Posted on 01/11/2005 6:57:16 AM PST by Valin
Alexander Hamilton was one of the most influential of the United States' founding fathers. As the first secretary of the treasury he placed the new nation on a firm financial footing, and although his advocacy of strong national government brought him into bitter conflict with Thomas Jefferson and others, his political philosophy was ultimately to prevail in governmental development. Hamilton's own career was terminated prematurely when he was killed in a duel with Aaron Burr in 1804.
~ Early Life ~
Hamilton was born on the West Indian island of Nevis, probably in 1755. Since he was the illegitimate son of Rachel Fawcett Lavien and James Hamilton, both of West Indian trading families, his exact birth date and the circumstances of his early life are difficult to determine. Modern research has established, however, that he was probably not born in 1757, as he and his children supposed; that he spent his youth mostly on the island of Saint Croix apprenticed as a clerk; and that in 1772 he was sent to New York City by his guardian, the merchant Nicholas Cruger.
Hamilton was obviously precocious, and his guardian sought to enroll him in the College of New Jersey at Princeton. When refused permission there to accelerate his program of studies, he enrolled instead at King's College (now Columbia University), New York City, in 1773 or 1774. In 1774-75, when he was not yet 20, he entered the growing dispute between the American colonies and the British government by writing many fervent tracts filled with doctrines of rebellion and natural rights derived from the philosopher John Locke.
Hamilton's bent, however, was toward action, so he enlisted in the militia and fought in the battles around New York City in 1775 and 1776. His zeal and organizing ability brought him to George Washington's attention and led to a commission, in March 1777, as lieutenant colonel in the Continental Army and aide-de-camp to its commander. He served with Washington for four years. Though admired as a superb staff officer, Hamilton longed for a field command, which he achieved in time to lead a regiment of New York troops at the Battle of Yorktown in October 1781.
Hamilton's personal life and social position in the new nation took a decisive turn in December 1780, when he married Elizabeth Schuyler, daughter of the wealthy and influential General Philip Schuyler. This connection placed Hamilton in the center of New York society. In 1782, shortly after leaving the army, he was admitted to legal practice in New York and became assistant to Robert Morris (1734-1806), who was then superintendent of finance. Well before his 30th birthday, then, Hamilton had had a distinguished military career, knew intimately most of the leaders of the American Revolution, had achieved high social standing, and was recognized as one of the leading lawyers in the country.
~ The Constitution and Federalism ~
Elected a member of the Continental Congress in 1782, Hamilton at once became a leading proponent of a stronger national government than that provided for by the Articles of Confederation. As aide to Washington he had observed the debilitating effect of "an uncontrollable sovereignty in each state" and called repeatedly for a strengthened Congress and more efficient executive departments. As a New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he advocated a national government that would have virtually abolished the states and even called for a president-for-life to provide energetic leadership. He left the convention at the end of June, but he approved the Constitution subsequently drafted by his colleagues as preferable to the Articles, though it was not as strong as he wished it to be.
With John Jay and James Madison, Hamilton wrote a series of papers (published in book form as The Federalist, 1788) urging the people of New York to ratify the new constitution. His brilliant essays on the need for a stronger union, the utility of a national taxing power, and the importance of the executive and judicial branches of the federal government became classic statements of his political philosophy of strong leadership in the public interest. At the New York ratifying convention of June-July 1788, Hamilton and his allies defeated the previously dominant antifederal forces in the state.
Hamilton was the obvious choice to be the first secretary of the treasury under the new constitution. Holding this office from Sept. 11, 1789, to Jan. 31, 1795, he proved himself a brilliant administrator both in organizing the Treasury Department and in assisting generally to set guidelines for and staff all the departments of government. Most notably, however, he sent reports to Congress on the public credit and on the national bank. Hamilton argued that if the nation was to grow and prosper, its credit would have to be sound to encourage both foreign and domestic investment.
~ Secretary of the Treasury ~
He proposed, therefore, to pay the nation's debts in full and also to assume the unpaid debts of the various states. He urged this candidly as a means of both diminishing the fiscal importance of the states and cementing the loyalty of wealthy commercial interests to the federal government. With the nation's economy thus buttressed and biased toward commerce, Hamilton proposed that a national bank be established to help the federal government manage the nation's trade and finance. These proposals were accepted by Congress, and the Bank of the United States was chartered in 1791. His recommendations for a broad range of tariffs and bounties to stimulate the growth of manufacturing were not adopted at this time, however.
