Post-War America Without Hamilton

This is only my second post and my first TL so please be gentle!

1. Alexander Hamilton is killed leading his forces in action at Yorktown. The war is successfully concluded and the Articles of Confederation establish the government.

2. Without Hamilton, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 fails to amend the Articles. The Union does not dramatically dissolve, but regional sovereignties begin emerge in the form of New England, Southern Confederacy (VA/NC/SC/GA), and United American Republic (PA/NY/NJ/MD/DE).

3. This allows the regional neighbors in Canada and the area west of the Appalachians to play the states off each other. These threats Over time these threats force the govts to develop into distinct nation-states. This creates a North America with several distinct states and empires.

I look forward to comments and criticism. Also, let me know if this same POD or idea is floating in the ether somewhere else.
 
3. This allows the regional neighbors in Canada and the area west of the Appalachians to play the states off each other. These threats Over time these threats force the govts to develop into distinct nation-states. This creates a North America with several distinct states and empires.
Canada as it is today didn't exist then. Basically everyone was leftover French colonists or Loyalist expatriates from the Revolution. Britain might make sense though. And west of the Appalachians? Who? The Spanish? Unlikely. The Indians? Even more so.
 
when I said neighbors in Canada I meant the Brits. Also is there a way that this scenario leads to greater Brit influence in North America amongst its former colonies? maybe in NY or the south where loyalist presence was very strong.
 
Oct. 14, 1781
Yorktown, Virginia

General Washington was peering behind a parapet, looking through a telescope at the British positions within the town below. He turned to see a muddy Frenchman scamper towards him.
"Mon General, I have most excellent news!" Gilbert du Motier, Marquis De Lafayette exclaimed as he hurried up a steeply sloped hillside. "We have the enemy fortifications. Our artillery is preparing to move. It is only a matter of time."
Washington kept peering through the lens and asked without moving. "And our losses?"
Lafayette visibly sagged. "Light, monsieur. But I regret to say...Colonel Hamilton was killed. A bullet ended him at the opening of the assault."
At this Washington lost the color in his face and turned to his friend and confidante. "Colonel Hamilton? Dead? I appointed him to that command. He begged for it, but..." Washington's eyes began to wetten, but he shook his head and cleared his throat.
"Well, excellent news on the redoubts. Colonel Hamilton would be quite pleased with our position now. He was prepared to give all in the service of his country and the Cause. He will be remembered."
Lafayette nodded and turned without saying anything else. He walked back to the rear, fumbling absently with the handle of his sword on his left hip. The news had only begun to sunk in for himself. Alexander Hamilton was dead. They had been close since Hamilton had joined Washington's staff. Well, the Marquis thought, America is the worse for this, but Heaven the better. We shall see how the ledger balances.
 
Hamilton wasn't exactly key to the Constitutional Convention. In fact, pretty much nothing he actually wanted got included. While he was heavily involved in the writing process, he was following the lead specifically lain out by the Convention itself. Likewise, the Federalist Papers weren't that important to the ratification: They barely circulated outside the New York area until after the Constitution was long in place.

Plus, even if the Constitution itself wasn't adopted, the Articles WOULD be amended, with or without him. Everyone was aware of the need, even the hardcore Republicans.
 
Hamilton wasn't exactly key to the Constitutional Convention. In fact, pretty much nothing he actually wanted got included.

Hamilton was integral in getting the Convention started in the first place and in getting the Constitution ratified. Also, many historians don't doubt Hamilton's sincerity in his proposals for the Constitution, but they may have served as a hard-line negotiating position that allowed larger compromises. Plus, as Secretary of the Treasury under Washington, his Report on the Public Credit was a lightning rod for Republicans against central control of economic policy.
 
Hamilton was integral in getting the Convention started in the first place and in getting the Constitution ratified.
Lincoln had a saying - the cemetery's full of essential men. Yet, life hasn't stopped. That seems to me to apply to Hamilton pretty well. It was no mystery that the Constitution needed replacing back then, and somebody else could've done the lobbying he did.

Now, his Report on the Public Credit seems like a less replaceable service to history, but the United States would hardly've failed without it. The early US might just've grown a little more slowly; or maybe another secy of treasury would've had the same ideas. Hamilton was right, by the way - though it's not a thought farmers who've worked hard on their farms like to entertain, it's horribly uncertain and poorly paying at best compared to factories, engineering, finance, or almost anything else. Most aristocratic planters, like Jefferson, were putting their families into debt to pay for their mansions. Washington did OK, but financially he was mostly in land, not farms.
 
Lincoln had a saying - the cemetery's full of essential men. Yet, life hasn't stopped. That seems to me to apply to Hamilton pretty well. It was no mystery that the Constitution needed replacing back then, and somebody else could've done the lobbying he did.

Now, his Report on the Public Credit seems like a less replaceable service to history, but the United States would hardly've failed without it. The early US might just've grown a little more slowly; or maybe another secy of treasury would've had the same ideas. Hamilton was right, by the way - though it's not a thought farmers who've worked hard on their farms like to entertain, it's horribly uncertain and poorly paying at best compared to factories, engineering, finance, or almost anything else. Most aristocratic planters, like Jefferson, were putting their families into debt to pay for their mansions. Washington did OK, but financially he was mostly in land, not farms.

