To a New York City historian and history teacher, Hogeland's article is delicious. He writes historiography that can be understood by politicians and ambitious political spinmeisters, as well as by the rest of us who have had it up to here with spin, and who learn our U.S. History (or teach it) in high school. It's about time our fellow citizens learned that Alexander Hamilton, like so many self-made Americans with less genius, was an unwilling republican, an enemy of democracy, and an architect, in fact, of economic aristocracy.

I would echo the Dean's comment above. As a historian of the early republic I find this essay, as well as Hogeland's book on the "Whiskey Rebellion," to be uncommonly insightful into the imperial nature of top-down economics and its opposition to democracy. Indeed, the very word "democracy" has been usurped by Capital to mean "conditions favorable to the Few." Hamilton's proper historical comparison is with Robert Walpole, who did to the prospects for English democracy what Hamilton did to American democracy -- severely and permanently damaging it; intentionally, even cynically at times.

There is some context missing here, an omission that makes it look as though Hamilton casually flouted established practice. In fact the only novelty was that it was done for centralising purposes; the "patriots" had themselves talked the talk but flouted it in the way they had repressed loyalists in the preparation phase prior to formal armed action against Britain.

"An executive branch run by Hamilton !"

It's the first I've heard of such a thing (I must be totally ignorant).

What I heard was this: Hamilton warned about not being organized politically (centrally). Which means not having a strong enough military. Which could lead to the thing Hamilton warned about (for example a War.)

You know which war I'm talking about; the one that force Madison to do the things Hamilton warned everyone to do (including Jefferson). Like taxing the public to pay for a navy that could protect the coastal states - something the coastal states had refused to do on their own initiative.

This article is like the DeLorenzo one about Lincoln being atheist (if I sat in his history classes I would keep my mouth shut at all times.) If Lincoln was smart enough to become atheist (after all those bible readings)then wasn't his decision to invade the south a good one ?

Tell me the truth; am I that ignorant about our history ?

Hamilton's life on the Island of Bermuda with his mother of Jewish descent had an influence upon his later actions. Before coming to America, he had many mentors.

The article doesn't mention that the Republicans were on the verge of replacing Hamilton's face with that of Reagan's on the ten-dollar-bill. Or that Brooks's review of Chernow's biography only showed that Brooks hadn't read it. Or that Daniel Lazare of The Nation has also spoken up for Hamilton.

In his history of the Enlightenment, Peter Gay writes: "Hamilton’s reservations about the masses and [his] advocacy of energetic government are softened by generous and sincere pronouncements on behalf of reason and humanity."

For example, Hamilton was opposed to slavery. In a letter to John Jay, then President of the Continental Congress, in 1779, he wrote the following: "The contempt we have been taught to entertain for the blacks makes us fancy many things founded in neither reason nor experience...[an unusual anti-essentialist statement for the era] ... An essential part of the plan [to enlist African-Americans as soldiers in the Revolution] is to give them their freedom with their muskets. This will secure their fidelity, animate their courage, and I believe will have a good influence on those that remain by opening a door to their emancipation. This circumstance, I confess, has no small weight in inducing me to wish the success of the project; for the dictates of humanity and true policy equally interest me in favour of this unfortunate class of me."

To Gouvernor Morris Hamilton wrote in 1777, "“That instability is inherent in the nature of popular governments, I think very disputable … A representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislature, executive, and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable.”

For example, in Federalist #76, Hamilton writes, "The supposition of universal venality in human nature is little less an error in political reasoning than the supposition of universal rectitude. The institution of delegated power implies that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind, which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence. “

Of habeas corpus and aristocracy, he wrote in The Federalist #84, "The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws and of TITLE OF NOBILITY... are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. ...[T]he creation of crimes after the fact ... and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny" (caps original).

In 1788 he stated to the New York Legislature, "“While property continues to be pretty equally divided, and a considerable share of information pervades the community, the tendency of the people’s suffrages will be to elevate merit even from obscurity. As riches increase and accumulate in a few hands; as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard.”

In the same speech, he declared: “The true principle of a republic is that the people should choose whom they please to govern them. Representation is imperfect, in proportion as the current of popular favor is checked. The great source of free government, popular election, should be perfectly pure, and the most unbounded liberty allowed.”

He concluded on a personal note: "What reasonable man, for the precarious enjoyment of rank and power, would establish a system, which would reduce his nearest friends and his posterity to slavery and ruin? If they [those who oppose ratifying the constitution] imagine, that I contemplate, with an ambitious eye, the immediate honors of the government; yet, let them consider that I have my friends--my family--my children, to whom the ties of nature and of habit have attached me. If, to day, I am among the favored few; my children, tomorrow, may be among the oppressed many. These dearest pledges of my patriotism ... I have troubled the committee with these observations to show that it cannot be the wish of any reasonable man to establish a government unfriendly to the liberties of the people."

To imply that such statements, and many others like them, were not truthful revelations of Hamilton's beliefs is to reduce the complexity of an unusually complicated man and thinker to that of a fascist thug.

Hamilton lived not on Bermuda but on Nevis and St. Croix. And it was his mother's first husband who was a Jew, not his mother. Hamilton did have some early lessons in Hebrew as a small boy and could recite the ten commandments in that language. And he did have helpful mentors, in particular a Presbyterian minister on St. Croix named Knox.

