If any of our Founding Fathers could be said to have fully anticipated the future of his adopted country, that man is Alexander Hamilton.
He has always been among my favorite early American politicians. It is because he was a practical revolutionary. He seemed to understand and resolve the issues that confronted a young republic. He was not an ideologue in the mold of Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton sought to bridge the gap between revolutionary aspirations and practical nation building.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence were not just rejecting British government; they were trying to decentralize the role of government. The result was the passage of the Articles of Confederation.
The Articles of Confederation have been unfairly portrayed in American History as a failed experiment. On the contrary, they were a great success in their stated goal. They were the form of government that the young America fought its independence for. If the United States had wanted to become a Confederation like the Swiss Republic, the Articles would have served very well. That was the goal of many rebel leaders but it wasn’t designed for a nation with an emerging sense of destiny.
To the generation that had fought the Revolution or served in an increasingly inept Continental Congress, the Articles of Confederation were a failed attempt. Thirteen sovereign states needed to be united into something larger: a bigger vision. The “United States” had to mean something more.
To achieve these ends, the triumvirate of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay began a series of articles (written under pseudonyms) to put forth the idea to replace or at least reform the Articles of Confederation. Known collectively as “The Federalist Papers,” these pamphlets artfully tried to convince a skeptical public of the need for reforms. These articles stressed the benefits of a stronger central government that could help an emerging power. Later, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton was instrumental in hammering out the form of the United States Constitution.
As Secretary of the Treasury in President Washington’s administration, he was the motivating force in establishing a national bank with uniform currency throughout the nation. This did not make him popular with a large segment of the country. Especially in the emerging states and territories of the West like Kentucky and Tennessee, Hamilton was seen as a representative of the elites of Boston, New York and Philadelphia.
His death in a senseless duel with Aaron Burr in 1804, deprived the United States of a unique talent. Although controversial in his life, his untimely death catapulted him into the pantheon of American “Greats.”
In 2016, the musical “Hamilton” has kindled renewed interest in the American hero. It is richly deserved. There are revolutionaries who articulate the aspirations of a people. Thomas Jefferson fits into such a category but a revolutionary people need talented men to put theory into workable governance. This is the role that Alexander Hamilton played.
When the 300th anniversary of Benjamin Franklin’s birth was celebrated in Philadelphia, it became national news. When the 300th anniversary of Alexander Hamilton arrives, I wonder if New York will notice. I doubt it but Hamilton would understand. It is because he had been crucial in creating a city (New York) and a nation that looked to the future and not backwards.
This June, Christ Church will celebrate Alexander Hamilton all month and select him as the subject of our “First Friday History Chat.” Join us in an exciting discussion about this complex genius. It should be fun!
WHEN: Friday, June 10, 2016 6 pm to 9 pm WHERE: Christ Church, Philadelphia
History Made Fresh 