Elder 1

Eric Elder
Dr. Matarese
POLS 495
4 December 2017
Final Research Paper

Alexander Hamilton: American Founder

I. Introduction

He was one of the most influential individuals of his time period and could be

viewed as the first man to truly exemplify the achievement of the “American dream,” yet,

despite the important role he played in the founding of our nation, the legacy of

Alexander Hamilton seems to have become overshadowed by many of his

contemporaries. Until recently, when people heard the name “Alexander Hamilton” the

first thing that probably came to mind was the face of the guy on the ten-dollar bill.

Nowadays when people hear the name they might think of a catchy song from the

popular Broadway musical based on his life. While I suppose this could be seen as a

relative improvement in the founder’s contemporary status, considering just how

instrumental the man really was in the formation of our nation as we know it today, it is

shocking to see the relative lack of recognition Hamilton has received in comparison to

other noteworthy individuals of his time, such as George Washington and Thomas

Jefferson. And it does not seem to be just because he was never a president – after all a

recent poll conducted in St. Louis’ Washington University showed that nearly three

fourths of Americans think Hamilton was a president (Macdonald). But despite the lack

of recognition from much of the general public, by examining the life and political

philosophies of Alexander Hamilton, one can start to begin to understand the

instrumental role he played in the establishing of our country. His style of governance
 Elder 2

and political theory paved the way for the formation and development of the United

States, as we know it today.

II. Childhood and Early Life

While the intention of this essay is to inform readers on Hamilton’s contributions

to American political thought, in order to begin to understand the man it is important to

first understand some context about his early life. Hamilton was born on the island of

Nevis in the British West Indies in the mid 1750s (there is some contention about his

exact birth year being as there are contradicting primary sources). His parents were

unmarried. His mother was a West Indies woman and his father a Scottish man with little

to his name who did not stay to raise the young Hamilton. When he was still a young boy,

Hamilton’s mother married and started a new family, and in doing so cast much of her

affection for the young Hamilton aside (Mead). As if his lack of parental consistency did

not seem already a steep barrier for the young founder to hurtle, Hamilton repeatedly fell

ill with diseases, such as yellow fever, which often proved fatal to children of his time

(Federici). Yet despite all of the hardships of his childhood, Hamilton’s was able to make

use his natural talents and hard work, to make the connections that he needed to leave

Nevis and make his way to the United States.

Hamilton did not come to the United States until 1772 when he enrolled in King’s

College, what is today Columbia University (Morse). Though he was an immigrant just

coming to American for the first time, within two years of arriving in his new country

Hamilton had already fully embraced the patriotic sentiments that were beginning to

emerge around this time of Revolution. In 1774, Hamilton wrote his first political piece,

A Full Vindication, which attempted to rebuke criticism from American British Loyalists
 Elder 3

directed towards the Continental Congress. In this work, he argued, “no reason can be

advanced why one man should exercise pre-eminence over his fellow creatures more than

another” (Morse). As the young founder saw it, Americans had not consented to British

Parliament the authority to behold them to British laws, yet Parliament was acting as

though this authority was already in place. Continuing on a track of pseudo Lockean

philosophy, in Hamilton would also come to state that “(all men are) entitled to a parity

of privileges,” another notion well in-line with Classical Liberal thought (Morse). But

these were not the only interesting philosophies presented in Hamilton’s early works.

Examining A Full Vindication, The Farmer Refuted, and other pre-revolutionary

works of Hamilton’s yields several surprises about Hamilton’s political thoughts. This

young man envisioned a much more powerful Continental Congress with full autonomy

in decisions of war, taxation, and finance (Morse). While his later works would be most

famous for the role he aspired to see played by the judiciary and the even more notably

the executive branch, Hamilton’s originally yearned to see power reside in the legislative

branch. This should not be taken as too much of a surprise, considering the Continental

Congress was a legislative body, at this point a stronger legislative branch was equivalent

to a stronger federal government. Though it might seem like the early Hamilton was quite

a departure from the man he would become, the seeds had been set for an individual who

wants to see stronger federal government.