Hamilton was a statesman governed by prudent
judgement not ideology. True conservatism is anti ideological. It always seeks the reality of things.

Today both left and right misrepresent Hamilton. He was not a liberal capitalist. He was a conservative traditionalist and a Christian.

His policy was to create a strong republican government and ensure it would not fall in a world hostile to that experiment.

David Brooks is a 19th century liberal as is the editor of the National Review. Hamilton would have loathed the revolutionary aspects of their celebrated Capitalism which destroys family and tradition positing material progress and money making in an abstract market place as man's destiny. Hamilton understood man has a supratemporal destiny

A good book toward understanding Hamilton is Henry Cabot Lodge's biography. It is blessedly non academic and non ideological.

Hamilton versus Jefferson. Is this not a vivid chapter in the great debate of western civilization. The debate started by Plato and Aristotle. A debate of collectivism versus individualism. In the end Hamilton stands with those who see individuals as a means to greater ends as determined by (supposedly) wiser minds. In this he earned his place in a rogues gallery of proponents and exponents of vile ideologies like mercantilism, fascism, communism and welfare-statism. Daniel Shays and "Tom the Tinker" were better men.

P. Walsh writes:

>Hamilton was a statesman governed by prudent
judgement not ideology. True conservatism is anti ideological. It always seeks the reality of things.<

Ah, but of course! Conservatism, the One True Religion!

Hamilton versus Jefferson. Is this not a vivid chapter in the great debate of western civilization. The debate started by Plato and Aristotle. A debate of collectivism versus individualism. In the end Hamilton stands with those who see individuals as a means to greater ends as determined by (supposedly) wiser minds. In this he earned his place in a rogues gallery of proponents and exponents of vile ideologies like mercantilism, fascism, communism and welfare-statism. Daniel Shays and "Tom the Tinker" were better men.

and said as much in the Constitutional Convention - fortunately such views were kept secret at the time, or the Constitution might never have been ratified. Hamilton was also fundamentally opposed to the Bill of Rights, of course. But then so, it seems, are many politicians today...

Rarely is worthwhile history written by non-historians who did not participate in the very events described or examined.

The output of Brooks, Brookhiser and Chernow on historical events -- Hamilton especially -- are the cumulative observations of journalists who are intent on shaping current events despite having neither a background nor a commitment to historical standards.
Brooks, Brookhiser and Chernow write tracts with impact in the political marketplace, and much to be accounted in that respect, but of little interest and still less value to historians or students of history.

But Neo-Hamiltonians, like the latter-day Jeffersonians of the ’30s and ’40s, have been "eagerly chopping up the past to make it conform to their political aims." Oh yeah, right. Marxist-Leninists or Liberals would never EVER "chop up the past to make it conform to their political aims"
JFK: Camelot
Bill Clinton: Rock Star

Government is the employment of force. Jefferson was just as willing to employ it as Hamilton. Both cloaked their own self-aggrandizing policies in language of service, the people, and rights. Indeed, many of the things argued against in the Declaration were done by the gov't Jefferson headed.

None of them were saints, and any hagiography that would make them so is a disservice to us. I'm still more-or-less a Hamiltonian, but such essays as this are a useful and necessary corrective. So thanks.

Americans seem obsessed with finding heroes to emulate (or claim to emulate) and villains to disparage so that through their indignation they can soothe the wounds of their own moral shortcomings. As pointed out in Eric's post, Mr. Hamilton is no more worthy of deification than any other human.

Hamilton no doubt engaged in certain actions for his own betterment. However, Mr. Hogeland seems to suggest that Hamilton's concern for his interests and those of his allies trumped his interest in securing the long-term viability of free and mobile society. That to me is a very tortured interpretation of both his words and actions.

Two very general points to support this view. A complete reading of Hamilton's papers and analysis of his actions shows a man who genuinely believed his interests were aligned with those of the greater interests of the nation. While one can no doubt point to instances of self-deception, by and large, he was correct.

Secondly, Hamilton's support for the abolition of slavery was staunch and unwavering (unlike Mr. Jefferson). There was no upside to such consistent, vocal support and it was most certainly a political liability.

It is incredible that this article can go on at such length without mentioning Hamilton's opposition to slavery. Even more incredible that the author then accuses Hamilton's supporters of cherry-picking data.

Also egregious is the omission of what happened after Hamilton's Federalists lost power. Many of the policies they had promoted remained in place. Would the Jeffersonians (including Gallatin) have left the Hamiltonian financial system mostly intact if it was all for the benefit of wealthy bondholders who supported Hamilton?

CVH (#6) raises assorted objections; I address the ones that seem most responsive to my essay, with reference to comments by some others.

Hamilton’s remarks to Morris should be read in context. Hamilton begins his assessment of New York's constitution this way: "That there is want of vigor in the executive, I believe will be found true. To determine the qualifications proper for the chief executive magistrate requires the deliberate wisdom of a select assembly, and cannot be safely lodged with the people at large." Then follows the sentence CVH quotes. CVH's ellipses replace this: "When the deliberative or judicial powers are vested wholly or partly in the collective body of the people, you must expect error, confusion, and instability." In the sentence on representation that CVH quotes, the clause "where the right of election is well secured and regulated" means something like "where access to the franchise is qualified and the qualified have easy access."

