Like so many of us I'm toying with a TL...
One aspect is that Alexander Hamilton isn't a part of the development of the United States. Most of the time when he's discussed, it's in the sense of a Hamilton-wank/american dystopia/King Alexander I sense. I want to go the other way...no Hamilton.
I'm really doing this to learn more about a period I don't know enough of, so I thought I'd throw the question out to see what more knowledgeable folk have to say.
So Alexander Hamilton....
He was a competent enough soldier in the ARW but I don't think he was pivotal at any point, unless you think that he was the single best staffer Washington could ever have had.
He was influential in the pre-constitution period but when the Philidelphia convention came about he was hamstrung by the other New York delegates to a large degree. Still you could argue that his "plan" was just put forward to make Madison's plan look better and that he had no expectations that anybody would take it seriously.
He coordinated the Federalist papers, which are a marvellous resource and insight into the minds of the Framers, but were they really all that influential in getting the Constitution ratified? They may have affected New York and Virginia somewhat but neither were required to put the constitution in place.
He was the first Secretary of the Treasury under Washington but, as far as I can see, he wasn't massively innovative...most of his ideas were already put forward by others like Robert Morris. Morris could have impplemented most of them, had Washington been able to convince him to serve as Secretary of the Treasury. If not Morris, then who else could have been the first secretary of the treasury in Hamilton's absence?
Was he unique in brokering the debt-for-capitol compromise in 1790? Could the Union have broken over the issue of the federal government assuming state debts if the capital had remained in Philadelphia or New York?
Where I can see an impact is his role in the development of a federalist ideology/party/faction, but even here, would it have developed without him? He was certainly one of the most effective proponents of the Federalist "ideology" but you can't discount that he was supported all the way by Washington.
Was his one seminal role to 'force' compromise on the Virginians like Madison and Jefferson? But in doing so, did he actually retard or promote the development of the anti-federalists by giving them a rallying point?
His rivallry with Aaron Burr is certainly a factor but Hamilton himself seems to have been largely a spent force, politically speaking, 1800. So Burr surviving and prospering might be one aspect.
Stilll...Hamilton was involved in so many things that his absence would have to be filled by a lot of people in different areas.
So...America without Hamilton...
One aspect is that Alexander Hamilton isn't a part of the development of the United States. Most of the time when he's discussed, it's in the sense of a Hamilton-wank/american dystopia/King Alexander I sense. I want to go the other way...no Hamilton.
I'm really doing this to learn more about a period I don't know enough of, so I thought I'd throw the question out to see what more knowledgeable folk have to say.
So Alexander Hamilton....
He was a competent enough soldier in the ARW but I don't think he was pivotal at any point, unless you think that he was the single best staffer Washington could ever have had.
He was influential in the pre-constitution period but when the Philidelphia convention came about he was hamstrung by the other New York delegates to a large degree. Still you could argue that his "plan" was just put forward to make Madison's plan look better and that he had no expectations that anybody would take it seriously.
He coordinated the Federalist papers, which are a marvellous resource and insight into the minds of the Framers, but were they really all that influential in getting the Constitution ratified? They may have affected New York and Virginia somewhat but neither were required to put the constitution in place.
He was the first Secretary of the Treasury under Washington but, as far as I can see, he wasn't massively innovative...most of his ideas were already put forward by others like Robert Morris. Morris could have impplemented most of them, had Washington been able to convince him to serve as Secretary of the Treasury. If not Morris, then who else could have been the first secretary of the treasury in Hamilton's absence?
Was he unique in brokering the debt-for-capitol compromise in 1790? Could the Union have broken over the issue of the federal government assuming state debts if the capital had remained in Philadelphia or New York?
Where I can see an impact is his role in the development of a federalist ideology/party/faction, but even here, would it have developed without him? He was certainly one of the most effective proponents of the Federalist "ideology" but you can't discount that he was supported all the way by Washington.
Was his one seminal role to 'force' compromise on the Virginians like Madison and Jefferson? But in doing so, did he actually retard or promote the development of the anti-federalists by giving them a rallying point?
His rivallry with Aaron Burr is certainly a factor but Hamilton himself seems to have been largely a spent force, politically speaking, 1800. So Burr surviving and prospering might be one aspect.
Stilll...Hamilton was involved in so many things that his absence would have to be filled by a lot of people in different areas.
So...America without Hamilton...