Essays on the Founders: Alexander Hamilton

Posted by Eric F. Langborgh on April 24, 2007

This essay was published in the October 2001 issue (Volume II, Issue 2) of the “Bill of Rights Institute eNewsletter” and at www.BillofRightsInstitute.org. It is no longer available online, so is republished here by the author.

“Self-preservation,” Alexander Hamilton said in 1778, was the overriding goal of good government. To that end, America’s first Secretary of the Treasury believed in a responsible, but powerful, central government whose duty was to secure the favor of the public.

As a political thinker, Hamilton viewed the English constitution during the Revolutionary era to be the “best in the world,” but agreed with the patriots that British colonial policy made separation from the mother country inevitable. He looked forward to independence and reclaiming the liberty for which he, a lieutenant colonel under General Washington,  “should be as willing a martyr … as any man whatever.”

Yet, Hamilton sensed that the same impulses among the colonists that sought independence could ultimately threaten unity among the former colonies, and even their constituents’ freedom. “[T]he same state of the passions which fits the multitude … for opposition to tyranny and oppression,” he told John Jay during the war, “naturally leads them to a contempt and disregard of all authority.”

 

A Stronger National Union

In light of the loose alliance of the states under the Articles of Confederation, Hamilton was dismayed at what he saw as the gradual fulfillment of his prophecy to Jay. As a New York state delegate to Congress, his disdain for state sovereignty increased as his efforts to make the national government functional and financially stable were frustrated. Rampant individual, state, and national debts, as well as regional rivalries, continued to grow, even as Hamilton stepped up his longtime effort to completely redesign the government and set it upon a proper financial grounding.

Hamilton then joined in the call for a constitutional convention while a leading delegate to the Annapolis Convention on interstate commerce in 1786.  Although he did not speak frequently at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia the following year, he did exert great influence by seeking to create an American empire on a republican basis.

Hamilton proposed for the new government a chief executive of the republic (preferably Washington) to be elected to serve a life term, and a Senate modeled after England’s House of Lords. These, he reasoned, if balanced by a broadly representative parliament, would emulate the strengths of the English constitution by securing the property of citizens and instilling honor and disinterested virtue in government officials.

In the end, Hamilton’s proposals did not pass. “[T]he gentleman from New York,” summarized William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut, is “praised by everybody … [but] supported by none.” Hamilton did not expect his proposals to succeed. Rather, he looked to turn the debate in Philadelphia toward a realistic theory of government.

To modern ears, Hamilton’s plan may sound elitist, but Hamilton was calling in essence only for a return to the colonial goals that preceded the Revolution, while seeking to avert the bloody excesses of democratic utopianism — concerns that were borne out a few years later during the excesses of the French Revolution.

“Real liberty,” Hamilton declared, “neither is found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments — if we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.”

 

The Leading Federalist

As historian M.E. Bradford noted, “no other American did more to secure the adoption of the Constitution by the states than did Alexander Hamilton.” In his home state of New York, he convinced the large antifederalist contingent there that the United States needed a new frame of government.  In doing this he had to overcome a pessimistic political environment that appeared to be leading to the secession of New York City from the rest of the state.  Meanwhile, he led the national effort for ratification by writing 52 of the 85 essays of The Federalist (Jay wrote five and James Madison wrote 28), and editing the rest.

Hamilton held that the Constitution gave the Federal government only the power to provide for the common defense and encourage national greatness. It did not have the power to infringe upon citizens’ rights. Therefore, he objected to attaching a bill of rights to the Constitution. “[T]he Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a Bill of Rights,” Hamilton wrote in Federalist 84. “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” asked Hamilton. “Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” He also argued that the Constitution already protected trial by jury in criminal cases and provided for habeas corpus “in the most ample manner.”