Hamilton is thus making a fairly standard republican case (somewhat inchoate, too; he was in his very early twenties) for representation in government; along with a less standard but far from original one for a powerful executive chosen outside representative process. He hasn't yet rejected outright the idea he refers to as "democracy" -- but even here, he doesn't mean by it anything like what we do, or, perhaps more significantly, what 18th-century radical democrats wanted: "manhood suffrage," for one thing, with no property qualification on voting, as well as such things as low or no property qualifications on office-seeking, new counties erected in timely fashion to reflect growing populations, weak executives, popular election of local judges, and laws to prohibit monopolies, limit land and industry consolidation, and ease credit through low-interest government loans and emissions of paper currency.

CVH's *Federalist* reference is also problematic. The Publius essays, intended to overcome objections to ratifying the U.S. Constitution, probably show both Hamilton and Madison, in particular, at their most enduring but don't necessarily make a good guide to either man's politics. In light of projects he would be soon be carrying out as Treasury Secretary, Hamilton's hymning the Constitution's protection for habeas corpus can lend some of his Publius writings a quality perhaps best described as creepy. (And I can't tell whether CVH knows that this quotation comes from the essay in which Hamilton expounds his objections to a bill of rights.)

The impassioned plea of 1788, also for ratification, shows Hamilton embracing a form of republicanism, not democracy: again, "the people" and "popular" meant to few Whig-influenced republicans of the 18th century what they mean to most of us. The context here is Hamilton's explaining, with characteristic clarity and logic, why a comparatively small, less pervasively representative House (the "lower," elected chamber of the proposed U.S. legislative branch) need not lead to aristocracy. Associating governmental stability and fairness with what Hamilton calls "pretty equal" property distribution was among the common tropes of Whig-influenced speechmaking. In regions where unrest had inspired Hamilton's (and others') desire for the national government he was here urging, that association in no way accorded with the economic facts, as Hamilton knew them and would soon bend every effort to shape them.

There's a more profound issue. As the posted comments show, for every Hamilton quotation a CVH may cite, there will be Hamilton quotations cited by others to refute it. Exchanging volleys of references won't make Hamilton good, bad, right, wrong, or even "complex." Looking at the most important things he did, however, and what he said and left unsaid about them, can lead to a variety of interesting conclusions. As Eric (#15) makes clear, you’re free to remain a Hamiltonian and to take seriously what I say in the essay.

Nobody, though, has a basis for concluding or suggesting -- I certainly don't do so, J.D. (#16) to the contrary -- that Hamilton was out to line his own pockets. As I've said, he remained persistently intent, to an astonishingly singleminded degree, on the strength of the nation. And if I thought Hamilton's opposition to slavery qualified, amplified, or bore any useful relation to any point in my essay, I would of course have addressed it.

William Hogeland:

Your essay is a wide-ranging argument that Hamilton was an authoritarian, and yet you see no relevance to the fact that he, unlike many others, strongly opposed the worst type of authoritarianism of his time (that would be slavery)? That seems odd to me, but thanks anyway for your discussion.

As in all objects of discussion, this essay has a flip side, regarding this important topic, giving a defense of General Hamilton. Although, this essay shows Hamilton's main error may have been not entirely fair in the taxation, along with respect to party, but, the positives of his agenda, far outweigh the negatives. Even the greatest American mind is depraved.

Does the author believe Hamilton was an enemy to democracy? Of course he was, as was every framer.

[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison, Federalist #10

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
John Adams
The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), Vol. VI, p. 484, to John Taylor on April 15, 1814.

Concluding he did not have the best interest of the nation in mind, is disproved by his actions in the field of
battle, as well as his clear support of Republican Government. Another defense of Hamilton's taxes is that it became law, correct? Did not the Congress and President pass his plan? There was no illicit behavior, is this not consent of the governed?

Hamilton's honor, and humility as a man, is also seen from his admission, and subsequent revealing words, of his adulterous affair, not to say he was not an
arrogant man, but, that he was a humble man, never to allow prevailing rumors to shatter his professional integrity.

Maybe some of his decisions were not the most prudent; who among us can match his brilliance in law, administration, and leadership? A Father of American
Jurisprudence, James Kent, said of him "in law, there is no superior."

He wanted our best citizens to govern the nation, which seems only right and proper in a Republican Government. His words in the Federal and Ratifying Conventions disprove his will for an aristocracy; all, should seek to be the most enlightened.

His faith in Jesus Christ is how I like to remember him.

Affirming the Gospel in most likely 1794:

"An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation, for which natural religion was offered as the substitute. The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture, but the being and attributes of GOD, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments, were to be retained and cherished."
Hamilton commenting on the French Revolution, which officially renounced Christianity in 1793.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?
option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1385&chapter=92676&layout=html&Itemid=27

Hamilton affirming the thousand year millenial reign of Christ in 1793:

"The triumphs of vice are no new thing under the sun, and I fear, till the millennium comes, in spite of all our boasted light and purification, hypocrisy and treachery will continue to be the most successful commodities in the political market."
~ To Richard Harrison (1793)
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1387&chapter=93250&layout=html&Itemid=27

I posted these verses not to preach but to show Hamilton's faith while he helped form the nation.

