Cato II - Hamilton's Arrogance
In Cato II, an Anti-Federalist author points out the arrogance with which Alexander Hamilton dismisses the people's ability to weigh the value of the US Constitution.
Cato II
October 11, 1787
In Cato II, an Anti-Federalist author (probably George Clinton) points out the arrogance with which Alexander Hamilton (under the name Caesar) dismisses the people's ability to reflect on the pros and cons of the US Constitution.
The writer then proceeds to reflect on the actions of the Constitutional Convention Delegates.
Caesar
Just after Cato wrote his first Paper, Alexander Hamilton published a response under the name Caesar.
Hamilton’s tone was aggressive and attacked Cato specifically, essentially calling him a coward. Additionally, he disregards anyone’s just concerns with the Constitution saying, “just take it as it is and be thankful.”
Although Hamilton would write one later Essay under the name Caesar, he quickly learned that his casual dismissal of the public’s real fears was a mistake. He would then team up with John Jay and James Madison for the Federalist Papers where he purposely took a more amenable approach.
Rule of the Arrogant
Cato responds to Hamilton’s aggressive talk by using it as an example of the Federalists attitudes.
He claims that their desires are to, “Let the rich and insolent alone be your rulers.”
Cato further points out that, should the Constitution really be the best Government, the Federalists should not fear a public discourse because it should stand up to criticism.
He additionally finds it suspicious that Caesar thought the people were lucky they had the opportunity to ask General Washington to become President...instead of Washington simply taking it for himself!
Criticizing The Convention
Cato also questions Hamilton’s statement that any criticisms should have been made before the Constitution was completed.
Cato responds with the obvious...the Convention met in secret, how could anyone know what to criticize?
He then reminds the reader that the Delegates were sent with the specific task of improving the Articles of Confederation.
They did not complete this task and instead came back with an entirely different Government. If they did not complete the one task given to them, why would the people take their word that this Government is best?
This series is only part of my regular publications, so…
If you want to keep up with all the Founders, make sure you subscribe to my daily newsletter here:
