How would America be different if Hamilton would have been President?

[LostInAnomie]

Protector of the wealthy, creator of the National Bank, boss of the Federalist Party. What if this proto-capitalist had managed to take the presidency before Burr shot him? Would we be better off? Would the Federalist party still be around? Would we have merged with Britain again?

Get to it history buffs!

[NoPasaran]

1. Which actual President do you propose Hamilton to have replaced?

If John Adams, I don't know that history would have been very different. If Jefferson or Madison I think that assumes that the Republican/Democrats would not have arisen to replace the Federalists in the early 19th Century.

[orpupilofnature57]

4. If Hamilton had ever been president, we'd still have slavery today

Besides being the Karl rove of his day,creator of the N.Y POST He was opposed to the common man in every philosophy,he PREACHED!REPUBLICANS of the late eighteenth century would look the power of corporations today,and would have thought Hamilton had shot burr.

[NoPasaran]

5. Hard to argue with that n/t

[RoyGBiv]

8. I disagree ...

Federalists had little to gain from slavery. Hamilton himself had nothing to gain. He was opposed almost completely to the so-called "Slave Power" except where it benefited him personally.

This is not to say that Hamilton was an abolitionist, but his economic and political principles did not foster the continuance of the slave system. I am having trouble thinking of any variation of his political views that could lead to that conclusion.

[orpupilofnature57]

12. I'm sorry, i meant in the sense of his aristocratic view. eom

[DebJ]

17. Hamilton never owned slaves and actually worked in the State

of New York on abolitionist type activities: I believe it was the piece of legislation designed to make it easier for people to free their slaves. I'll try to look this up later, get quotes from my books. I have too many books on Hamilton to remember exactly in which one I read this.

[0rganism]

23. Doubtful. The South would have discarded slavery eventually, IMHO

By the time of the Civil War, slavery was already a losing economic proposition. 'course, the plantation owners didn't see it that way, because they thought labor-intensive cotton production would always be a viable crop. Even if the Confederacy had seceded peacefully, slavery there would have gone the way of the dodo by 1900 in favor of industry and a more diverse agriculture. Unfortunately, we probably wouldn't have the 14th amendment either -- at least in its current form.

Much speculation on my part, of course, but the economic situation was real. The cotton crop was tied to the textile industry, which had experienced a Britain-fueled boom in the early 19th century, which had pretty much run out of steam by 1870.

[Mojambo]

2. By the time Burr shot him

Hamilton had been long discarded as a Presidential possibility.

[David Zephyr]

3. Abigail Adams had a private name for Hamilton: "Bonaparte"

I think she had an astute reading of people and I think he would have set up either a monarchy of his own or, as you say, attempted to merge us back with Britain.

Abigail referred privately to Hamilton as "Bonaparte". I think there are indeed many similarities between the two.

In any event, Hamilton merits respect for his great mind and how far he came from such humble and unpromising beginnings.

[RoyGBiv]

9. I don't think so ...

We must not forget that political propagandizing is not a new art form. Hamilton's image as a monarch was something those opposed to him developed and fostered. In his day, the battle was between Francophiles and Anglophiles (or their opposites, if you'd rather view it that way). Jefferson was a Francophile, Hamilton an Anglophile. Comparing Hamilton to Bonaparte was code to the Francophiles of what he supposedly represented.

The interesting thing about this particular characterization is that John Adams was a so-called Anglophile, as was his wife, as was, in fact, Hamilton. But Hamilton was not very social, not "upper class," and people that ran in those circles sought to defame him. Referring to him as a Francophile and one that emrabaced the dictatorial notions of a Bonaparte was a double-barrel insult, especially from an apparent political ally. In short, it was a way of defaming him amongst different classes.

Without getting into too much detail, there was a great deal of internal politcal conflict involved in this as well. The Federalist Party was not a political party as we would now consider it. A great deal of internal political fighting took place, particularly in New York where Hamilton had his base.

[David Zephyr]

14. You Make a Good Point

in the jousting between what you call Anglophiles and Francophiles and I do not argue with you regarding Adams' lack of love for the French...for after all, he was a first hand --- and at times a jealous --- witness to the French adoration of both Jefferson and Franklin while he was in Paris. To Adams great credit, he finally gave up on the French and went to the Hague where he was successful in obtaining financial help for which we should be grateful.

It is my opinion from years of reading that Hamilton's ambitions were even greater than those of most of the "founding fathers" and that is saying a lot, for the ego and ambitions of Jefferson, Washington and even Adams were monumental to begin with.

I have always been struck by the paradox of Thomas Jefferson, raised as an Aristocrat positioning himself as the champion of the poor while Hamilton whose beginnings could not have been more challenging associating himself with royalty and the powerful. The rivalry between these two men, both with fierce egos and ambitions, has engaged me for years.

For the record, I am not a huge fan of Thomas Jefferson either.

[PittPoliSci]

22. good post!

n't

[Tweed]

6. The country would have broken apart in some manner

Part of it might have even gone back to England. Hamilton would have been full of scandals.

[RoyGBiv]

7. Depends ...

(I anticipate a lot of subjects starting with "depends" in this forum)

As another respondent asked, when is he President? Who does he replace?

I don't have the harsh view of Hamilton that some in this forum seem to have. He's not one of my favorite historical characters, but we must consider that his ideological opposites were largely upper-class slave-owners who opposed him primarily for reasons related to their own economic and social self-interests. As a consequence, much of the negative contemporary rhetoric directed toward him is tainted by somewhat hypocritical notions.

I could go off on many tangents, one being that the Federalists did not really die. They only changed forms and emerged as the core base of the Whig Party which in turn formed the politically viable core of the Republican party. Recall that Lincoln was a self-described Clay Whig who described his own political principles in largely Federalist terms.