Thank you for your essay.

I don't know if anyone will be able to get around to answering this question, but, I find it terribly unlike Hamilton to be involved in any conspiracy, such as the Newburgh Conspiracy, which would elevate Horatio Gates in ANY way, shape, or form. He abhorred Gates. In 1780, two years before the Newburgh Crisis, Hamilton wrote to Elizabeth Schuyler:
"He has confirmed, in this instance [the defeat at the Battle of Camden], the opinion I always had of him. ... What think you of the conduct of this great man {speaking sarcastically]? I am his enemy personally, for unjust and unprovoked attacks upon my character; therefore what I say of him ought to be received as from an enemy, and have no more weight than as it is consistent with fact and common sense. But was there ever an instance of a general running away, as Gates has done, from his whole army? And was there ever so precipitate a flight? One hundred and eighty miles in three days and a half. It does admirable credit to the activity of a man at his time of life. But it disgraces the general and the soldier. I have always believed him to be very far short of a Hector, or a Ulysses. All the world, I think, will begin to agree with me.
But what will be done by Congress? Will he be changed or not? If he is changed, for God’s sake overcome prejudice, and send Greene. You know my opinion of him. I stake my reputation on the events, give him but fair play."

If Hamilton wanted the sovereignty of the state govts reduced, he wanted so because he knew, as did Washington and all the others, that it would kill our country, just as faction had done throughout world history. This very letter by Hamilton also suggests that idea. I seriously question, after having researched his writings for over 3 years, that Hamilton was doing this to accumulate power and wealth. His letters to his personal friends indicate that he desired nothing but to retire and tend to his family. He was involved in politics because he sincerely believed that it was his duty to his country.

By the way, the accusation which Hamilton referred to in the above quote was Gates accusation that Hamilton wanted to convince the army to overthrow Congress and establish Washington as dictator for life. Hamilton obviously viewed these accusations as untrue and slanderous. Hamilton was accused of even making a speech in a coffee house trying to rally the troops to march on Congress, by another anonymous individual, and Hamilton wrote a letter in reply, (in 1780, again) to say that he never recalled saying any such thing, and that such were not his sentiments.

Some good quotes that show Hamilton's true views on politics and government can be found on the first post here:
http://alexanderhamiltonspeaks.blogspot.com/

As to Hamilton's religion, and the Founding Fathers' views on pure democracy, I must echo the words of OFT above.

I agree H.M. about the involvement of Hamilton in this conspiracy:

"Washington leveraged his officers’ affection to disable Gates, quell mutiny, and prevent military takeover of Congress... and he confessed to Washington certain aspects of his own participation in the conspiracy, while covering up others; in one letter draft he even crossed out a reference to it. A reader of this richly entertaining bob-and-weave can only stand in awe of Hamilton’s conjuring a role as Washington’s congressional informant and confidant from participation in a treasonous conspiracy...Hamilton’s eagerness to avoid applying the rule of law to his view of what was best for the country. He was developing an urgent desire for authoritarian government, whose well-funded debt, supported by nationally enforced taxes, would increase the wealth of the richest class of Americans and yoke that class to national purpose. He bet everything, including his reputation as a loyal patriot, on forging a common project between the military and the investor classes to override the will of elected governments.>>

Contrary to the words of General Hamilton in the Federalist, and the Ratifying Conventions, etc. without direct sources, and his own admission, I cannot believe he would betray his country, which, is what this essay is promoting.

To protect his professional integrity, he embarrassed his wife, and entire family with his public acknowledgement of an adulterous affair; so no one could claim he was a crook. I'm not saying he wasn't involved in a conspiracy, but, without the sources, it doesn't carry the strongest weight.

OFT.

Perhaps, while perusing this scathing attack on two biographers of Gen. Hamilton, the feeling of regurgitation that overwhelms me might be attributed to my epiphany that I have found Mr. Hogeland an apt apprentice to Mr. Freneau and Mr. Collander.

Now, I am just a simple existing Individual, and no-doubt lack the noble genius to grasp the more informed intellectualism of a master journalist, but would it be too much to ask of the good Mr. Hogeland to enlighten his readers on the thoughts of such men as David Hume, Vattel, Blackstone, Neckers, Steuart, and Machiavelli, and how those illustrious sages theories pertained to Gen. Hamilton's motives and actions? Now being just a social dabbler in Political philosophy I can hardly claim expertise on such matters the way a journalistic savant such as Mr. Hogeland displays, however, even I find it remarkable just how much Hamilton's deeds seem to reflect their influence and treatises. Somehow I missed through all of Hamilton's Letters and writings exactly how Robert Morris was his main influence and most likely his devil's familiar. I am now wondering how Hamilton ever got to write the Federalist Papers and his State Reports without Morris's red pen being involved, hmmmm?

Perhaps I also might be able to take the zealous Mr. Hogeland a bit more seriously then I am, but alas, after reading the following ditty; and, of course, regaining my composure after a good chuckle, I found myself supposing:

"In 1791 Hamilton finally got the U.S. Congress to commit to paying reliable interest on its debt instruments, halting both their face-value depreciation and the free-for-all speculation in them, making them articles of rational trade in high-finance marketplaces. (Following British models, Hamilton also used proceeds of the U.S. Post Office to create a “sinking fund”; such funds were dedicated to paying down each issuance of a public debt, making bonds reliable.) Hamilton’s idea, bold and creative, was to let the government get its hands on easy money by letting bondholders and traders grow American fortunes lending that money."

