These arguments really only hold water in the face of ignorance–no one is ever entirely consistent, and if you think so, it is only because you have not yet heard of their inconsistencies.

Good luck trying to find the “universal” Libertarian, or whatever you’re after.

Meanwhile, I’ll attempt questions that have a better chance of being answered, like whether God exists or not.

It’s true that Hamilton argued for a stronger central government at the Convention, but when he didn’t get it, he still argued stridently for ratification anyway. There is just no way that he could have written the Federalist Papers with the Constitution’s author had he favored the monarchical form of government his detractors claim he did.

Hamilton didn’t want a Bill of Rights; he wanted it clear that by addressing only those rights bestowed upon the Federal government, all other rights not mentioned were given to the states themselves, an argument which could have been made by Jefferson himself.

It’s indisputable that Hamilton wanted a stronger central government, but I’ve found no proof that he wanted what we have today: a federal government which uses the commerce clause to essentially steal rights from the states whenever it sees fit. Hamilton was a strong proponent of Madison’s creation, and he made articulate arguments in the Federalist Papers of the virtues of a more balanced system of government.

Damn laptop.

By all accounts, if one had to be a slave in Jefferson’s time, Monticello was the least objectionable place to be one. Jefferson’s alternative was certain re-enslavement of his slaves somewhere that was certain to be worse. Until slavery was abolished, what else was he to do?

But his contributions to public finance (his bond refinancing basically being the only thing keeping the federal government solvent), defense of a central government capable of keeping the US safe in the midst of Democrat-Republican bellicosity, and work with the anti-slavery societies in NYC is too often ignored. Basically, using what popular history knows of him (his infamous duel aside) to judge him is akin to future generations judging Ron Paul by Daily Kos’s screeds about the honorable Dr. Paul in the midst of the silly newsletter kerfuffle.

As to his being a neo-con, it’s worth noting that it was Jefferson’s Democrat-Republicans who were celebrating the bloodbath in revolutionary France and calling for war against England, even though they steadfastly refused to put in place the mechanisms (a strong military and sound public finance) that were necessary to wage war against any European power. They finally got one eight years after Hamilton’s death, and it resulted in our ruthless invasion of another nation, and our tiny capital being burnt to the ground. The same contemporary media that demonized Hamilton likes to call this a “victory”.

But hey, I understand that giving a pragmatist even a modicum of credit would ruin the fun of idolizing an idealist. So carry on.