III. Revolutionary War

Considering his negative sentiments towards the British rule and the increase in

power that he hoped to see granted to the Continental Congress, it should come as no

surprise that Hamilton was extremely active with the Revolutionary War effort. In fact, it
 Elder 4

was through his service in the war for independence that Hamilton was able to rise to

prominence. After spending some time leading a small group of soldiers, Hamilton took

part in several military victories. In large thanks to the reputation this garnered him,

Hamilton was appointed General George Washington’s aid-de-camp, and was granted the

rank of Colonel in the continental army (Mead).

At this point, Hamilton was still a young man in his early twenties, yet he was

already one of the most important people in this new army and in turn the emerging

nation. This opportunity to work closely with General Washington gave Hamilton

experience in a serious leadership role, as a colonel commanding soldiers on the

battlefield. It also helped him to improve his skills as an orator as Washington often sent

his aid as a proxy to address and update Continental Congress (Walling). As the war

progressed, the bonds between the two founding fathers continued to grew, as did

Hamilton’s reputation as a leader. In 1781, Hamilton boldly led a charge at Yorktown in

the final battle of the Revolution to help secure American Independence (Mead). In doing

so, he also secured his position in history as a revolutionary and founder of this new

country.

IV. Post-Revolutionary War

Through his time serving in the continental army, Hamilton gained three

advantages that would prove essential in the crafting of his political thought. First, he

gained notoriety and connections. Hamilton’s impressive feats on the battlefield gave him

a reputation among his contemporaries that helped him become a popular figure

following the war. Also, working closely with Washington, Hamilton came to view the

general as a father figure and mentor, and having the most famous and beloved of
 Elder 5

Americans serve that role certainly came with its perks (Mead). For Hamilton, those

perks included second in command of Washington’s continental army and a spot on

Washington’s cabinet once he was elected president (Walling). Secondly, serving in the

military gave Hamilton a better idea about the kind of government that would be needed

to maintain an effective army. As a soldier, Hamilton saw firsthand the failings of the

Continental Congress to properly feed and supply their troops. In the crafting of his

subsequent political theories, the founding father would pay close attention to building a

government capable fulfilling a country’s military needs (Walling). Thirdly, his

experience serving in the military showed him the effectiveness of energetic leadership.

In fact, on the back of his military pay book, Hamilton included a quote from the Greek

philosopher Demosthenes that would prove a quite on-the-nose between his service in the

military and his famous argument for energy in the executive. It read,

As a general marches at the head of his troops, so too ought wise politicians…

march at the head of events; insomuch as they ought not to await the event to

know the measures to take; but the measures which they have taken ought to

produce the event. (Walling)

Hamilton saw first hand the effect that energetic leadership could have in arousing

loyalty and respect and building towards success, and he believed that the preservation of

the newly formed country would depend on such energy in order to flourish.

Following the Revolutionary War, Hamilton continued making his mark on the

newly formed government. Immediately after the war, he served as a New York

representative to the Continental Congress, but quickly became disheartened with the

institution after he saw its inability to properly govern firsthand. He had already been
 Elder 6

familiar with Continental Congress’ failures to execute on necessary commitments during

his time as a soldier. Year after year, Hamilton saw the soldiers fighting for independence

consistently receive insufficient resources. This lack in necessary help was most notable

during the winters, when, as late as five years into the war effort, Continental Congress

was continually unable to provide necessary food for the soldiers. Hamilton believed that

this was unacceptable (Walling). Here were soldiers fighting for the independence of a

new country, yet the government of that country was incapable of providing the materials

necessary for the subsistence of these soldiers. How could this inspire loyalty? Why

should these soldiers want to lay down their lives for such little recognition? These

questions plagued the young founder and helped to direct his later political theories.

