Hi all, sorry for the lack of posting recently. I’m in New York City and working on some Hamilton research and will share details here in the next few weeks.
I wanted to bring your attention to some great Hamilton events going on this weekend (July 26-28, 2013) in Upstate New York. The events are sponsored by the AHA Society to honor the 225th anniversary of the ratification of the US Constitution in New York (July 26, 1788). The ratification of the Constitution in New York was a dramatic, tumultuous event. When the debates began, the consensus of the delegates was to vote strongly against the Constitution. However, by the time the final votes were counted, Hamilton’s persuasive skills had secured a 30-27 vote in favor of ratification, thus making New York the 11th state to join the Union.
Some highlights from the many great events include:
Friday from 7:30-9 in Poughkeepsie- A talk by Professor Andrew Shankman from Rutgers University entitled, “The Gentleman and the Democrat: Alexander Hamilton, Melancton Smith, and the Battle over the US Constitution.”
Saturday at 11:30 in Garrison- A narrated walk tracing the steps of Benedict Arnold’s escape route/Hamilton’s chase route down to the Hudson River.
Sunday at 3 pm in Newburgh- a lecture series about George Washington and his aide-de-camp Alexander Hamilton in the Hudson Valley. The speakers for the afternoon include Hamilton scholar Michael Newton, AHA Society President Rand Scholet, and Johanna Porr, Director of the Historical Society of Newburgh. The lectures will take place at the Newburgh Heritage Center, also known as the Old Courthouse.
Today, July 12, 2013 marks the 209th anniversary of Alexander Hamilton’s death at age 47. Hamilton died at a significantly younger age than his fellow political luminaries: Jefferson survived until age 83, Madison lived to 85, Adams to 90, and Burr to 80. However, in his 47 years, he fundamentally shaped America’s political and financial foundations. Hamilton rose from obscurity in Nevis and, without a formal education or financial backing, became an influential revolutionary thinker, a military hero, Washington’s most influential aide, the driving force of the Federalist Papers and the push for the Constitution, the architect of America’s financial future as the first Secretary of Treasury, and so much more.
The inscription at Hamilton’s grave site says it well:
The patriot of incorruptible integrity.
The soldier of approved valour.
The statesman of consummate wisdom.
Whose talents and virtues will be admired by grateful posterity long after this marble shall have mouldered into dust.
I also love this excerpt from the Eulogy on General Alexander Hamilton by the citizens of Boston written by Harrison G. Otis:
But in the man whose loss we deplore, the interval between manhood and death was so uniformly filled by a display of the energies of his mighty mind, that this world has scarcely paused to enquire into the story of his infant or puerile years. He was a planet, the dawn of which was not perceived; which rose with full splendor, and emitted a constant stream of glorious light, until the hour of its sudden and portentous eclipse.
If you’re in New York, come join the series of exciting events throughout NYC today to commemorate Hamilton’s passing. If you’re not in the city, check out the live stream of Thomas Fleming’s author talk at Trinity Church here.
Today, July 11, marks the 209th anniversary of the fatal duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. I think a lot of popular knowledge of Hamilton is shaped by the duel, which is unfortunate considering the far-reaching scope of his legacy, but understandable given the drama surrounding the duel. The duel between prominent politicians captivated the popular imagination and stirred up popular hatred of Burr. Two careers were ruined in the course of the duel- Hamilton’s by an untimely death, and Burr’s by a descent into humiliation and treason.
Here’s the initial firsthand account by the two seconds to the duel, Nathaniel Pendleton and William Van Ness:
Col Burr arrived first on the ground as had been previously agreed. When Genl Hamilton arrived the parties exchanged salutations and the Seconds proceeded to make their arrangements. They measured the distance, ten full paces, and cast lots for the choice of position as also to determine whom the word should be given, both of which fell to the Second of Genl Hamilton. They then proceeded to load the pistols in each others presence, after which the parties took their stations. The Gentleman who was to give the word, then explained to the parties the rules which were to govern them in firing which were as follows:
The parties being placed at their stations – The Second who gives the word shall ask them whether they are ready – being answered in the affirmative, he shall say “present” after which the parties shall present & fire when they please. If one fires before the opposite shall say one, two, three, fire, and he shall fire or loose his fire.
