically documented proof and evidence which will clearly point this fact.

Thomas Jefferson, recalling a dinner conversation in 1791: "Mr. John Adams observed,

‘Purge [the British] constitution of its corruption . . . and it would be the most perfect constitution ever devised by the wit of man.' Hamilton paused and said, ‘Purge it of its corruption . . . and it would become an impracticable government. As it stands at present, with all its supposed defects, it is the most perfect government which ever existed.'

The "corruption" that concerned Jefferson was the allegedly excessive influence of the Executive branch over the Legislative—not necessarily anything we would regard as dishonest today. Jefferson was especially concerned about Hamilton's proposals for funding the National debt and establishing a National Bank, both means by which speculators and financiers—and legislators—could become enriched. Jefferson envisioned America as a society based on agriculture, with the small farmer being the quintessential American. He viewed banks and long-term debt as inherently evil, or at least suspect. Hamilton, by contrast, believed that America's future lay with business, and that banks and bond markets are both necessary and beneficial.

In a 1789 letter to James Madison, Jefferson stated his famous dictum "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." He meant that future generations have a right to receive the benefits of the earth without impairment and, consequently, no generation has a right to impair the benefits to be transmitted to the next one. As an application of this dictum, Jefferson concluded that debt, and particularly the National debt, should impose no obligation for more than 19 years. He believed any part of the debt that remained unpaid after that time should be extinguished—so future generations could inherit the Nation's assets debt free. If this theory had prevailed, it would have drastically reduced the market value of Government securities, enabling the Government to pay off the debt without resorting to internal taxes, such as the whisky tax. To Hamilton and his Federalist party, Jefferson's theory was reprehensible and inconsistent with the Constitution's disapproval of laws "impairing the obligation of contracts."

-Jefferson, Hamilton’s economic model was heavily dependent on the British example

“To those steeped in this radical Whig ideology, Hamilton’s system threatened to re-create the kind of government and society that many Americans thought they had destroyed in 1776. Such a hierarchical society, based on patronage connections and artificial privilege and supported by a bloated executive bureaucracy and a standing army, would in time, the destroy the integrity and independence of the republican citizenry. Hamilton’s federal program, including the funding of Revolutionary debt, assuming the state debts, adopting excise taxes, establishing a standing army, and creating a national bank, seemed to be reminiscent of what Sir Robert Walpole and other ministers had done in England earlier in the century. Hamilton appeared to be using his new economic system to create a swelling phalanx of what Jefferson called ‘stock-jobbers and king-jobbers’ in order to corrupt Congress and build up executive power at the expense of the people in the way eighteenth-century British ministers had done.”

Hamilton argued for a large standing army not because he feared an invasion by France or England, but because he understood that the European monarchs had used such armies to intimidate their own citizens when it came to tax collection. Evidence of this is the fact that Hamilton personally led some 15,000 conscripts into Western Pennsylvania (with George Washington) to attempt to quell the famous Whiskey Rebellion. He was eventually put in charge of the entire expedition, and rounded up two dozen tax protesters, every one of whom he wanted to hang. They were all pardoned by George Washington, however, to Hamilton's everlasting regret.

When the duplicitous Hamilton was questioned as to why he helped draft the new Constitution, he guardedly replied:

'' My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast.''

Hamilton

Madison was but one member of the Philadelphia Convention who secretly resented the independence of America. James Madison is considered the "father" of the US Constitution. He was heavily influenced, as were many American politicians, by the philosophy of French aristocrat Baron de Montesquieu, who believed in rule by monarchs. Madison was also influenced by the writings of the British empiricist philosopher John Locke, who was himself "a major investor in the English slave-trade through the Royal Africa Company." Madison was vehemently opposed to state independence and pushed the Constitution to keep power well and truly out of the hands of ordinary Americans. He openly advocated an anti-republican ideology, and explained how the illiterate masses should be divided and controlled:

'' Where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is to enlarge the sphere and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and, in the second place, that, in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it ''

James Madison

DiLorenzo's title, 18th century in its expansiveness, succinctly sums up his main theme. Thomas Jefferson supported the American Revolution in order to promote individual liberty. To secure this end, it was essential that the central government be strictly limited in its powers. America, in the Jeffersonian view, was an alliance of sovereign states, and the adoption of the Constitution, though it increased the power of the national government, did not fundamentally change this arrangement. Alexander Hamilton disagreed. He bemoaned the limited powers given to the central government under the Articles of Confederation and continually agitated for a new scheme of authority. At the Constitutional Convention, it became clear how radical were his plans. He favored a permanent president and senate and wanted the federal government to have the power to appoint state governors. What was behind this radical plan of centralization, fortunately rejected by the majority of the convention? DiLorenzo follows up the brilliant suggestion of Cecilia Kenyon that Hamilton was the "Rousseau of the Right." Rousseau thought that society should be guided by the "general will," but what exactly that concept entailed has perplexed later commentators. It cannot be equated with what the majority of a certain society wishes: it is only when the people's decisions properly reflect the common good, untrammeled by faction, that the general will operates. But if the general will need not result from straightforward voting, how is it to be determined? One answer, for which there is some textual support in Rousseau, is that a wise legislator will guide the people toward what they really want. Those who dissent will "be forced to be free." This was precisely Hamilton's view. Government, directed by the wise such as himself, would guide the people toward what was good for them. Clinton Rossiter, a Cornell political scientist, catalogued how some version of "the general will" appears hundreds of times in Hamilton's speeches, letters, and writings… Hamilton more pointedly than any other political thinker of his time, introduced the concept of the "public good" into American thought. (p. 23, quoting Rossiter)