Perhaps Hamilton thought that his being in congress could change things, but

after serving in congress Hamilton saw that the problem was in the structure of

continental congress itself. His concerns became exacerbated after congress did not

reimburse the troops following the war. Again, he feared, soldiers would not be loyal to

this new country if the coutnry’s government could not support them. Because of this

repeated abuse, Hamilton developed several theories about the relationship between the

army and the state. He concluded that a state without a strong army would be subject to

invasion or internal division, and without security, citizens could not feel safe and

entrepreneurs had no incentives to build businesses and improve the state of life in the

new nation (Walling).

Hamilton developed a three-part plan for building a more effective military. First,

he proposed a pension plan for soldiers that ensured that some soldiers receive a

proportion of a living salary from federal government even after times of fighting. This
 Elder 7

plan was met with much resistance from his contemporaries who would have preferred

state-run militias to a federally funded army. Hamilton, however, argued that this system

would serve to build military loyalty to the country rather than individual states. He

feared that insufficient federal security could lead to a collapse of the federal government,

and further that state militias would fight for resources, which would plunge the nation

into further dysfunction. Secondly, he wanted a professional military loyal to the federal

government. For one, he saw this as a division of labor, which would lead to improved

efficiency in doing work. He also thought that a professional military would mean more

skilled and effective troops. And thirdly, he wanted to enlist slaves into the military and

grant them freedom for fighting. He believed that former slaves would be ideal soldiers

because they were loyal and fighting, literally, for their freedom. He also saw this as a

feasible path towards emancipation (Walling). Of course, this part of his plan was met by

the most resistance, especially from slaveholders (Mead).

V. Hamilton and the Constitution

By 1787, it had become abundantly clear that the Articles of Confederation were

insufficient to govern the United States and thus had to change. That year, the

Constitutional Convention was called with the intention of developing an improved

model on which to rebuild the government this newly formed nation. Hamilton was sent

as a representative of New York and he offered some fairly revolutionary ideas as to how

the government should be changed. Most noteworthy, he wanted the president and

senators to be chosen by electors with special and particular qualifications such that only

the best would be chosen, and he wanted these positions to be for life (Morse). Of course,

this thought proves would prove too radical for his contemporaries, but the indirect
 Elder 8

election of senators and the electoral college both could be argued to have been influence

by Hamilton’s desire to see an elite high leadership in office. He also wanted to see an

absolute veto from the executive, but again this was unpopular among his peers (Morse).

Ironically, given his proclivity for offering more power to the executive,

Hamilton’s key contribution to the Constitutional Convention was separation of powers

(Morse). Hamilton wanted a strong federal government to protect the country from the

states and the common people who he distrusted (Morse). Though he wanted life terms

and a strong elite to run the government, he also feared the possibility of corruption or

demagoguery emerging should there not be some sort of balance of power. Through this

contribution, the three-branch system emerged as a way that, Hamilton hoped, of

ensuring a strong federal government while also preventing a single branch from gaining

too much power.

Despite its not being a perfect reflection of the government that he wanted to see,

Hamilton was still the greatest proponent for its passage. In an effort to inform the public

and spread popular opinion for the adoption of this new constitution, Hamilton recruited

fellow New Yorkers John Jay and James Madison to write a series of arguments in favor

of adopting this new constitution. The Federalist, as it was called, consisted of 85

separate passages arguing the various merits of the new constitution. Of these 85

passages, Hamilton was responsible for 51 including all of those written on the judiciary

and most of those written about the executive branch (Mead). The arguments in these

Federalist Papers present an American vision of political philosophy that speaks to the

state of nature and the purpose of government, making them incredibly important not just

in American history but as pieces of political theoretical literature. Also, they give
 Elder 9

readers greater insight on the intentions of the Constitution. The arguments presented in

the Federalist Papers also show readers how the biggest proponents for the Constitution

envisioned its function.