Another tangent could lead down the road of the political and legal battle between Jefferson and Marshall, the latter being at one time a Hamiltonian Federalist. Marshall defined a great deal of what we, as progressives, now take as legal gospel. Furthermore, the modern Republican party, removed as it is from its origins, has thrust itself enitrely in the opposite direction with its opposition to Marbury v Madison, the "activist" Federalist decision that defined the duties of the US Supreme Court, per Marshall.

In short, I don't know. I don't think Hamilton himself as President would have had that great of an effect on the course of this country because a great deal of the Federalist principles he espoused took root anyway. Had he happened to replace Jefferson, several things might have been different, but not necessarily in the ways one might think. Focused as he was on finances, he may well have ignored the prospect of acquiring the so-called Louisiana Purchase, which, at the time, didn't seem like a particularly good deal given all the problems with the territory. That might have avoided the Civil War, which in turn could have avoided many of the progressive advancements in social and racial relations.

Things would have been somewhat different, but how different is simply a guess. Comparison of Hamilton to modern Republican elitists are, I think off the mark.

[Mojambo]

10. Good stuff

I am hardly as versed in this material as you are, but I wonder if I might run a question by you?

How would Hamilton's impressions of modern day America compare with those of his contemporaries, such as Jefferson and Adams? I'd be inclined to think that he would find our present system much more palatable than someone like Jefferson would. What might Hamilton's biggest beef be with the course that America has taken? Or what would he consider the greatest triumph?

I appreciate your comments.

[RoyGBiv]

11. Blanket Statement

I think the Founding Fathers, of which I consider Hamilton to be a member, would be horrified at the current state of American politics, in almost all its aspects. I include all of them, from Hamilton to Jefferson, but I think some would be more horrified than others.

IOW, if we created a time machine and brought the FF forward in time, Hamilton would probably fit better than, say, Jefferson would. But, he wouldn't like it either. The Federalist manifesto, if we may call it that, was centered on elitism, in the sense that those who had a direct interest in the operations of the economic life of the country have more power. The Democratic opposite was not all that opposite. The "Democratic Manifesto" of the time is most simply defined as "less" against "more," that is, concentrated wealth against expanded wealth. Neither party cared one whit about the common man, not really. Their interests were directed toward different sources of wealth. Defined very simply, this was mercantile wealth in Hamilton's case and agricultural wealth in Jefferson's case. But, it was all wealth, propertied interests, elite cultural classes.

Up to that point, this doesn't sound a great deal different than what we have today, so we have to look deeper. I can't really summarize here. I suggest reading Richard Hofstadter's _Anti-Intellectualism in American Life_. Both Hamilton and Jefferson were, first and foremost, intellectuals. Yes, they disagreed, but their disagreements were based fundamentally in strong, intellectual arguments that had a concrete basis. The nation at the time was working on an untested theory, so this was a natural thing, natural that competing, but equitable visions of the ideological thrust of the nation would clash. But, behind that clash was a reverent respect for intellect. Put simply, smarts was king. You didn't go anywhere without being intelligent in the classical sense.

Today ... George Bush was "elected" on the same sort of platform that Andrew Jackson was, and both Federalists (old school) and traditional Democrats (that is Democratic-Republicans) were appalled. He was elected for his charm, for his name, for his image. People who had no clue, and no desire to find a clue, voted for him because he was, in modern parlance, "cool," a "stud," the "man." That's the kind of thing that both Hamilton and Jefferson despised. But in the years after they were central to the political life of the nation, things changed.

[orpupilofnature57]

13. Always saw Jefferson and Hamilton in black and white,thanks for color

[DebJ]

18. nice post. And there is no way that I could compare Hamilton to

modern Republican elitists. Hamilton was, first and foremost, for strong Federal government. The goal of the current Republican party is to starve the beast to death. Hamilton would roll over in his grave.
I think you are right about the Louisiana Purchase, also. Great point.

[PittPoliSci]

21. re:

Comparison of Hamilton to modern Republican elitists are, I think off the mark.

I couldn't agree with you more. Hamilton was a very big proponent of active government regulation of the economy, which, the Repukes, want nothing to do with.

[DrGonzoLives]

15. I don't think Hamilton would've won

The Federalists were already on the decline by the time he was shot, to the point where we were a quasi-single party state.

However, if he had bucked the odds and taken down, say, Madison...

We would not have merged with Britain, but we would not have fought the War of 1812, either. It is more likely that we would have gotten into it with France. We would probably still not have a National Bank, as Jackson or someone like him would still have sent it to the grave.

The Federalists, I believe, would have still evolved into our modern Republican party.

[PittPoliSci]

20. I don't know about that...

Federalists like George Washington almost completely funded the Revolution for a while out of his own pocket, if it weren't for him, we probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground to even get a modern Republican Party. Jefferson's economic policy more accurately reflected that of the modern Republican party to some extent. Jefferson was almost completely bought and paid for by big slave owning interests, hence why he never supported a national bank, as it would've hurt the plantation complex, as our country moved from agrarian to industrial.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

16. The $10 bill would have Burr on it?

:shrug:

[PittPoliSci]

19. we would've been better off.

Hamilton is the father of planning the American economy. In his "Report on Manufactures" he outlines his specific plans to build up industry in America, basically by using the National Bank as an instrument of direct funding to the American economy. He wasn't necessarily a free-market economist, based on this example, and by his actions. Before he died, he was actually planning on splitting from the Federalist Party.

[suigeneris]

24. Yes, I think that's right. Under Hamilton we would have seen

a lot stronger general government and sooner. He had no reluctance to use this instrument for good purposes, certainly no ideological barriers. Jefferson was a penny pincher and squeemish about all but pet projects, Hamilton was for robust expenditures if he expected a salutary return.