If this is true than any discussion of Alt History is moot. This implies some kind of teleology or things had to turn out a certain way and couldn't go any other. It depends on whether your view of history is based on great events and ideas or great people causing them. I don't know that I believe either to answer all the questions, but things do not certainly have to go that way. To say that someone else would have done the heavy lifting as effectively as Hamilton seems very unlikely. The Southern and populous states were very close to not ratifying.
 
Hamilton was the only Founding Father who really understood money. The others deferred to him on this matter.

Without Hamilton the war debt would likely be settled on a state-by-state basis. If the debt is not addressed by the Federal government then the federal government would be given fewer powers. If the debt is settled individually by states then other nations of the world would take USA less seriously: they would see America as a sort of lose affiliation of smaller nation-states.

Also the nation's capitol would probably stay in New York (it was moved to Washing DC as a bone to the Southern states for allowing a stronger federal government to take on the the war debt en mass).
 
I'm sorry - I've been ungentle when you're new to this. I was cranky before breakfast, I guess.

History is both dependent and not dependent on individuals. Yeah, I'm being confusing, but there's nothing simple about history - humans are complicated people, very dependent on recent events and context for how we feel - if you'd told an average British colonist, before Britain started trying to get tax money from the colonies, that the 13 colonies'd revolt, he'd think you'd escaped from a madhouse. By the same token, as the conflict broadened, there were more and more colonists happy to promote said rebellion until it was a clear majority by 7/4/1776. And, as rebellions go, we were well-served talentwise. I'd say the only truly indispensable man was Washington, both for his excellent leadership of an often impossible-seeming rebellion and for his historically rare willingness to step down at the right moment.

Let's look at some examples from today's politics, so they may be easier to understand. Tell me, how dependent is our country on the Congressional pages? If one suddenly died, it'd be a tragedy, but hardly over for the country. Similarly, though some are better than others, particular believers lobbying for universal healthcare are somewhat replaceable, because there's wide enough sentiment to create a pool of people happy to help. Though, to complicate matters, some people are so bad at lobbying that they're liabilities to their causes. Now let's take a look at politics - it'd be hard to avoid having a universal healthcare bill in Congress this year after '06, because the GOP was very likely to keep losing, and both major Democratic candidates wanted universal healthcare. But it does matter, especially who's President - there's no question that Obama's epter at the game than Clinton and is likelier to get through a bill than she'd've been.

After the Revolution, just about all the revolutionary elites who'd been in charge were about ready to seriously reform or give up on the Articles of Confederation because dealing with it through the war had been really, really hard. Others were unhappy because interstate travel and business in America was as hard, expensive, and annoying as international travel and business. And there were no guarantees of rights. Probably the ordinary workingmen didn't care so much, but virtually all elite opinion was strongly wanting a fix. So there was plenty of elite energy for managing new Articles.
 
. . . History is both dependent and not dependent on individuals. Yeah, I'm being confusing, but there's nothing simple about history - humans are complicated people, very dependent on recent events and context for how we feel - if you'd told an average British colonist, before Britain started trying to get tax money from the colonies, that the 13 colonies'd revolt, he'd think you'd escaped from a madhouse. By the same token, as the conflict broadened, there were more and more colonists happy to promote said rebellion until it was a clear majority by 7/4/1776. And, as rebellions go, we were well-served talentwise. I'd say the only truly indispensable man was Washington, both for his excellent leadership of an often impossible-seeming rebellion and for his historically rare willingness to step down at the right moment..
I don’t think the assertion is that Hamilton was an indispensable man – only that he was a very influential man. His absence would be felt and would lead to a different world today.

Let's look at some examples from today's politics, so they may be easier to understand. Tell me, how dependent is our country on the Congressional pages? If one suddenly died, it'd be a tragedy, but hardly over for the country. . .
Mark Foley, Dan Crane and Gerry Studds would have had different political careers is specific congressional pages had died at inconvenient times.
---
I have noticed a trait in my personal understanding of history: if I only have a high-school-textbook understanding of a specific subject then events seem foreordained and immovable, but as I start reading specialized books about that subject then I see how all the little details are what made the whole. Change any of the details and you alter the whole, perhaps in spectacular ways. I have grown skeptical of statements that particular events would have little long term effect (the worse case of this was from a professional historian who wrote that the Black Death didn’t really change anything).
 
I may be a newbie but I think Alexander Hamilton may have been a little more influential than a Congressional page.
 
I may be a newbie but I think Alexander Hamilton may have been a little more influential than a Congressional page.
Well Hamilton was a strong advocate for a specific point of view. To some extent he probably advanced and popularized that point of view. If it hadn't been him, someone else would have attempted to do the same thing. They might have been more successful, they probably would have been less successful or they might have been more and less in various areas.

The spot history had for "Hamilton" would have been filled by a person or persons and in that sense he doesn't matter, but it wouldn't have been the same fit which is where the changes come in. That said, the Federalist papers were pretty important for early judicial interpretations even if Justice Marshall didn't always want to admit it :).
 
Top