He believed that having a strong federal government was key to building the army

loyal that he had envisioned, and so the only possible was to preserve the nation was

through a strong federal government (Walling). The Constitution did not go quite far

enough, as Hamilton saw it, in ensuring a strong federal government, but it had some

components that he thought it could be a basis for a successful federal government. For

instance, he did not get a president with absolute veto and lifetime term, but as he saw it a

four-year term and the Electoral College were sufficient in allowing for a strong

executive (Miroff). Hamilton also praised the Judiciary for the stability that it could bring

to the new country. But most importantly, Hamilton advocated for energy in the

executive. He believed that an executive that displayed energy in its actions would give

the people the assurance that they needed to buy into that government, and it would give

the federal government legitimacy and the capacity to make real policy under the

Constitution (unlike the Articles of Confederation which preceded it) (Morse).

Eventually, thanks in part to advocacy of Hamilton, the Constitution was ratified and

George Washington became the first President of the United States.

VI. Secretary of Treasury

Though he was not eligible to be elected president – being born in the West Indies

– Hamilton still had the opportunity to exercise executive energy through his role as the

United States’ first Secretary of Treasury. This is when Hamilton’s role in the early

development of American economic theory started to shine through. His main goals as
 Elder 10

Secretary of the Treasury was to build economic stability in this new nation, something

that Hamilton had seen congress under the Articles of Confederation fail to do. The first

step it doing this was to recoup from the lasting debts from the Revolutionary war

(Federici). In order to do so, Hamilton established imposts and excise taxes. He also

worked towards developing national banks so that the United States could have a stronger

currency (Morse). He argued that Article II of the Constitution, the article describing the

role of the executive branch, encompassed a broad range of “executive powers.” Thus he

took liberties with his role and extended his reach onto society (Miroff). Through this, he

encouraged the creation of new businesses and manufacturing through economic

incentives, which he hoped would help the United States gain economic independence

from foreign powers (Federici). Through a modern perspective, encouraging the

formation of new businesses might seem like a popular move for a politician, but this act

was actually met with a lot of backlash.

Hamilton’s economic policies furthered the urban/rural divide in the newly

formed country. Southerners especially thought that Hamilton’s emphasis on industry and

manufacturing directly undermined slavery. Whether or not this had been his intention,

they were right in that it helped the Northern states develop economic power that

ultimately would help win the war. Others critics believed that Hamilton showed

favoritism to his friends and partners (Miroff). But perhaps the greatest backlash to

Hamilton’s policies came in the form of the Whiskey rebellion of 1791-1794. As part of

his plan to raise taxes in order to pay off war debts, Hamilton designed and pushed the

passage of a tax on the production of whiskey. Since they lacked adequate resources for

monitoring the production of whiskey, this tax was based on the total capacity for
 Elder 11

production of a distillery. Since rural distilleries were far less likely to produce as great of

a percentage of their capacity as urban distilleries, rural distillers saw this as unfair and

biased. As a result, the newly formed government faced its first internal military

challenge in the form of the whiskey rebellion. Then President George Washington

eventually led the continental army to stop this rebellion, and the tax was eventually

repealed with Jefferson became president (Mitenbuler).

Hamilton also impressed upon the nation his foreign policy ideas as a part of the

executive. One important thing to recall when examining Hamilton’s ideas on foreign

policy is the importance of military strength to his political philosophies. The most

important component to a strong army, Hamilton believed, was a strong navy. A navy

had the capacity to prevent foreign invasions without fighting ever having to come to the

mainland (Wallings). Hamilton feared greatly the possibility of an invasion from Spanish

or French colonies in the Americans where a Naval presence would be insufficient for

stopping an attack. Because of this, he even considered preemptive strikes on Florida and

Louisiana, though these considerations were never followed through on (Ambrose and

Martin). Aside from his military foreign policy, Hamilton wanted true American

independence. To him, this meant avoiding entangling alliances, perhaps something he

picked-up from Washington, and gaining economic independence (Federici). He feared

the implications of American indebtedness to France and the leverage that they might

hold over the United States because of that. Though there was great debate as to whether

American debts to France should be honored following the French revolution, Hamilton

eventually settled into the opinion that the United States still owed debts to the new

French government. Another tough decision had to be made regarding the revolution in
 Elder 12

Haiti. While Hamilton supported the antislavery cause and wanted to provide

humanitarian support to the island nation during their revolution, he ultimately decided

not to (Ambrose and Martin).

