In "The Farmer Refuted" by Alexander Hamilton, what is the most persuasive comment made? What would be another strong title for this text? How can we infer the content of Seabury's text that preceded Hamilton's response? How would the original audience have received this text? Do you think Hamilton responded to Seabury in an appropriate manner? Based on this text, would you classify the American Founding Fathers as heroes or traitors?

There are many persuasive comments in "The Farmer Refuted." Perhaps among the most persuasive is Hamilton's defense of natural law, which he states in the following way:

"Hence, in a state of nature, no man had any moral power to deprive another of his life, limbs, property or liberty; nor the least authority to command, or exact obedience from him; except that which arose from the ties of consanguinity."

This means that man's right to life, liberty, and property come directly from God and cannot be taken away, even by the king. The only instance in which a person can revoke these rights is from a familial tie. Another strong title for this text might be "In Defense of Natural Law," as, in its essence, the document states that humans have inalienable rights, or rights that cannot be taken away and that are given to them by natural law. 
It can be presumed that Seabury called the Congress in Philadelphia illegal, as Hamilton writes, "You, Sir, triumph in the supposed illegality of this body; but, granting your supposition were true, it would be a matter of no real importance." Seabury, who wrote under the pseudonym Farmer, was the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America. By contradicting Seabury, Hamilton showed that he was bold and unafraid to take on the powerful. Hamilton insisted that the Congress was legal because, as he wrote, "When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void." That is, laws that go against natural rights of man do not need to be followed. Seabury's opinion was different in that he thought that the Congress convened in Philadelphia was illegal and that the British king was the ultimate authority who must be heeded in the colonies. 
Loyalists would have perceived Hamilton's treatise as traitorous, while those who supported the American Revolution (which broke out a year after Hamilton wrote this document) would have supported his argument. If you feel that the colonies had the right to disobey a king who went against their interests, then you might support Hamilton and feel that he responded to Seabury in an appropriate manner, using arguments that go back to Locke and Hobbes and the idea of the social contract. If you support this argument, you would also classify the Founding Fathers as heroes who believed in the social contract and therefore rebelled against a king who they felt had violated their natural rights.