And asked if they were prepared, being answered in the affirmative, he gave the word present as had been agreed on. And both of the parties took aim & fired in succession. The intervening time is not expressed as the seconds do not precisely agree on that point. The pistols were discharged within a few seconds of each other and the fire of Col Burr took effect; Genl Hamilton almost instantly fell, Col Burr then advanced toward Genl H—n with a manner and gesture that appeared to Genl Hamilton’s friend to be expressive of regret, but without Speaking turned about & withdrew….
Aaron Burr…not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the Instigation of the devil, on the eleventh day of July in the year last aforesaid, which force and Arms…feloniously wilfully and of his Malice aforethought, did make an Assault, and…Mortal[ly] Wound…the said Alexander Hamilton.
For further reading, check out this article on Dueling as Politics by Joanne B. Freeman in the New York Journal of American History.
Reminder- if you’re in or near New York City, come out to the AHA Society’s series of events in NYC and Northern New Jersey starting today and going through Sunday! Tonight is a debate between Jefferson and Hamilton at the Museum of American Finance. Register here. Hope to see you all there!
The Bank of New York was the first bank in New York City, founded by Alexander Hamilton and opened on June 9, 1784. Hamilton was the chief architect of the new bank. Hamilton wrote the constitution of the bank and was one of the original 13 directors. He also made the decision that the bank should be based on specie (gold and silver) rather than land. Hamilton’s constitution was used as the “model upon which all the bank charters granted in New York were framed prior to 1825.” Hamilton’s voting structure restricted the power of larger shareholders, rather than a one share-one vote scheme.
Hamilton’s concern for the welfare of the Bank of New York cannot be left out of account. He might have said of the institution that although it was a small bank, there were those who loved it.
By the time Hamilton became Treasury Secretary, he instructed the bank cashier to sell his stocks, despite losing significant profits as the Bank’s stock rose dramatically. Hamilton felt that the political consequences of having a stake in a bank would compromise his position and eschewed the profitable stocks in favor of maintaining his political reputation.
Currently, the Bank of New York building is home to the Museum of American Finance. Summer is a great time for museum hopping in NYC and the museum is offering a Groupon deal for 50% off admission! The museum is located at 48 Wall Street and is open to the public on Tuesday – Saturday, from 10 am – 4 pm.. If you go, make sure to check out the Hamilton Room, focusing specifically on Hamilton’s legacy.
Also note, MOAF is hosting a Hamilton vs. Jefferson Debate next Thursday, July 11th from 5:30-7 pm, as part of the Alexander Hamilton Awareness Society’s Celebrate Hamilton 2013 events. The description of the event from the event flyer is below:
National Hamilton Scholar Dr. William G. Chrystal will become Alexander Hamilton for the evening to both entertain and educate attendees in a “debate” with Thomas Jefferson. After the presentation, a Q&A session will be held, followed by a reception.
Register to attend the debate here. I’ll be there!
Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.
Federalist No. 8 was written in the context of warning against hostilities between the states, but Hamilton makes a compelling, highly relevant point about what people in society are willing to give up in order to protect our security in times of danger. I have been thinking about Hamilton’s statement a lot in the context of the Edward Snowden/NSA domestic spying story. The Electronic Frontier Foundation published a detailed guide to how the NSA Domestic Spying programs works. Under the program, the Government can monitor every American’s call history and internet activity without a warrant. Different aspects of the program are continuing to come to light, but Hamilton’s observations on the effect of a state of alarm on the value of liberty remain extremely prescient.
One of the most unpopular positions that Hamilton took in his political career was his outspoken defense of the Jay Treaty. The provisions of the treaty were made public in the spring of 1795, and chaos erupted in response. Jeffersonians took up the cry: “Damn John Jay! Damn every one that won’t damn John Jay! Damn every one that won’t put lights in his windows and sit up all night damning John Jay!!!”
Hamilton risked his popularity, and even his safety to defend Jay’s Treaty. He was the sole voice to publicly support the treaty amidst a flood of negative sentiment. In fact, a mob attempted to stone Hamilton at a public meeting in New York for his defense of the treaty.
One specific aspect of Hamilton’s Camillus letters deals with the issue of slavery and natural law. During the Revolution, the British had issued Lord Dunmore’s proclamation, offering freedom to slaves who left their masters and joined the British army. According to Michael D. Chan, the actions of the British “infuriated southern slaveholders, especially because many of them were groaning under the weight of debts owed to British citizens.” These Southerners insisted that any treaty with Britain include a provision for either returning the slaves or compensating the slaveowners for their loss.