Suppose, just suppose here, that Hamilton's agenda had nothing to do with trying to create fortunes but to put the accumulated capital in the hands that new how to use it. If, for one fleeting moment, the zero sum theory of economics was realized as a falsehood(too which it certainly is) then perhaps Hamilton was acting on the truth that wealth is created - and hence capital must find its way into the hands who knew how to use it, for in the hands of those men wealth would be increased for everyone. If Mr. Hogeland could explain to his readers the dealings of the Bank of the United States(In Philedephia in 1786), and the ridiculousness of the Dutch gentry of New York(Livingstons) and the loathing that both incidents created in Hamilton he just might have a bit more trouble in his thesis here of Hamilton pandering to the wealthy.

The entire effort in this piece upon the Whiskey rebellion would make for great fiction but then again, that would be a possible career ender since there might be a legitimate scholar or two left who would bring plagiarizing charges seeing that the Oligarchs, oops I mean "Republicans", already penned this in the late 18th century. I must assume this is an editors mistake seeing as journalistic integrity is most assuredly upheld by the esteemed Mr.Hogeland.

Of course, I wonder if Mr. Hogeland has forgotten to submit some smaller observations on his critique of Gen. Hamilton? I find here no mention at all about Gen. Hamilton's notion's in regard to Republics, Virtue, Law, Religion, etc. No mention of the Oligarchical society America was under until Hamilton's Meritocracy took hold - Ever wonder exactly what the Civil War was fought over - Hamiltonianism vs. Jeffersonianism? No mention of the millions upon millions of loyalist property and homes stolen by over suffraged legislatures of State Governments prior to the Constitution. No mention of Hamilton bringing the "Law Merchant" to the country and overthrowing the "Common law" structure. No mention of Hamilton's Foreign policy beliefs, especially regarding France, England, Santo Domingo(Haiti). No mention of John Marshall and Hamilton's influence on his decisions that shaped the Judiciary.

If Mr. Chernow and Mr. Brookhiser are be accused of glossing over Gen. Hamiltons real intentions, then what shall one say of Mr. Hogeland's subjective analysis? Mere over-sites, possibly?

Now, following Madison's Federalist #10 and David Hume and Vattels theories of harnessing the passions, maybe I can enlist Mr. Hogeland's fury in getting the 17th Amendment repealed. However, I suppose I would have to explain to him what the major debated issue was in the Constitutional Convention and how 1916 most infamous act of the U.S. Government has reopened the door to tyranny. Anybody ever wonder why the Founders wanted a Bicameral House, anybody, anybody? Oh wait, I must remember that the "demos" is always the voice of God, correct???

I enjoy all the comments and thank you, #13 Richard and #15 No Saints. You got it right and as for me, I'm trashing all these so-called biographies that clutter up the place!!

OFT (#21), H.M. (#22), and others with questions about Newburgh might want to look further into the crisis, which is even more compelling than I had space to bring out fully here. Key features include Robert Morris's histrionic resignation as Finance Superintendent (timed to panic the restive officer class about payment); the stubborn loyalty to Washington of General Henry Knox, who kept the conspirators in a long agony of suspense before spurning their advances; Washington's showmanship and command in disabling Gates's attempted mutiny; Hamilton's writing to the governor of New York to suggest giving the officer class free land, thus gaining the state its own army, in case of civil war; the consolidation of the officer class with the bondholding class; the founding of the Society of the Cincinnati as a hereditary, interstate officer-class watchdog group; etc. The thing really deserves its own major article (or movie!).

Sources: I've already mentioned the two best-regarded scholars of the episode, E.J. Ferguson and Richard Kohn: Ferguson's book is "The Power of the Purse" (University of North Carolina Press, 1961); Kohn's is "Eagle and Sword" (Free Press, 1975); both may be found in many public libraries. (But Kohn gives the most detailed citations for his Newburgh narrative only in footnote 19 to an article he published in the April 1970 "William and Mary Quarterly," number 27, available online through JSTOR in many libraries. And WMQ 29 has an interesting article dissenting from Kohn's reading--though not on Hamilton's involvement!--with what I think is a strong rebuttal from Kohn.) Also, my book "The Whiskey Rebellion" (Scribner 2006) distills (ha) what I see as the salient issues, which have been whitewashed, misunderstood, and explained away by virtually all of Hamilton's biographers, not just the most recent ones.

For those interested in supplementing Ferguson, Kohn, and me with primary research on Newburgh, see "Journals of the American Congress" for late 1782 and early '83 (and note that the officer petition and mutinous Newburgh addresses are appended to Hamilton's committee report of 4/24/1783). You can follow Hamilton's pushing the impost through Congress during the crisis, and his opposing any plan for making payoffs solely to officers, in his "Papers," motions dated 1/27/1783, 1/28/83, 1/29/83, 2/10/83, and 3/11/83. Also in the "Papers," thrill to the Hamilton-Washington correspondence, where Hamilton does, as I said in the essay, confess to part of the conspiracy, and crosses out an even more complete confession: letters of 3/12/1783; 3/17/83 (with Hamilton's crossed-out admission of having actively desired to produce a threat of coup); 3/24/83, 3/25/83; 3/31/83; 4/4/83 (with Hamilton's most complete though still partial confession); 4/15/83; 4/16/83; and 4/22/83. (All of those references also appear in notes to "The Whiskey Rebellion.") Kohn's notes will point you to important correspondence among Henry Knox, Arthur St. Clair, Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris, and other players in the drama.