 

Architect of the American Industrial State

The antifederalists, however, feared that the new national government would trample individual rights or overwhelm individual state sovereignty.   While serving as President Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury (1789-1795), Hamilton seemed to play into those fears with his efforts to expand Federal power beyond the strict construction of the Constitution. Hamilton, though, recognized that a volatile and uncertain world, where force often governs relations between nations, necessitated the establishment of a national identity and greatness. Following the British model, Hamilton pressed for the establishment of credit and a national bank, the encouragement of manufacturers, and the creation of an expandable standing army and a navy. These measures, he argued, were necessary for America to be able to defend its rights and honor internationally — and its citizens’ liberties internally.

Regarding individual American freedoms, Hamilton had predicted during the Constitutional Convention that the real division in the republic was not between the large states and the small states — as the great compromises made at the Constitutional Convention seem to indicate — but between the commercial North and the agricultural South. As an abolitionist, Hamilton sought to free slaves as early as the American Revolution, as much to help in the war effort as to undermine the Southern slave-based economic order.  As Treasury Secretary, he endeavored to promote an industrial, market economy throughout the United States of America by advancing his fiscal program, which included the National Bank, protective tariffs for fledgling American industries, and the defense of property rights and contracts across state lines. Many modern scholars believe that Hamilton’s policies, far from restricting personal liberties, ushered in America’s modern capitalist economy. They attribute America’s success in not descending into the chaos of Latin America’s “Banana Republics” to the seeds of economic stability Hamilton was able to sow.

 

The Voice of the People, Being Necessary for Freedom

According to Hamilton, the role of the federal government was to energetically pursue policies it thought best, and then convince the people to support those policies. This was especially true in the formative stages of the new government under the Constitution. In Hamilton’s view, consent of the people came in a form similar to credit: the people loan confidence to the government, though they cannot know for sure what the government might do in its wisdom. If people disagree with certain policies and results, they can vote for change in the House of Representatives.

Hamilton’s effort to ensure the people’s voice in public policy also extended to the press and the courtroom. While acting as the defense lawyer in People of New York v. Croswell (1803), he helped define America’s understanding of freedom of the press and jury rights.  Hamilton gave legal defense to Harry Croswell, publisher of the anti-Jeffersonian weekly The Wasp, who was accused of seditious libel against Thomas Jefferson for printing that Jefferson paid James Callender to slander Washington and John Adams. Citing extensive English and American precedents, Hamilton argued that juries must have the right to decide if a truthful statement is of criminal character. Nevertheless, the judge refused to allow him to demonstrate that Croswell’s accusations were true.  New York subsequently did change the law, however, and — though he did not win the case — Hamilton had helped establish truthfulness as a legitimate defense in criminal libel cases.

Hamilton defined liberty of the press as the right to publish “the truth, from good motives and for justifiable ends, though it reflect on government, on magistrates, or individuals.” The role of the free press under popular government is to not only criticize bad policy, “but to hold up to the people who … may be removed from the seat of power,” he emphasized. “If this is not to be done, then in vain will the voice of the people be raised against the inroads of tyranny.” He added, “this ought to be considered as a landmark to our liberties, as a pillar which points out to us on what the principles of our liberty ought to rest.”

 

The Relation between Power and Liberty

Hamilton, though, did not challenge the doctrine of seditious libel. In fact, he defended the Sedition Act of 1798, which — unlike state sedition laws — allowed truth as a defense.  The Act was passed to protect the authority of government and its officials against writings that have a tendency to subvert public order, especially during times of crisis. In other words, truth in an alleged subversive statement may be used as a defense, but it does not necessarily excuse. According to Hamilton, then, liberty of the press, like all liberty, must be properly balanced with the needs of federal power.

Alexander Hamilton strongly believed that liberty was not tied inversely to government power. National power did not come necessarily at the expense of liberty, but at the expense of state sovereignty. An energetic government would indeed respect and recruit the voice of the people through their representatives, a free and responsible press, and jury system, while at the same time pursuing policies to secure the common defense and ensure the rights of property and contract. For Hamilton, this was the formula to greater liberty for all Americans.