He wasn't poor, he was the bastard(?) of one of the most rich men in the Danish Indies. Much is made of the fact his mother was of low birth. His father certainly wasn't.

I guess you don't know anything about Hamilton's life, then?

He was born the illegitimate son of a washer woman on Jamaica. He showed incredible early promise and was given great responsibility by his employer, a wealthy land-owner, who put him in charge of his estate for months at a time. Notably, he remained poor, though not peniless. Around age 17 (though these ages are approximate), he published a poem in the local newspaper, and people were sufficiently impressed with it that a collection was taken up to send him to America.

So to answer your question -- such a poor man winds up attending Columbia, and the rest of it, by the charity of others, because of his great talent. Thank you for asking.

Um, his father didn't support him, SC.

Sorry, it wasn't Jamaica, though, I got that wrong.

he was born on nevis

Right, and raised in St. Croix.

"Um, his father didn't support him, SC. "

that is debatable semck, as you would know being an Alexander Hamilton scholar

Ah, you're referring to Stevens? Both Hamilton and Stevens briefly supported him at different times, it's true; but Hamilton abandoned the family, leaving Hamilton's mother and later, Hamilton to fend for themselves; and Stevens, father or not, was not the (single) source of the finances that landed him his education in America. Whatever you may think of either candidate father, it's certainly an indefensible claim to say that the young Hamilton wasn't poor. He didn't starve, certainly (thanks to hard work starting at a very young age), but read a biography of him and tell me his childhood is how you'd imagine that of the scion of a wealthy merchant.

At the Delaware Convention there is no record of the proceedings, magically the document passed without much quarrel and the entire elegated delegation to the Convention was federalist. Point for "democracy" and "transparency".

At the New Jersey convention, the most ardent opponents of the Virginian constitutionalists, the document passed with nary a quarrel.

There is also no record of the Georgia convention, which passed the document unanimously. At the Pennsylvania Convention there was no election for the convention at all as far as I can tell. Connecticut, the only state which didn't support the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, overwhelmingly ratified the document thanks to a rigged election. In New Hampshire they had to have two conventions because the first one opposed it. Another point for democracy. If you lose, just hold another convention where the composition is more in your favor.

The Massachusetts convention was denounced over and over again for being undemocratic. It and several other states employed the completely illegal tactic of proposing ratification in exchange for proposed amendments.

The Maryland convention was full of weird machinations, since ardent anti-federalists who attended the Philadelphia convention also attended the ratifying convention but did not raise any objections. The elections for the convention were deemed fraudulent.

In numerous states, including South Carolina & Massachussets, among others, the population was majority anti-federalist, but backroom deals led to ratification.

Of course Delaware et al. ratified it quickly, putin, it was one of the best deals the small states were ever going to get.
As for the rest -- sources please.

Washer woman? Hamilton's mother grew up with slaves and inherited her father's estate in St. Croix. She owned and operated a grocery store in which she employed slaves. What are you talking about? How is that poverty? Hamilton worked for the grocery store and then went to work for the supplier of the grocery store. Hamilton's immediate family might have troubles due to divorces and the like, but his relatives were well off, and when he was "orphaned" he had no trouble finding work. He was running a business at the age of 14. He funded his education through his network of connections with wealthy merchants and with the sponsorship of Reverend Knox, who got him into the Princeton prep school.

Semck- He was adopted by Stevens who was a well-respected merchant shortly after the death of his mother. Meanwhile how the hell does a poor orphan/bastard gain a place in one of New York/New Jersey's three most elite families? If I remember Chernow's biography there is heavy insinuation that there is someone pulling strings behind the scenes. It is very likely that his biological or adopted father had a hand in his ascent.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/stageone.html

"Of course Delaware et al. ratified it quickly, putin, it was one of the best deals the small states were ever going to get."

Which is why Rhode Island refused to ratify it and almost got itself into a civil war over it.

Apparently Semck is so well off that being "poor" is being a slave owner and business owner.

@SC, there is no doubt that strings were pulled for him by various people along the way. As I already mentioned, a collection was taken up for him to educate him. So what? That doesn't mean he was rich or was raised rich.

You are thinking of this in a twenty-first century mindset. Influence was much more important in those days. A bastard who had important people vouching for him was often better off than a son of a dubious but rich merchant. You make a great deal about being rich materially in a time when that was not the measure of status and class.