Hamilton's plans were so comprehensive and so brilliantly useful to commercial expansion that he aroused the opposition of Madison, Jefferson, and others who believed that such a strong government, informally allied as it was with the worldwide trading dominance of Great Britain, would subordinate agriculture and subvert the republican ideals of the American Revolution. Scorning the Jeffersonians as timid and backward-looking, Hamilton, with Washington's continuing support, organized a congressional majority for his policies.
He then took the lead in urging rapprochement with Great Britain, which culminated in Jay's Treaty (1794), and in firmly suppressing the so-called Whiskey Rebellion (1794), which was provoked by his excise taxes. By the time he retired from the Treasury Department in 1795, he had established the administrative and policy foundations of the new government, articulated a philosophy of "loose construction" of the Constitution, and founded, informally, the conservative Federalist Party as the instrument of his intentions.
~ Later Years ~
On leaving the government Hamilton resumed a busy and lucrative law practice. He continued to have a strong influence in the public councils, however. He supported a defiant posture toward France during the XYZ Affair (1798), and as inspector general of the army (1798-1800) he took charge of organizing the nation's defenses. Bitterly disappointed in President John Adam's erratic leadership, Hamilton openly opposed Adams's reelection in 1800. When it appeared, however, that Aaron Burr might win the presidency over Jefferson, Hamilton unhesitatingly threw his support to Jefferson, whose policies he scorned, rather than to Burr, whom he regarded as a man without principles.
This and other opposition by Hamilton so frustrated and angered Burr that he challenged Hamilton to a duel. The two men fought at Weehawken, N.J., on July 11, 1804. Hamilton apparently fired into the air, but Burr took direct aim. Hamilton fell mortally wounded and died the next day in New York. He was buried in Trinity churchyard, New York City. He left his wife and seven children heavily in debt, but friends soon paid off the debts. Hamilton was mourned by his countrymen as one who had devoted his life to the nation's growth in freedom and prosperity.
Actually it was blundered into since Jefferson was only attempting to buy New Orleans. Napoleon threw it into his lap when it became clear that the French would not be able to reconquer and hold its New World empire and the British would seize it. He figured better to let them fight the Americans for it.
Jefferson was so oblivious of Napoleon's intentions that he helped him try and defeat the slave rebellion in Haiti.
Napoleon planned to defeat the slaves then move the 20,000 man army to Louisiana. An army far bigger than that of the United States which J had done his best to destroy along with the navy.
Yellow fever and Toussaint put an end to that dream and made Jefferson look like a political genius.
Jefferson's negoitiator was stunned to be offered all of Louisiana and accepted without authority to do so. Fortunately J put his screwed-up understanding of the Constitution aside long enough to buy it. He could not understand that there was sufficient authority to purchase it just from National Security perspectives alone.
It is interesting that Quigley's magnum opus is MISSING from the public libraries of the land (or at least Chicago.)
Is this what I THINK it is? (Spooky music rises)
Hahaha. Jefferson was good at talking the talk but could never walk the walk. His pretenses were great but rarely were translated into coherent action.
Only idiots proclaim one of our greatest patriots a "traitor" a man who spent his entire adult life fighting for freedom. A man who sacrificed great wealth to serve as the Jeffersonians whipping boy because he knew the crucial importance of establishing a strong fedgov. A man whose greatest admirer was Washington who supported him in every policy and who loathed Jefferson after 1792 or so following his treachery while still a cabinet member.
The only thing funnier than your cartoon Jefferson is the idea that HE would give up the foreign indulgencies he loved: the fine wines, scientific instruments, furniture, books and other goods which eventually bankrupted him. THAT is hysterically funny.
At least that letter was to one who did understand something of economics rather than a crank like Taylor.
What source have you seen this in?
It's very different from what I've seen which is that Sec State Madison held Jefferson's feet to the fire to support the slaves and that is why Napoleon surrendered Louisiana -to get us to stop supporting them so France could have her rich plantations back.
Before his presidency Jefferson did advocate crushing those rebel slaves.
And you are incapable of seeing the difference between passive resistance and active rebellion? There was no rebellion outside western Pennsylvania as I said. Apparently there was a greater ability in the other areas to hold one's liquor than exhibited in Penn and therefore the cranks were not able to agitate violence.