VII. Characterizing Hamilton’s Political Thought:

Hamilton continued leading the Federalist Party and strongly voicing his opinions

in the new government until his untimely death in 1804. Though his impact on the early

fabric of our nation had been cut short, Hamilton still made his mark through his political

thought. Hamilton was a Political and Economic Theorist, though he hated abstract

theories insofar that he did not believe humans were rational actors (Mead). Instead he

tried to base his theories off of his experiences, and tried not to be too reliant on the

theoretical. As to the importance of his theories, as Federici puts it, “the argument can be

made that The Federalist possesses greater theoretical clarity on the problem of human

nature and government than Hobbes or Rousseau achieved” (Federici).

Hamilton’s political thought is perhaps best reflected through the Federalist

papers as well as his actions in government. Because of the nature of his federalist

arguments and the special privileges he seemed to show wealthy northern during his time

as Secretary of the Treasury, many today have come to see Hamilton as an elitist.

Hamilton clearly lacked faith in the common people to make reasonable, educated

decisions. He thought that all human beings had a dangerous capacity to be fickle in their

decision-making and because of that feared that a largely uneducated public would be

particularly prone to poor reasoning (Mead).

Hamilton is most often contrasted with Thomas Jefferson, and for good reason.

The two were seen as rivals and represented opposing ideologies in nearly every matter.
 Elder 13

Hamilton was vehemently anti-slavery and even founded the New York Society for the

Emancipation of the Slaves, while Jefferson owned slaves. Hamilton led the Federalist

Party while Jefferson helped lead the Anti-Federalists. Hamilton represented the urban

elite while Jefferson strived to be an champion for urban lower class. While Hamilton

fought to pass the Constitution, upon his return to France after the Constitutional

Convention, Jefferson expressed dissatisfaction with the document. In the eyes of

Hamilton, Jefferson represented subservience to the French, and in the eyes of Jefferson

Hamilton represented a return to British classism (Ambrose and Martin).

The pair’s already troubling relationship was met with even greater strife as both

served in Washington’s cabinet and disagreed on almost every matter. Additionally,

Hamilton saw individuals who he admired greatly, like James Madison, fall under a

Jeffersonian spell and become attracted to his ideals. Because of this, Hamilton wrote a

series of newspaper articles under the pseudonym Pacifus discrediting Jefferson, but in

response pro-Jefferson newspapers jumped to his defense. These newspapers in turn

depicted Hamiltonians as, as Robert McDonald put it, “corrupt, hostile to the

Constitution, jealous of the president, and motivated by mad ambition.” While Hamilton

failed to discredit Jefferson, the response from supporters of Jefferson may have done

some to sour Hamilton’s public image (Ambrose and Martin).

Though Hamilton, especially in his early days, had some Lockean ideas, he is

most often compared to Machiavelli. Hamilton does seem to believe in natural rights of

man and a natural law, but he would better be classified as a moral realist in the likes of

Machiavelli. In only three references to Machiavelli by Hamilton, it seemed that the

founder espoused negative sentiments towards the earlier political theorist, but the pair
 Elder 14

shared undeniably shared several core beliefs which often draw comparisons. Both

expressed views of an ideal statesman that included high energy, capacity for action,

tough-minded, realism, and masculinity. Hamilton actually went as far as to criticize his

opponents Jefferson and Madison as being womanly in areas where they disagreed.

Comparing Hamilton to Machiavelli. Both thinkers also heavily emphasized the

importance of foreign policy and state independence, both financial and militarily. They

also both drew their philosophies on the organization of the state from their views of the

military, seeing a need for a professional army, a national bank to support it, a strong

navy to prevent invasions, and a militarized society as being paramount (Walling). That

being said, Hamilton believed that the only way to make a government legitimate was

through republicanizing it. Though he held a trustee vision of republicanism very

distance form what we would consider republicanism today, he seemed to have wanted

the consent of the governed. He simply did not trust the governed to make important

decisions themselves. He also did not want rule by fear, like Machiavelli, but instead

genuinely seemed interested in ruling by convincing the common people that his methods

were best (Federici).

