Perhaps you could direct our attention to an example of Hamiltons writings that could shed a different light on the man. That would be the scholarly thing to do.

Thank you for explaining why you do not quote Hamilton in your articles. I think I have a better understanding of your bias.

Alexander Hamilton: “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid …”

Read more: Mises Economics Blog — Page 3 http://blog.mises.org/page/3/#ixzz0lXyaB3P8

DiLorenzo’s prosecution of Hamilton is much like the old soviet show trials. The verdict is in. The trial is simply to allow the opposition to demonize the defendant, not to allow the defendant to present a defense.

Either way, other than Sproul and a few other trolls I don't think I've ever actually seen a Fed defender here. But it's a good article nonetheless, a sobering reminder that political corruption is nothing new.

Too many people to whom I speak, the ones who read “news” stories (Bloomberg, Yahoo finance, etc.) but not mises.org, keep repeating the dumb mantra, “Yeah I don’t think what’s going on in the Fed is fair but they have no other choice but to do this.” Their worldview is, central banks are necessary and just in and of themselves, so let’s just prod them into doing their jobs. They have no idea that “job one” for these institutions has always been robbery.