To read the episode from an almost fawningly pro-Washington and decidedly anti-Hamilton viewpoint, see the relevant sections in James Flexner's standard biography of Washington. But I think Flexner, who presents Washington as victimized by Hamilton, underestimates the symbiotic complexity of the men's relationship, which I've explored in "The Whiskey Rebellion" and am continuing to explore in other contexts. It's true, for example, that nobody despised Gates more thoroughly than Hamilton -- unless it was Washington, or Hamilton's father-in-law Philip Schuyler. Hamilton and the Morrises wanted Washington taking charge of putting military pressure on the states, not Gates, whom they kept in reserve. Doing business with people one despises may not be not a common experience for H.M. and OFT; others may find Hamilton's doing just such business at the outset of his career one of the more fertile features of the Newburgh episode. It's startling to imagine what might have happened to Hamilton's career, and so to American history, if either Washington or Schuyler had ever been forced to confront Hamilton's involvement with the Morrises' offering support for Gates's mutiny.

On the other hand, given Washington's shrewd reading of the whole series of events (as expressed in the correspondence with Hamilton cited above), it's hard not to believe that, while happy to be spared any undeniable knowledge, the general did put the whole thing together, then tucked it away. That wouldn't be unlike him.

The new books on Hamilton, published near the anniversary of his death, are in my view correctives to the previous neglect or demonization of the man. You merely return to the demonization in what is possibly an academically opportunistic move--a good way to get attention in a crowded field by catching the next tide (even when you take the same old boat).History is almost as subject to fashion as the fashion industry, but ideally, when a new book comes along, it builds upon previous scholarship, even if it disagrees with it.

As a card-carrying member of the ACLU who read at the last Bill of Rights celebration in my city, I'm personally glad that we passed the bill of rights. Of course, our current administration, with the acquiescence of Congress, has ignored or abandoned several of them. But Hamilton didn't oppose the bill of rights because of what they said. He thought them unnecessary them because, he wrote, any rights not assigned to the government by the Constitution, remained with the people. It was a logical argument, if not a farseeing one.

I happened to be reading Washington's writings (collected by the LOA) last night. I was struck by how often GW writes Hamilton, who had gone back to his law practice, for advice. In one such letter he asks Hamilton to ask Jay for advice as well and to include Jay's letter in his response. Washington writes to another correspondent that he always solicits advice from people whose intellects he admires, compares their arguments, and chooses what makes sense to him. Yet, he remarks, he doesn't think that anyone is right about everything.

As for democracy, we still have a representative democracy. Do you object to it? Even in the age of personal computers (which not everyone owns), a direct democracy would be hard to manage. When I lived in California, I had to do serious research every election era whenever a host of propositions appeared on the ballot. Imagine doing such research all the time, even while holding down a job or being in the hospital. It would not be feasible.

What I personally would favor is proportional representation, as at fairvote.org.

See this site:


"However, Hamilton's proposal regarding the funding of the national debt, approved by congress in 1790, was less expensive as well as less complicated than James Madison's rejected [impossible?] scheme of discriminating between original and subsequent holders of the debt certificates in the case of domestic creditors. This was because Hamilton was content to have the debt funded at 4% rather than at the 6% rate originally contracted."


http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.570/pub_detail.asp

I love Alexander Hamilton and Chernow's book on him is one of my favourite books, ever. here's what I wrote about james madison
http://www.darrellepp.com/?p=81
and franklin
http://www.darrellepp.com/?p=44

In a National Review article, addressing his conservative readers, Brookhiser says that Hamilton "was not one of us." According to my research, it is John Adams who was the favorite founder of conservatives. Of monarchy, Adams wrote, "our ship must eventually land on that shore." Regnery, the conservative press, has published a thick volume of selected writings of Adams. In The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, Russell Kirk claims Adams as the founding American conservative. (He expresses doubts about Hamilton's conservatism.) HBO will soon be showing a mini-series about Adams, in which AH, whom Adams hated, will probably appear as a villain.

It's the villains-and-heroes approach to American history which I criticize. It functions as a binary opposition, and all binaries can be deconstructed, including this one. Also, Hamilton is discussed as if he were the only proponent of views commonly held by educated men, particularly in the Northeast. Many of these views stem from their reading of Greek and Roman history, as Peter Gay explains.

There is much to admire about Madison and Jefferson. But white male historians have overlooked their slave-holding, aristocratic lifestyles until quite recently. Jefferson writes some appallingly racist things in Notes on the State of Virginia. He also wrote some terribly sexist things in his personal letters. It would be easy to trash Jefferson, as you trash Hamilton here. It's not hard to seize any piece of writing, or event, in the life of one of the founders and make hay out of it (accurately or not). They were not gods. But neither are we.