One of biggest complaints against Hamilton by his critics is the claim that he

desired to reinstate a monarchy. Hamilton had been quoted as saying that the British

government should be admired, and he was seen to have ties to British aristocracy

(Ambrose and Martin). Additionally, his desire to see unlimited terms for might seem

like an endorsement of monarchy. That being said, some scholars disagree with this

assessment. While Hamilton may have admired the British government, that does not

inherently make him a monarchist. As for his support for unlimited terms, Hamilton
 Elder 15

seems to have believed that this was the best way to ensure this new government be

effective. As he saw it, George Washington was bound to become the first president, and

he was sure to do an excellent job. Hamilton worried that, if a new president was chosen

after just a few years, eventually someone unfit for the position could be selected.

Because of that, he wanted the highest positions in government to have life term so that

people would take choosing electors seriously and so that there would be fewer

changeovers in government and thus ensure a government less apt to change policy

because of fickle sentiments (Morse). Of course the democratic nature of this argument is

debatable. It begs the questions: can one consider a government to be a democracy if

there are life terms? What exactly constitutes a monarchy? When searching to answer

these questions it is important to remember that the he was starting. As Hamilton himself

put it, “(One reason a) free government is to be preferred over an absolute monarchy (is

the) tendency of the Free Government to interest the passions of the community in its

favor (and to) beget public spirit and public confidence” (Walling).

Looking Back on Hamilton

So what exactly is Hamilton’s legacy? From a modern perspective, we can more

accurately judge Hamilton’s accomplishments and contributions. Hamilton will always

be a contentious figure. While some will criticize his elitism, others will quickly point out

his own humble beginnings. Some might say that his economic plan was overly

ambitious and that his attempts to fix the economy actually encouraged reckless

investment and set the country back, but others go as far as to credit his economic

development as paramount to the North’s victory in the Civil War.

 Elder 16

As I stated in the introduction, in many regards it could be said that Hamilton is

the paradigm of what it means to be American. We call the United States a country of

immigrants, yet he is the only founding father who was an immigrant. Many Americans

revere the Constitution like a holy document, and Hamilton was its most fervent

champion. The two-party system dominates the political system, and Hamilton helped

create that divide. Today people often criticize their politicians for refusing to

compromise or criticize their own party, but Hamilton was able to do both of these

things. We owe so much of what our country is today to Alexander Hamilton. As stated

by George Will, “there is an elegant memorial in Washington to Jefferson, but none to

Hamilton. However, if you seek Hamilton’s monument, look around. You are living in it.

We honor Jefferson, but live in Hamilton’s country” (Ambrose and Martin).

 Elder 17

Works Cited

Ambrose, Douglas, and Robert W. T. Martin. The Many Faces of Alexander Hamilton:
the Life & Legacy of America's Most Elusive Founding Father. New York
University Press, 2007.

Federici, M. (2012). The political philosophy of alexander hamilton (The political

philosophy of the american founders). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.

Macdonald, Cheyenne. “Can YOU Name the Former US President on the $10 Bill? Poll
Reveals Just How Little Americans Know about Who Was (and Wasn't) in
Charge of the County.” Daily Mail Online, Associated Newspapers, 9 Feb. 2016.

Morse, A. (1890). Alexander Hamilton. Political Science Quarterly,5(1), 1-23.

doi:10.2307/2139162

Miroff, B. (1988). Alexander Hamilton: The Aristocrat as Visionary. International

Political Science Review / Revue Internationale De Science Politique, 9(1), 43-54.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1600815

Mitenbuler, Reid. Bourbon Empire: the Past and Future of America's Whiskey. Penguin
Books, 2016.

Walling, K. (1995). Was Alexander Hamilton a Machiavellian Statesman? The Review of

Politics, 57(3), 419-447. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1408596

Mead, W. (2004). First Principals: Alexander Hamilton and the American

Founders. Foreign Affairs, 83(4), 133-135. doi:10.2307/20034053