OK, putin, that was a very interesting read. Thank you. Maryland and SC do indeed appear somewhat dodgy, though I'll have to investigate the sources more. The others, however, do not.

@SC, I'm not the one who brought up rich. Indeed, no doubt influence counted for a lot.

Your whole argument is that the Constitution didn't favor the rich because Hamilton supposedly grew up poor, even though by the time of the ratification he was running the Bank of New York. I can give you a list of Republicans a mile long who "grew up poor" (meaning middle class) and yet have no problem screwing them over and catering to the rich. Glad you have the corner market on sophisticated arguments.

Example #1: Rick Santorum. Mr. Anti-Class Warfare has no problem touting his coal miner father in order to bash Moneybags Romney. His budget busting tax plan overwhelming gives tax breaks to millionaries and up. And naturally social services go bye-bye. This is not extraordinary.

No, Putin, actually, I can obviously see that Hamilton's childhood had no effect here.

My point about Hamilton, first of all, was not about the Constitution at all, it was about the long string of POST-Constitution policies you mentioned, most of which Hamilton was responsible for. And my point was that he was poor THEN and for the rest of his life, so the person chiefly responsible for those policies neither had nor made money, contra your claims.

Hamilton was poor _his whole life_.

Where did I mention post-constitution policies, let alone a long string of them?

He was poor when he founded the Bank of New York and was its administrator and lawyer? He had a huge case load as lawyer and very wealthy clients. I think you're just making stuff up.

@putin, You mentioned post-ratification policies about the allowed behavior of creditors toward debtors, financial institutions, allocation of debts, etc. None of these was in the TEXT of the Constitution. They were implemented afterward, often after a big fight. Hamilton was the instigator.

I (sadly enough) did not bring my Hamilton biographies with me to school, so I can't cite chapter and verse about his poverty. It does seem odd that he would make no money off the practice, and the early 1880s are the part of his life I've studied the least; let us suppose, then, that I am wrong about the 1880s. I'm definitely right that he was poor by the late 1880s and destitute by the 1890s, so if he was putting his policies in effect for his own benefit, he was incompetent indeed -- rarely one of the charges levelled at him.

"None of these was in the TEXT of the Constitution."

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, ****or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts****, or grant any Title of Nobility."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause

"The Framers of the Constitution added this clause in response to the fear that states would continue a practice that had been widespread under the Articles of Confederation—that of granting "private relief."

Also:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and ****uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States****;"

Funny how the new constitution made it impossible for states to provide debt relief and made bankruptcy law under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Curious indeed.

Touche on the contract relief. Well man. *long sigh* The whole Hamilton argument wasn't even necessary. :-P

Anyway, the contract clause is of course an interesting beast to itself. I think there's a fairly clear rationale for federalizing bankruptcy, though. If that's not uniform, it's going to be rough times having interstate commerce. Of course, nowadays, the clause wouldn't be necessary, since they'd just read preemption in under the ICC.

I love the self-delusion that anyone could "act in the best interest of the people they represent regardless of the popular opinion."

Posted like a true lemming headed for the cliff.

The real choice is do you want a government that can't hurt you because its powers are divided and checked and balanced (see the US Constitution for a beautiful example of this pre-FDR and the utterly failed New Deal that destroyed the Constitution) or do you want a horrendous disaster of an overreaching socialist state that destroys the social fabric and finances of the area it governs.

It is entertaining to read the opinions of so many people that completely miss this basic truth.

yes because the pre-new deal government couldn't hurt you, I'm sure Lincoln and Wilson's enemies would concur. I'm sure strikers that were beat to a bloody pulp by federal sanctioned hit squads would agree. TC again shows his ignorance of American History

Another Historically refuted delusion in this thread.
The New Deal did not end the Depression. The New Deal actually made the Depression last longer that it otherwise would have.
The Depression did not end until the New Deal's massive interference in the economy ended after 1947.

So the true choice is do you want government destroying the finances of the United States or do you want to restrain government interference in the daily economic lives of individual Americans and let them rise and fall based on their own actions?

The overwhelming majority in this thread seem terrified of their own abilities, and that is a sad commentary on them.