However, as Colleen A. Sheehan states: “The Jay Treaty provided for neither restoration of nor compensation for the slaves carried away. This was a bitter pill for many Americans not only because of financial loss, but because of how the matter had been handled by the British from the state.”
Hamilton addressed the issue in his Camillus letters as follows:
IV.—The stipulation relates to “negroes or other property of the American inhabitants”; putting negroes on the same footing with any other article. The characteristic of the subject of the stipulation being property of American inhabitants, whatever had lost that character could not be the object of the stipulation. But the negroes in question, by the laws of war, had lost that character; they were therefore not within the stipulation.Why did not the United States demand the surrender of captured vessels, and of all other movables, which had fallen into the hands of the enemy? The answer is, because common sense would have revolted against such a construction. No one could believe that an indefinite surrender of all the spoils or booty of a seven-years’ war was ever intended to be stipulated; and yet the demand for a horse, or an ox, or a piece of furniture, would have been as completely within the terms “negroes and other property,” as a negro; consequently, the reasoning which proves that one is not included, excludes the other.The silence of the United States as to every other article is therefore a virtual abandonment of that sense of the stipulation which requires the surrender of negroes.
V.—In the interpretation of treaties, things odious or immoral are not to be presumed. The abandonment of negroes, who had been induced to quit their masters on the faith of official proclamation, promising them liberty, to fall again under the yoke of their masters, and into slavery, is as odious and immoral a thing as can be conceived. It is odious, not only as it imposes an act of perfidy on one of the contracting parties, but as it tends to bring back to servitude men once made free. The general interests of humanity conspire with the obligation which Great Britain had contracted towards the negroes, to repel this construction of the treaty, if another can be found.
Hamilton’s response to the issue of the British freeing of slaves during the war was nothing short of radical. Using the framework of the laws of war, Hamilton put forth salient and controversial points relating to the morality of slavery. Hamilton challenged the idea that freed slaves could be properly grouped with other types of “property” referred to in the treaty. Additionally, Hamilton called the idea of returning freed slaves to slavery “odious” and “immoral,” despite the fact that slavery was prevalent throughout the Union.
Hamilton’s fearless defense of a treaty he believed in, even at the height of its unpopularity, demonstrates to me Hamilton’s commitment to stand for something, no matter what the personal or political cost.
Earlier, I wrote a post about John Trumbull’s images of Hamilton . Today, we got some exciting news about one of Trumbull’s most iconic Hamilton portraits! Credit Suisse, the owner of the portrait, announced that it will be gifted to two institutions: Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Arkansas and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. This split ownership arrangement will allow the painting to be seen by audiences in two very different parts of the country. Credit Suisse had put the painting on view at public institutions for short periods of time, but it decided that the painting should be permanently accessible to the public. The painting was acquired by Credit Suisse as part of its takeover of another investment bank, DLJ. The painting had been part of DLJ’s corporate art collection.
CEO Brady Dougan stated: “Donating this well-known and highly regarded 1792 portrait of Alexander Hamilton by John Trumbull to both Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art and The Metropolitan Museum of Art ensures that the widest possible American and international audiences can enjoy and study this historic piece of fine art for perpetuity”
The New York Times description of the portrait’s history states:
The painting’s history is very much a New York story. In 1791 five New York merchants representing the Chamber of Commerce commissioned Trumbull to paint a full-length portrait of Hamilton, President Washington’s secretary of the Treasury.
For Trumbull the assignment was trickier than it seemed. He and his subject were friends, and Hamilton was vocal in wishing his portrait to appear “unconnected with any incident of my political life.” But the men who commissioned the painting wanted it to hang in a public building. How then could Trumbull please his clients, who said they envisioned a work stately enough to be on public view, and the sitter, who shunned anything remotely official?
Taking his inspiration from European Grand Manner portraiture, the artist posed Hamilton standing, one hand on a table that is empty except for an ink stand and papers, devoid of any political references. In the background is an archway on one side and an architectural column on the other, along with a chair with a robe causally thrown over it.
Hamilton’s warm expression reflects the artist’s obvious affection for his subject. Trumbull called Hamilton’s fatal duel with Aaron Burr in 1804, “the unhappy event which deprived the United States of two of their most distinguished citizens.”