'' Gallatin Verses Hamilton ''

When Gallatin took a seat in the United States Senate in December1793, his first act was to ask for a comprehensive report on Hamilton’s operations as Secretary of the Treasury. “This made him an overnight wunderkind among the Secretary’s friends and foes alike,” wrote historian C. Daniel Vencill.137 Biographer Henry Adams noted: “The appearance of Mr. Gallatin in the Senate, with already a high reputation as a financier, boded ill for the comfort of the Treasury, and it is difficult to see how a leader of the opposition under the circumstances could possibly have performed his duty without giving trouble. One of Mr. Gallatin’s financial axioms was that the Treasury should be made to account specifically for every appropriation; a rule undoubtedly correct, but very difficult to apply.”138 Gallatin biographer Nicholas Dungan wrote that “on January 8,1794, he introduced a motion in the Senate, in keeping with his views on sound financial management, calling for detailed reports in four broad categories for every year since 1789: (1) outstanding domestic debt divided into six categories, (2) domestic debt that had been redeemed, again under specific categories, (3) foreign debt, similarly broken down into categories, and (4) actual receipts and expenditures for each branch of the government, the comparison of expenditures to appropriations, and a statement of the balances remaining in each Treasury account.” Dungan wrote that Gallatin “supported an appropriations system whereby monies made available to the executive branch by Congress should be designated for a specific purpose and spent only for that purpose, rather than allocated to the head of the department for general use.”139

Treasury Secretary Hamilton was not pleased by these requests. Historian Forrest McDonald wrote: “These resolutions resulted in series of demands for reports on trivial matters, consumed an inordinate amount of Hamilton’s time, hampered the operations of the Treasury, and precluded the systematic investigation that Hamilton desired. In submitting the reports as they were demanded, Hamilton made no effort to conceal his irritation.”140 Gallatin was “the only member of the opposition capable of coping with Hamilton in the field of finance,” noted Claude G. Bowers.141 Hamilton biographer John C. Miller wrote: “By holding the Secretary to strict accountability, Gallatin hoped to correct what he held to be the ‘flagrant vice’ of Hamilton’s administration – ‘the total disregard of laws, and application of public moneys by the Department to objects for which they were not appropriated.’”142 Secretary Hamilton complained to the Senate that Treasury Department work was “interrupted in their due course by unexpected, desultory, and distressing calls for lengthy and complicated statements, sometimes with a view to general information, sometimes for the explanation of points which certain leading facts, witnessed by the provisions of the laws and by information previously communicated, might have explained without these statements, or which were of a nature that did not seem to demand a laborious, critical and suspicious investigation, unless the officer was understood to have forfeited his title to a reasonable and common degree of confidence.”143

Hamilton had other problems more vexatious than Gallatin’s inquiries. Biographer Norman Schachner wrote: “On February 27, 1793, William B. Giles, representative from Virginia and a close friend of Jefferson and Madison, moved a series of resolutions in the House that was the most direct public attack yet made on the integrity of the Secretary of the Treasury and his official acts in office. The resolutions, nine in number, minced no words. They charged Hamilton with specific violation of an Act of Congress, dated August 4, 1790, in applying portions of appropriated funds to purposes not authorized by law. They charged Hamilton with deliberately deviating from the instructions of the President of the United States in transfer of moneys raised by loans in Europe to the United States, and in failing to provide Congress with official information in his acts in connection therewith.”144 Jefferson biographer Christopher Hitchens wrote: “It was believed by the Virginians that Hamilton’s rapid transfers of money and accounts must conceal something disgraceful, but in all cases the Treasury secretary outclassed his critics by furnished true statements in conformity with near impossible deadlines.”145

-The Federalists & what they percived to be ( The best form of Government )

Federalists believed that the country should be ruled by “best people” – educated, wealthy, public-spirited men like themselves. Such people had the time, education, and background to run the country wisely. In the words of a promonent Fedarlist John Jay Bluntly, whom was the president of Congress and Americas first Justice Of The peace:

“Those who own the country ought to govern it.”

-John Jay bluntly

This was precisely Hamilton's view. Government, directed by the wise such as himself, would guide the people toward what was good for them. Clinton Rossiter, a Cornell political scientist, catalogued how some version of "the general will" appears hundreds of times in Hamilton's speeches, letters, and writings… Hamilton more pointedly than any other political thinker of his time, introduced the concept of the "public good" into American thought. (p. 23, quoting Rossiter)[2] Hamilton did not secure what he wanted at the Convention, and in his contributions to the Federalist Papers, he sometimes for purposes of propaganda defended the limited government that he really rejected. But with the onset of the new government in 1789, he by no means abandoned his goal of centralized power. He had been, during the American Revolution, George Washington's military aide; and the new president appointed him secretary of the Treasury. In that capacity, he bombarded Washington with advice on interpreting the Constitution.

