The bit there, Hamilton is saying "If someone in Delaware passes a law saying contracts involving element X is legal, but in New York they say element X is illegal, there will be problems." Or worse, if Delaware is doing well because they've outlawed X, then New York might pass a law allowing X so as to undercut Delaware and steal their business. Not that this hasn't already happened. Or start passing laws that specifically say "People in Delaware have to pay extra tax on anything they import or export from New York. Maine folks, you're all right."
Yeah. Would have been easier if Hamilton had just said, "Look. If people are in their little fiefdoms, they'll squabble with each other and pass laws actively trying to hurt each other. With a strong Union, we can focus on screwing all the other people instead of ourselves."
To expand and clarify, the concern was primarily over cross border ownership rights and contracts. Not intra-state legalities, but inter-state issues. For example, I own say a slave in Ohio, but Michigan outlaws slave ownership then when my slave escapes and crosses the border, I no longer have legal claim to my property. This was a hot button issue even back then. Remember, Vermont had abolished slavery a decade earlier.
Additionally, he was attempting to address retaliatory legislation, i.e. Ohio outraged that all the slaves were escaping into Michigan enacts a law allowing the pursuit of escaped slaves into Michigan and absolving any illegal activities that take place during the chase. This infringes on Michigan's sovereignty and so Michigan responds by passing a law that legalizes the shooting of Ohioans in pursuit of slaves and pretty soon everyone is shooting at each other.
The soon to be ratified constitution covers this topic under the Fifth Amendment specifically and generally by regulating inter-state trade.
re: ThoughtsheathstompaOctober 20 2009, 02:42:12 UTC
I am suprised you didn't call out this one... "For it is an observation, as true as it is trite, that there is nothing men differ so readily about as the payment of money."
Comments 6
At least, that's my reading of it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Additionally, he was attempting to address retaliatory legislation, i.e. Ohio outraged that all the slaves were escaping into Michigan enacts a law allowing the pursuit of escaped slaves into Michigan and absolving any illegal activities that take place during the chase. This infringes on Michigan's sovereignty and so Michigan responds by passing a law that legalizes the shooting of Ohioans in pursuit of slaves and pretty soon everyone is shooting at each other.
The soon to be ratified constitution covers this topic under the Fifth Amendment specifically and generally by regulating inter-state trade.
Reply
"For it is an observation, as true as it is trite, that there is nothing men differ so readily about as the payment of money."
Reply
Leave a comment