Following the American Revolution, the issue of slavery came into focus for many Northerners. The rhetoric of slavery and liberty had been used frequently during the Revolution, but in its aftermath, the protection property rights and the maintenance of existing state economies, particularly in the South, prevented any full-scale national movements towards abolition. In this landscape, the state of slavery in the Northern states became more contentious. Robin Blackburn describes the importance of New York in the slave landscape:
New York and New Jersey “together accounted for three quarters or all slaves outside of the South,” and slavery in both states “survived constitutional and legislative challenges in the revolutionary and immediate post-revolutionary period.”
On February 4, 1785, the New York Manumission Society was formed. Historian Catherine O’Donnell Kaplan characterized the Society as “the site of concerted efforts to unite dreams of human perfectibility to the practical labor of effecting change.” Hamilton was the first vice president and his friend and fellow Federalist John Jay was the first president, staying in that office for five years. Hamilton served as president for one year in 1788 before moving to Philadelphia to take up his position as Secretary of the Treasury.
The Quaker Friends Society newsletter recounted a 1786 petition that Jay, Hamilton, and other members of the society sent to New York that began:
“Your memorialists being deeply affected by the situation of those, who, although free by the laws of God, are held in slavery by the laws of the state…”
The stated goals of the Society were noble, but they were also decidedly moderate- limited to the state of New York and reflecting the fact that many of the founders of the organization were slaveholders:
“1st to effect, if possible, the abolition of slavery in this state, by procuring gradual legislative enactments; 2dly to protect from a second slavery such persons as had been liberated in the state of New York, or elsewhere, and who were liable to be kidnapped, and sold to slave dealers in other places; and 3dly to provide means for educating children of color of all classes.”
While Hamilton consistently supported the Society and was an active member whenever he was living in New York, he also pushed its members to points of discomfort by proposing more radical plans for abolition than many of his fellow members were comfortable with. For example, Ron Chernow describes the 1785 proposal of the Society’s ways-and-means committee headed by Hamilton to require members to commit to freeing some of their own slaves immediately, and younger slaves within 5 years. Hamilton’s proposal would have caused financial harm to members, and was quickly rejected as being too sudden.
The 2004 Senate Concurrent Resolution 123– Recognizing and Honoring the Life and Legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the Bicentennial of His Death Because of His Standing as One of the Most Influential Founding Fathers of the United States notes:
“…as a private citizen Alexander Hamilton served many philanthropic causes and was a co-founder of the New York Manumission Society, the first abolitionist organization in New York and a major influence on the abolition of slavery from the State…Alexander Hamilton was a strong and consistent advocate against slavery and believed that Blacks and Whites were equal citizens and equal in their mental and physical faculties.”
Hamilton lived to see New York embark on a path of very slow, gradual abolition, as Pennsylvania had done earlier. In 1788, the slave trade was abolished and aspects of the slave code were softened. In 1799, the legislature passed An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, which “allowed masters to keep their younger slaves in bondage for their most productive years, to recoup their investment. The law freed all children born to slave women after July 4, 1799, but only after they had reached their mid-twenties. Hamilton’s bolder vision of emancipation was never reached, but the efforts of the New York Manumission Society were instrumental in building acceptance of a free, multicultural society to New York.
Today, January 11th, marks Alexander Hamilton’s 256th (0r 258th) birthday!
I find it amazing to think about where Hamilton came from and what he accomplished. Hamilton was born in Nevis, 1,3000 miles from New York and worlds away. He was born out of wedlock at a time where illegitimacy was considered a moral failing, and was shunned by other children because of his status. Hamilton’s father James became bankrupt and abandoned the family. Hamilton’s mother died of yellow fever in 1768, and the Hamilton brothers were taken in by a cousin, Peter Lytton, who committed suicide 17 months later. Hamilton had all the odds stacked against him, but with a combination of brilliance and luck, he not only made his way to America, he helped make America.
“There are strong minds in every walk of life that will rise superior to the disadvantages of situation, and will command the tribute due to their merit, not only from the classes to which they particularly belong, but from the society in general. The door ought to be equally open to all…”
If you happen to be in either Nevis or New York, check out the birthday events that the AHA Society has organized. The events include a blessing at Trinity Church, a simultaneous cake cutting in New York and Nevis, and events at Hamilton Grange and the Museum of American Finance. Looks like a great program.