The powers of the central government in his view were not confined to those expressly delegated to it — far from it. The national government had also various powers "implied" by its express grants, though the logic of these implications escaped those not enamored of big government. "'Implied powers' are powers that are not actually in the Constitution but that statists like Hamilton wish were there" (p. 26). The government also had "resulting" powers: these were not even present in the Constitution by implication but "resulted" from new situations. If, e.g., the government conquered new territory, it acquired sovereign power over it. "'This would be rather the result from the whole mass of the government … than a consequence of … powers specially enumerated'" (p. 28, quoting Hamilton). As if this were not enough, Hamilton did not scruple to interpret the words of the Constitution against their plain sense. Congress was granted the power to pass laws "necessary and proper" for its enumerated powers. To Hamilton, "necessary" meant "convenient"; what was the small matter of the dictionary to stand in the way of the public interest?

In other words, such powers should be made up, even fabricated, on the whims of politicians posing as guardians of the "public good." He [Hamilton] went on to say that any act of government is to be permitted if it is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution, something he forgot to mention in The Federalist Papers. (p. 61) Thus, in his report to Washington on the constitutionality of a national bank, Hamilton held that, since Congress had the power to coin money, and in his opinion a national bank would be helpful for a monetary system, the bank passed the constitutional test. Jefferson disagreed. Regardless of whether Hamilton was right about the desirability of a bank — and Jefferson of course rejected Hamilton's view of the matter — a bank was not "necessary" and hence had no constitutional warrant. As his opinion on the bank suggests, much of Hamilton's centralizing plans aimed at economic goals. Once more in contrast to Jefferson, he believed that the government should guide the economy. He returned to the mercantilist system famously condemned by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. (Murray Rothbard has noted that Smith failed completely to repudiate mercantilism; nevertheless, he strongly criticized the main planks of that system.)

For Hamilton, economics and politics were inextricably mixed. Here DiLorenzo follows Douglass Adair, perhaps the foremost 20th-century student of the Federalist Papers. By tying members of the business elite of the states to the new central government, in large part through their involvement in government debt, the power of the national government would be secured. "With devious brilliance, Hamilton set out, by a program of class legislation, to unite the propertied interests of the eastern seaboard into a cohesive administration party, while at the same time he attempted to make the executive dominant over the Congress by a lavish use of the spoils system." (pp. 45–46, quoting Adair)

-The economical system favored by Thomas Jefferson, and intended for America, was in effect ( A Treatise on Political Economy) A free market system, not Alexander Hamilton's Capitalism.

Thomas Jefferson had a Laissez-faire economic policy where people followed their own pursuits to produce a living based on their own goals and objectives, America would receive a substantial portion of it's income from agriculture and everyone would make their own possessions. In other words, Jefferson believed America should be totally self-sufficient; Jefferson was highly enthusiastic about the Traité. Even though he himself had done much to prepare the way for war with Great Britain in 1812, Jefferson was disillusioned by the public debt, high taxation, government spending, flood of paper money, and burgeoning of privileged bank monopolies that accompanied the war. He had concluded that his beloved Democratic-Republican Party had actually adopted the economic policies of the despised Hamiltonian federalists, and de Tracy's bitter attack on these policies prodded Jefferson to try to get the Traité translated into English. Jefferson gave the new manuscript to Duane again, but the latter went bankrupt, and Jefferson then revised the faulty English translation Duane had commissioned. Finally, the translation was published as the Treatise on Political Economy, in 1818.[3] Former President John Adams, whose ultra-hard-money and 100 percent-specie-banking views were close to Jefferson's, hailed the de Tracy Treatise as the best book on economics yet published. He particularly lauded de Tracy's chapter on money as advocating "the sentiments that I have entertained all my lifetime." Adams added that:

'' banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation, than they … ever will do good. Our whole banking system, I ever abhorred, I continue to abhor, and shall die abhorring … every bank of discount, every bank by which interest is to be paid or profit of any kind made by the deponent, is downright corruption.''

As early as 1790, Thomas Jefferson had hailed Adam Smith's ( The Wealth of Nations ) as the best book in political economy, along with the work of Turgot. His friend Bishop James Madison (1749–1812), who was president of William & Mary College for 35 years, was the first professor of political economy in the United States. A libertarian who had emphasized early that "we were born free," Bishop Madison had used the Wealth of Nations as his textbook. Now, in his preface to de Tracy's Treatise, Thomas Jefferson expressed the "hearty prayer" that the book would become the basic American text in political economy surpassing Smith's The Wealth Of Nations. For a while William & Mary College adopted de Tracy's Treatise under Jefferson's prodding, but this status did not last long. Soon Say's Treatise surpassed de Tracy in the race for popularity in the United States.

' To better understand and appreciate ( The Tracy Treatise) please refer to the following link for a free PDF copy of Destutt de Tracy A Treatise on Political Economy. Translated by Thomas Jefferson him self.'

The Tracy Treatise