In their biographies, neither Chernow nor Brookhiser is entirely positive about Hamilton; Chernow is often critical.

As his letters show, Hamilton had bouts of serious depression, both in his 20s and in his 40s, possibly more often. Since Adams described him as "effervescent," he may have been hypomanic as well (as another author has argued). This may account for some of his lapses of self-control. But in a letter to Adams, Washington said of Hamilton that "his judgment is intuitively great."

Toward the end of his life, in a letter to a friend, Hamilton disputed the account Madison gave of his thoughts at the convention. Since Madison was AH's enemy by the time he published that account, one has to consider the possibility that Hamilton had grounds to dispute it.

A few commentators above have claimed Hamilton as a Christian. He was, during his teens, and again after his eldest son was killed in a duel two years before Hamilton's own death. But for most of his life, he did not attend church (and his townhouse was only a few blocks from Trinity Church, where he is buried). His wife was certainly devout, but Hamilton's views on religion throughout most of his life are a mystery. His views on the better aspects of Christianity--the Jesus of Luke--which he expressed in response to the French Revolution--are positive, as are the views of Jefferson.

Figuratively speaking, Alexander Hamilton made 10 times more mistakes than the other key founders, but he got 100 times more done.

The author points out what appears like another of Hamilton's important mistakes. Yet, he fails to answer what I'm certain would Hamilton's burning question if he were alive today, "Did he get it right?"

I don't think Hamilton was attached to "being right." And this is the mark of greatness in his character. But I think he was passionately committed to getting it right, especially on the important questions. That's what the author fails to address.

For example, regardless of the truth of what system of government Hamilton argued for at the Constitutional Convention, it is clear that it was not his vision that ultimately won out. Nonetheless, no one argued or fought more vigorously for the new Constitution to be ratified.

What I find disturbing about the author's argument, especially since he seems so knowledgeable on those times, is that he does not answer for a reader like me, who is not going to take the time to learn the details that the author is so familiar with, is does he believe or not that Hamilton accomplished his task, in the larger sense, in spite of his weaknesses or mistakes?

The founding of this country was a task of the greatest importance for world history, as the last 200 plus years has borne out. Those who were called to that task not only created a new system of government with checks and balances, but they provided such checks and balances for each other in their strengths, excesses and weaknesses.

There is a profound, divinely orchestrated wisdom to who was gathered together at such a decisive historical moment. And it seems to me that were those people here today, they would cringe at their mistakes yet be burning to know, did they get it right, did they set up this country as God intended, in the best way that was attainable given the context of the times.

I would have greatly preferred if the author had raised the question not whether Hamilton has somehow been "invented" but if he raised the much deeper and more important question of whether Hamilton got it right in spite of his mistakes and accomplished his God given task.

It does not seem from many historical accounts, that there anyone more capable than him in doing it better, given the depth and breadth of his accomplishments in so many spheres. So given the current state of our country, given the author's talents, it seems more important for us to understand what Hamilton could have or should have been done better in the system he created in the context of those times.

Instead it seems that the author has succumbed to the danger of not more carefully explaining the context and the possible motives in which the events he described unfolded. From the comments, it seems this has continued the long tradition of presenting only a distorted snapshot of a man who was clearly on a mission shared mutually by those with whom he was so closely associated.

So I pose the deeper question; Given the all important context of those times, did Hamilton get it right? What could he or should he have done better? Given the lasting, if unrecognized impact he had, It seems more important to know this now, than at any time since the founding.

I think it says a lot about a man when his idol wears a Shirley Temple wig.

Hamilton get it right?>>

This is irrelevant to the question of the article; the question is, was Hamilton a part of the Newburgh Conspiracy? The author has posted some dates of letters in "Journals of the American Congress" Why don't you post the actual words, so we don't have to search for this info, or even pay for it; this is your article!

You're claiming something very disheartening from one of greatest minds, and patriots that ever lived!

According to my research, it is John Adams who was the favorite founder of conservatives.>>

In most cases he was a social liberal, on religion, etc. And only while in office, when he retired; after 1800, Adams became the ultimate liberal in all phases of his life; Jefferson helped pervert his, as well as Madison's life.

if either Washington or Schuyler had ever been forced to confront Hamilton's involvement with the Morrises' offering support for Gates's mutiny.>

Maybe you are making more out of this than is actually there. Washington did show up at Newburgh, correct? Washington rebuked Hamilton and the Officers, which relented. The officer corp got their money after the convention, I hope with interest.

You use the word treason, when it wasn't. All the officer corp wanted was an impost duty enacted to pay them, which should have been done. You would have something against Hamilton if he by-passed Washington, but he did not. Washington empathized with them, but, wouldn't go along with it, thereby ending the ordeal.

In the end, it was a bad idea, that stayed an idea. If it was as serious as you say, treason, why didn't Washington do something about it? And what of his responsibility for not ratting out Hamilton and the others?

It must be because he didn't think any damage had been done, either do I.

You would have a massive case against Hamilton if he by-passed Washington and went through with it. It would have been a military coup, circumventing consent of the governed, and Republican Government. Thank God Hamilton realized Washington should lead this ordeal, thereby ending it.

Man is judged by actions, not ideas, for even Satan can put ideas in our mind; it is what we do with those ideas that we are judged for, not that evil thoughts are not sin, but the final judgment of them. Read C.S. Lewis on this idea.