Of course, your quote gets the sequence all wrong. The violence in Pa. caused the fedgov to move to protect its officers. It did not "chose to make a fuss" but RESPONDED to that fuss.
Nor is there a coherent argument against the tax in the list of dubious complaints about it.
The Rebellion did have a positive effect since it showed that the fedgov would not back down to violence and would back up the law rather than surrender to the lawless. Its negative effect was that it allowed the Jeffersonians to agitate and distort reality to attract enough of the gullible to attain power. No wonder it appeals to you.
Probably theft. And the theives are not exclusively Birchers; I reckon some of them are on the Left!
Not sure what that book has to do with the subject of the thread but I might read it someday.
Hamilton was a monarchist who chose to impose an oppressive form of taxation on the American People, much like his aristocratic, British predecessors whom he admired.
Try The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson by Forrest MacDonald.
Jefferson's very first act as president was to order Madison to impose an embargo on trade with the Haitians and try and starve them into surrender.
Adams had established diplomatic relations with the rebels and Jefferson put a stop to that immediately. He in no way supported the slaves and the entire South was terrified over this development. So much so that any news from the island was repressed. Papers were not allowed to publish information about it and ships from the region were carefully controlled to prevent spread of such news.
The first, because it provides a definitive refutation-once and for all-of the baseless assertion that the South-which, at the time, consisted of only five states-would have irrevocably severed its ties to the other thirteen colonies, had chattel slavery been abolished in the original framing of the U.S. Constitution.
The second, because it illustrates-in enthralling detail-why Abraham Lincoln was the single greatest wartime leader that this nation has ever had.
That is a complete LIE without a shred of truth to it or evidence for it. He admired the British government because of its unique combination of stability and freedom. It was after all the BEST that was available in his day during a period when the Constitution was still an experiment. There was nothing oppressive in the British government that he admired.
Hamilton's taxation was TINY per capita and in no way "oppressive" particularly to the lower classes which imported little.
His policy immediately created 25 million in capital and made US debt the strongest in the world because he was not willing, unlike Jefferson, to welsh on it and screw its holders.
Attempts? To whom are you referring? My comment was addressed at the false contention that Abe freed slaves outside the occupied areas of the Confederacy nothing else.
If by "free", you mean that this group was excluded from the Emancipation Proclamation and the federal orders pursuant to that document.
Lincoln, along with Attorney General Bates and other members of the cabinet did attempt-with partial success-at enacting a policy of compensated manumission during the war years, post-1862.
I don't believe there is a convincing argument to be made that the Southern states would have ratified the Constitution had it freed slaves (assuming it could have purchased them which is a hell of an assumption given the bankrupt Confederation). Hell for that matter that might have defeated it in New York since areas of that state had as high a concentration of slaves as any area of the nation.
It barely passed there as it was.
I do not need convincing of Lincoln's greatness all I have to do is read some of the garbage posted here by the Lincolnhaters such as the latest "Lincoln was Gay" absurdity. But I would not place him above Washington in that regard.
The South, especially Georgia, South and Carolina, would have never seceded at a time when the settlers living there were under the possible threat of constant warfare against native tribes.
Most of this talk was bluff, on their part.
Speculation is interesting. Not necessarily convincing but at least interesting.
However, it should be noted that there was no use of federal forces in fighting the tribes in the South. That was done with state militias for the most part nor was the federal forces particularly effective in the North until Anthony Wayne showed up.
Even wrt the Whiskey Rebellion the forces Hamilton led were state militias not federal troops.
There's no way that you can travel back-short of inventing a time machine-and alter the decisions that were made over two centuries ago.
However, I don't think that Nash's conclusions are any less convincing than the history that has been engraved into the public consciousness, as far as the issue of slavery and early, post-colonial America is concerned.
and I thought the Yaps was who Audie Murphey defeated in World War twice.Money the size of Yugo spare tires ya say?
Bet they had deep pockets for the ACLU attorneys to dip into.
There is probably a picture on the net of this money. It did have a great advantage in that stealing it was pretty difficult for those without a frontend loader.
The stickler is the financing of emancipation through the fedgov which I don't believe would have EVER happened at the founding.
There is no doubt that the attitude of almost all slaveowners about slavery was negative at that time and they were anxious to find a way out of it. They considered it to be a pernicious situation not one they praised to excess as came to be the next century.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.