 |
There are some who might think I’ve spent way too much time writing about Alexander Hamilton. Pick a different Founder, you say. My response is that I will…when I do more learning about them. Or maybe you don’t much like our First Treasury Secretary, believing him to be the first man to really monkey with the Constitution. I would point you to the Federalist and argue that, while Hamilton made moves and created financial structures that were controversial in his time, no one better understood the constructs of the Constitution and the limits it placed on the branches of government.
So there!!
Still not convinced?
Oh well, that’s what makes history so intriguing. Looking back, studying people and events, attempting to put some context around them, and coming to conclusions. And sometimes, the conclusions we come to are different.
But today is a good day for those of you who are not fans of Alexander Hamilton. Because even though his influence is felt today here (and all over the world), you can take solace in the fact that he was no longer doing anything under the auspices of the United States Government. January 31, 1795 was the end of his tenure.
In December of the previous year, a worn out (and somewhat dejected) Alexander Hamilton had told President Washington that he was leaving office. The reasons were many. Exhaustion played a role, both in his own life and that of his wife, Eliza. Then there was the job itself. Almost since the inception of the Department, Hamilton had battled naysayers. Members of Congress had railed against him. They dug through financial dealings line by line, looking for the smoking gun to throw him from office.
The country’s first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, had waged a one-man war against Hamilton. He had hounded the President about him, strategized with James Madison to discredit him, and partially funded a newspaper to sling mud at him. And after more than three years of trying, he simply resigned his office in frustration. We know that Alexander Hamilton was no saint, but in his dealings from the Secretary’s office, there was nothing but honesty, integrity, and sound judgement.
So while sainthood eluded him, his homecoming to New York in February probably felt heaven-sent. He was declared the patron saint of prosperity. He was given a lavish party that overflowed with praise as much as food and drink. The former Secretary received nine cheers that evening (President Washington and Vice President Adams received three each). There was much tongue-wagging and speculation about his future. George Clinton, New York’s governor, had just announced he wasn’t running for reelection, and scuttlebutt said the job was Hamilton’s for the taking. There were even whispers of higher aspirations…some said he would be the second President of the United States.
But Hamilton’s needs were more practical. He needed money. For those who accused Hamilton of skimming money from the Treasury, his heavy debt proved otherwise. Hamilton (like most men who served their country back then) made a meager salary, just $3,500 a year, far less than what he and his large family needed. He had set aside his law practice (which probably would have made him 10 times his Secretary’s salary) to serve, and paid a large financial price for it. He had worked tirelessly to clean up the country’s debt, and it was time to do the same for his own.
Alexander Hamilton was ready for private life and private practice, and he would begin on February 1st. But make no mistake, he would never be far from the public eye and its scrutiny.
Recommended Reading: Alexander Hamilton
How can I resist a post about Alexander Hamilton?
I very much enjoyed Chernow’s biography, BTW.
While I take no exception to facts you’ve elucidated above, I will venture to add a few thoughts.
This is technically true, but Hamilton was far from done. Washington continued to rely upon his brain, even from afar. Hamilton produced many thoughtful analyses of different things (like treaties) at Washington’s request. His successor to the Treasury job continued to ask for (and receive) assistance, as did other members of Washington’s cabinet. In fact, Adams retained much of Washington’s cabinet and expressed a lot of frustration over the strings that Hamilton continued to pull.
Hmmm, I appreciate and admire Hamilton and his contributions to the country’s founding are indisputable. The man was a machine! However, as you point out, he was no saint. You cannot help but be in awe of his intellect and accomplishments when you study him – but perhaps Chernow is guilty of a little hero worship in his fine book.
If no one better understood the constructs of the constitution, no one was better equipped to get around them! Madison was at least as acquainted with how things should have worked as Hamilton, and he ended up being on the other side of many Constitutional disputes. Hamilton’s motives were undoubtedly good, but you know the saying about good intentions…
In reading the Federalist, sometimes you can see where Hamilton was going to end up on things, and sometimes you wonder if the problems he was solving should have been solved quite so thoroughly. For example (from No. 15, which I just went through):
The great and radical vice in the construction of the existing Confederation is in the principle of LEGISLATION for STATES or GOVERNMENTS, in their CORPORATE or COLLECTIVE CAPACITIES, and as contradistinguished from the INDIVIDUALS of which they consist. Though this principle does not run through all the powers delegated to the Union, yet it pervades and governs those on which the efficacy of the rest depends. Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States has an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either, by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America. The consequence of this is, that though in theory their resolutions concerning those objects are laws, constitutionally binding on the members of the Union, yet in practice they are mere recommendations which the States observe or disregard at their option.
I wish this were a little more a problem today.
Martin,
Thanks again for the comments! Yeah, we’ve discussed in this forum the influence that Hamilton had on Wolcott and the rest of Adams’ cabinet. I suppose it was indicative of the times. John Adams had no real precedent from which to act with regards to firing (or forcing a resignation of) Cabinet members.
And you’re absolutely correct in naming Madison with Hamilton in the same breath. I read Chernow’s book on Hamilton before I read Ketcham’s book on Madison, so I probably see things a little more from Hamilton’s bent than Madison’s.
And I love that quote from #15!! Who knew?!?
Thank you again.
Regards,
Joel