With all the "research" going on around here some people seem to be missing the obvious... "conservative" has 2 basic political meanings:
Supporting or favoring traditional
Supporting or favoring existing

So it can be used favorably or unfavorably...
Alexander Hamilton was a conservative.
But which? The Brittan or the New America?

At a dinner, Vice President John Adams observed that the British Constitution, if “purged of corruption would be the most perfect constitution ever devised by the wit of man.” Hamilton paused and said, “purge it of its corruption . . . and it would become an impracticable government: as it stands at present, with all its supposed defects, it is the most perfect government which ever existed.”

The above is Jefferson's accounting of events at the dinner and depending on how you personally view things will depend on whether or not you believe it.

However you can't deny the fact that Hamilton went against what he said in the federalist papers. Like someone already said, he said that the Bill Of Rights wasn't needed because any rights not assigned to the government by the Constitution, remained with the states or the people.

Yet he himself used a loose interpretation of the Constitution to get the National bank established.

Just as today many try to use the "general welfare" part to turn this country into a collective/socialist country.

The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens according to the definition at the time. The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

"Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"... "pursuit of happiness" ultimately means (and formerly meant) PROPERTY. Why? Because the most fundamental part of being happy is having your basic needs met... Shelter, food, and clothes. You can get all of those when you have property. Cut down the trees for your shelter and field/garden, grow your own food and maybe even raise some animals like a dairy cow and some laying hens, dig a well for water. either grow your own cotton and learn how to spin, weave, etc. for clothes or trade/sell some extra food for clothes.

Whether the Gov. gave you the land or you paid for it, it was yours. Then (after some other taxes are successful) the Gov. says "you can only keep this land if you pay a tax on it". So now you have to do something to earn more money to pay taxes on the land you are suppose to own.

Etc. etc. and so on.

Also someone said something to the effect of "if it was treasonous,why didn't congress or Washington do something?" Maybe for the same reasons that congress and others haven't done anything about Bush's treasons acts... scared, insecure, ignorant, misinformed, uneducated/mis-educated, or even greed (in on it and/or will profit from it)

I know I kind of went off topic but it was and is the loose interpretation of the constitution that has lead is to where we are today.

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”...

The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”
~Thomas Jefferson

I like Hogeland's little expose on Hamilton. It was well written and very informative. It's perfectly possible to agree with his account of events but to nevertheless draw a different conclusion. That Hamilton was frantically brilliant - and wise!

It is true that Hamilton was born in poor circumstances, but upon docking on our shores, he was welcomed by wealthy patrons such as William Livingston; he ate of their plates, seduced their daughters, and supported their cause, becoming thei most important champion. Everything Hamilton did in their service during his subsequent career was beneficial to them, and to the nation.

What I regret is that Hogeland discusses his reservations concerning Hamilton's practice, but not Hamilton's theory. Indeed Hamilton came to the rescue of the creditors as soon as his appoinitment as Treasury Secretary was effective, but does he not share Hamilton's belief that for a new government aiming at long term surival, the most important task is to gain the respect of the wealthy few? It was they that shouldered many of the costs of the revolution, and it was they that awaited most eagerly to see how the new government would start-off, Hamilton made sure to orchestrate great administrative feats to impress them and inspire their confidence in the new government. Had Hamilton not effected this, creditors might well have grown weary of an ineffective new government, organize warring factions for or against another attempt at re-writing the government, and start a civil war, which is what the founders had done as wealthy men starting the revolution over a trifling tax on tea.

Hamilton's moves were always overbearing, but he said many times how important it was to make a good first impression as to the strength and abilities of the national government, lest the wealthy leaders from powerful states entertain any ideas...

I strongly agree that any examination of Hamilton's contribution to American life that omits his opposition to slavery really misses the mark. Hamilton was an American patriot, a bold and brilliant statesman, a leading champion of the Constitution (and the NY ratification convention) and an eloquent advocate for a free press. Of course, it is not the first time that a commentator with an axe to grind against Hamilton has ignored the issue of race -- which continues to sow divisions in our country. In so doing, the author has revealed both a bias and a blindness. As a person who happens to be African American, I'm troubled that he didn't deem the issue to be relevant to his piece.

Apparently slavery has acquired the status of a Hamiltonian talking point. If it makes you feel any better, it could be added as a subordinate clause to the paragraph on pseudo-populist appeals to "his disadvantaged background and remarkable success," without altering the article one whit.

As for CVH's objection that The Nation treated Hamilton, Hogeland explicitly acknowledged that liberals also had a vested interest in rehabilitating Hamilton. This should come as no surprise. Twentieth century liberalism, as a managerialist ideology of the professional New Middle Class, can be traced back to Herbert Croly--whose slogan was "Jeffersonian ends with Hamiltonian means."

And P. Walsh, you forgot to throw in some allusions to "moral imagination" and "the cake of custom." You're obviously very good at regurgitating Russell Kirk's rhetorical flourishes, but not at using critical intelligence to evaluate their applicability to the real world. If Hamilton was a "conservative traditionalist and a Christian" who "understood man has a supratemporal destiny," so were Gaius Cassius Longinus and Niccolo Macchiavelli.