I came across this Youtube video, “Everybody Hates Hamilton.” The video is culled from clips of the HBO miniseries John Adams. Although it is only based on one TV show (based on David McCullough’s biography of Adams), the theme of Hamilton as a scapegoat is echoed. It boggles my mind that Hamilton, who came to New York as a penniless illegitimate teenager from the West Indies and became a champion of a new republic and the architect of its economy has been caricatured by so many people as a staunch monarchist and a ruthless and unprincipled politician.
In The American Commonwealth, Viscount James Bryce said Hamilton’s “countrymen seem to have never, either in his lifetime or afterwards, duly recognized his splendid gifts.” Hamilton’s political enemies brought up the circumstances of his birth, cast doubt on his relationship with President Washington, and generally blamed him for having a vision that they couldn’t comprehend. Adams called him the “bastard brat of a Scottish peddler.” Jefferson wrote to Washington:
I will not suffer my retirement to be clouded by the slanders of a man whose history, from the moment at which history can stoop to notice him, is a tissue of machinations against the liberty of the country which has not only received him and given him bread, but heaped its honors on his head.
In many ways, this legacy continues today. Historians regularly characterize Hamilton as a Machiavellian statesman. One author has even gone so far as to say that “Hamilton’s Curse” must be repudiated in order for America to be truly free.
Why?
I contend that Hamilton’s steadfast commitment to his principles is at the root of his unpopularity. Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton did not bow to the winds of popularity at the slightest inclination. Instead, he faced the consequences of making unpopular decisions when he believed them to be morally or economically necessary.
Here are some examples:
Protecting the Tories
As a college student in New York, Hamilton became convinced of the Revolutionary cause and threw himself into it with all his physical and mental energy. However, when an angry mob of patriots stood at the door of Myles Cooper, the president of King’s College, Hamilton held off the mob for hours in order to prevent Cooper from being attacked. After the Revolution was won, a popular movement began to strip any Loyalists of their property and prevent them from becoming full citizens in the new republic. Hamilton firmly opposed this movement and insisted that even Loyalists have the opportunity to be citizens in the new nation.
Hamilton, the most brilliant American statesman who ever lived, possessing the loftiest and keenest intellect of his time, was of course easily the foremost champion in the ranks of the New York Federalists; second to him came Jay…Both of them watched with uneasy alarm the rapid drift toward anarchy; and both put forth all their efforts to stem the tide…In particular they abhorred the vindictive laws directed against the persons and property of Tories; and they had the manliness to come forward as the defenders of the helpless and excessively unpopular Loyalists. They put a stop to the wrongs which were being inflicted on these men, and finally succeeded in having them restored to legal equality with other citizens, standing up with generous fearlessness against the clamor of the mob.
Economic Policies
Almost all of Hamilton’s economic policies, from establishing a National Bank to assuming the debts of the states to imposing an excise tax on whiskey, were politically unpopular but proved to be lifesaving for the new nation. Hamilton took on every uphill battle and, sometimes by sheer force of will, pushed those around him into accepting his plans. For example, Hamilton insisted that the government pay all of its war debts, including debts to speculators. During the Revolution, the Continental Congress sold war bonds to many supporters, including soldiers. However, over the long course of the war, many of the original owners of the bonds often sold them to speculators. After the War, there was a popular movement to disregard the debt altogether. Hamilton firmly believed that honoring this debt was essential to the financial progress of the nation. He eventually convinced resistant Southern congressmen to back him by agreeing to move the nation’s capital to the South.
Throughout his life, Hamilton was willing to make politically unpopular choices when he believed them to be necessary, or morally right. Hamilton is the ultimate historical underdog, and even as he rose to prominence in America, he never allowed the quest for popularity to overcome his moral convictions. Humans have a tendency to take the easy route, to “get along” with everyone whenever possible, and to generally follow the status quo and take the path of least resistance. As we all know, being part of the crow, or better yet, being the most popular person in the crowd can be a heady feeling. On the other hand, facing down a mob or being the only voice advocating your beliefs is always a struggle. Somehow, Hamilton maintained his public principles, even when they had unpleasant consequences. Hamilton’s life presents us all with a challenge: can we truly stand for what we believe in, no matter what the consequences?
It's Hamiltime! 
