The Radical Hamilton: What the Founding Father Really Wanted for America
We think we know Alexander Hamilton. He's the scrappy immigrant on the ten-dollar bill, the financial genius who built America's banking system, the tragic figure who died in a duel. Thanks to a certain Broadway musical, he's become the founding father for our age—ambitious, brilliant, and perpetually writing his way out of every crisis.
But here's what the popular narrative misses: Hamilton wasn't just trying to save the young republic. He was trying to fundamentally reimagine what America could be. And his actual vision—the one he fought for behind closed doors at the Constitutional Convention—was far more radical, controversial, and uncompromising than most Americans realize.
The Man Who Wanted to Delete the States
Let's start with Hamilton's most shocking proposal: he wanted to essentially abolish state governments.
Not limit them. Not check their power. Abolish them.
At the Constitutional Convention in June 1787, Hamilton argued that states should be reduced to "subordinate jurisdictions"—basically glorified administrative districts with no real sovereignty. He proposed that the national government should appoint each state's governor, and these federal appointees would have absolute veto power over any law passed by state legislatures.
Think about that for a moment. Hamilton envisioned a system where an official appointed by the president in Philadelphia could strike down any law passed by elected representatives in Massachusetts or Virginia. It was centralization on a scale that would have made King George III blush.
His reasoning? He believed people would naturally be more loyal to their local state governments than to some distant national authority. This "rivalship," as he called it, would create a constant tug-of-war that would eventually tear the country apart. Better to eliminate the competition entirely.
The Realist Who Distrusted Democracy
Here's another inconvenient truth: Hamilton was deeply skeptical of republican government itself.
In a candid moment at the Convention, he admitted "he did not think favorably of Republican Government" but was addressing his remarks to those who did "in order to prevail on them to tone their Government as high as possible."
Translation: I don't really believe in this whole democracy thing, but since you all do, let me at least convince you to make it as strong and centralized as possible.
For Hamilton, the primary goal wasn't creating the most democratic government—it was creating the most stable and powerful one. He wanted what he called a "high-toned" government, one that commanded respect and could actually enforce its will. He'd seen the chaos and weakness of the Articles of Confederation firsthand, and he was determined never to repeat that mistake.
This wasn't cynicism for its own sake. Hamilton was a brutally honest observer of human nature. He recognized that in a large, diverse nation, pure democracy would lead to factionalism, instability, and eventually collapse. The solution? A strong central authority that could rise above local interests and petty disputes.
Liberty's Dark Side: Why Freedom Creates Inequality
Perhaps Hamilton's most philosophically provocative argument was this: liberty itself inevitably produces inequality.
In his view, economic inequality wasn't a bug in the system—it was a feature. As long as people were free to exercise their varying talents, ambitions, and luck, some would accumulate more wealth than others. It was, he argued, "a fundamental distinction in Society" that would exist "as long as liberty existed."
This wasn't a defense of oligarchy or aristocracy. It was Hamilton's unflinching assessment that any government based on individual freedom would necessarily produce unequal outcomes. The question wasn't whether inequality would exist, but how a government could remain stable while managing the competing interests that inequality created.
The Architecture of Power
But Hamilton wasn't just a critic and a provocateur. He was a builder. And the governmental architecture he designed, while too radical for his contemporaries to fully accept, laid the foundation for much of what we recognize as American government today.
His blueprint rested on several key pillars:
Direct Federal Authority
The national government had to act directly on individual citizens, not through state intermediaries. Under the Articles, Congress could only make "requisitions" that states could ignore. Hamilton demanded a government with actual enforcement power—one backed by federal courts and federal law.
Financial Independence
A government that depended on states for funding was no government at all. Hamilton insisted Congress must have its own permanent revenue sources through taxation—the power to collect duties, impose land taxes, and maintain a steady flow of funds without begging the states for money.
Concurrent Jurisdiction
Here Hamilton showed his sophistication as a political theorist. Responding to fears that a powerful national government would destroy the states, he articulated a principle of "concurrent jurisdiction." Both levels of government could be supreme in their own spheres. They were "inconsistent only when they are aimed at each other, or at one indivisible object."
Implied Powers
Perhaps his most lasting legacy was the doctrine that the Constitution granted not just explicit powers, but implied ones. If the government could tax, it could create a bank to manage those taxes. To deny this, Hamilton argued, would be to "refine away all government."
The Consistency of Vision
What's remarkable about Hamilton's political philosophy is its consistency. From his earliest writings against British rule to his advocacy at the ratifying conventions, he maintained a laser focus on one idea: legitimate government requires an "intimate connexion of interest" between rulers and ruled.
Ironically, this was the same principle he'd used to reject Parliament's authority over the colonies. The British legislature couldn't justly govern America because Americans had no voice in electing its members. But under the Articles of Confederation, the national government also lacked this connection—it governed states, not people.
The Constitution was Hamilton's answer: a government that drew its authority directly from citizens, operated on citizens, and could be held accountable by citizens. It was representation reimagined on a continental scale.
The Battle That Shaped America
Of course, Hamilton's most radical proposals were rejected. The states survived. Governors remained state-appointed. The federal government was given enumerated, not unlimited, powers.
But here's the thing: Hamilton won more than he lost.
The Constitution created exactly what he wanted—a vigorous national government with direct authority over citizens, independent sources of revenue, and the power to act decisively in matters of war, commerce, and foreign affairs. The doctrine of implied powers, championed by Hamilton and later enshrined by Chief Justice John Marshall, gave the federal government expansive authority that continues to grow today.
During the brutal ratification fight in New York, where anti-Federalists "greatly outnumbered" his side, Hamilton demonstrated both his pragmatism and his determination. He committed to "full discussion" and patient argument, trusting that reason would eventually prevail. It did—barely. New York ratified the Constitution by just three votes.
The Question That Remains
We live in Hamilton's America more than we might care to admit. The federal government he championed has grown into a massive administrative state. The financial system he designed has become the engine of global capitalism. The broad interpretation of federal powers he pioneered has enabled everything from the New Deal to the civil rights movement to modern healthcare policy.
But we also live with the tensions he couldn't resolve. States still jealously guard their prerogatives. The proper scope of federal power remains our most divisive constitutional question. The economic inequality that Hamilton saw as inevitable has reached levels that threaten the social fabric he hoped a strong government could maintain.
So here's the question his legacy leaves us: Was Hamilton right? Did America need his kind of bold, centralized, energetic government to survive and thrive? Or did we succeed in spite of his vision, not because of it?
The answer probably matters more now than at any time since Hamilton himself walked the halls of power. Because the fundamental choice he posed—between a strong national authority and a loose federation of states, between energy in government and maximum local autonomy—is the same choice we face today on issues from healthcare to climate change to voting rights.
Hamilton was many things: a brilliant theorist, an uncompromising advocate, a pragmatic politician, and yes, a radical who wanted to reimagine America from the ground up. Understanding what he actually fought for—not the sanitized version or the Broadway character, but the real, controversial, complex vision—is essential to understanding the country he helped create.
And perhaps to deciding what kind of country we want to be next.
No comments:
Post a Comment