President Hamilton

I've been listening to the music from the Hamilton musical nonstop for the last couple of weeks and it got me thinking about Hamilton related timelines. Do any good ones exist? I wrote this up while pondering the subject:

The POD is that Alexander Hamilton doesn’t have an affair with Maria Reynolds for whatever reason. I'm going to say this also butterflies away his death in 1804. Over the course of Thomas Jefferson’s second term he becomes the main national figure for the Federalist Party, and thus the main figure in opposition to Jefferson. Hamilton runs in and wins the 1808 Presidential election as a Federalist, and proceeds to stay in office for the rest of his life. People of his time and social station were living for a pretty long time (John Adams made it to 90, Jefferson to 83, Ben Franklin to 84), so let’s say Hamilton lives until he’s 80, dying in 1835.

What do those 30 extra years of Alexander Hamilton, including 30 as President, mean for America?

Hamilton is much better for the army than the Democratic-Republicans he replaces. Rather than leave it underfunded and disorganized, he advocates for a strong national defense. If America still goes to war with Britain, either in the War of 1812 or some equivalent, it wins this time and conquers Canada and maybe even some of Britain’s possessions in the Caribbean.
Hamilton is also a lot better on the slavery question. He was an ardent abolitionist, while the Presidents he replaces were mostly slave owners. The big accomplishment here would be if Hamilton could reduce the spread of slavery. How about this: he manages to ban transporting slaves across state lines. So slavery remains legal in places where it had already spread – Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, but can’t grow that much in these areas because they can’t import slaves from the more established coastal states. Eventually the populations of these states can ban slavery for themselves, because they don’t have the same kind of incredible economic incentive to keep it as in places where slaves make up a large proportion of the population. Meanwhile, it also means that there is a lot more manumission in the existing slave states, as demand for slaves is lower, and thus there is less incentive to sell rather than free slaves. So the slave states on the Atlantic coast end up with large free black populations living alongside their slave populations, and the rest of the country develops larger than OTL free black populations as well when a lot of those freed leave home in an early version of the Great Migration.

Hamilton also sets up a much stronger national government, and centralizes a great deal of power in the Presidency. There is a lot more federal investment and economic management, and the country as a whole ends up more weighted towards the big cities and financial interests rather than the plantation class that dominated the economy in OTL.

On the other hand, Hamilton was not the most pro-democracy of people. He uses his control of the federal government to squash dissent and generally screw with his political enemies. He wins the elections of 1808, 1812, 1816, 1820, 1824, 1828, and 1832 by varying margins, and continues to face major opposition to his plans in Congress, but by the end of his Presidency it is almost inconceivable to many that anybody else could run the country.
This turns out to be true, and not in a way comforting to Hamilton’s supporters. He dies in 1835, and whoever his Vice-President is by that point takes over and wins the 1836 election with the help of the sympathy vote. The poor guy’s term in office doesn’t go that well, and the Democrats win the Presidency for the first time since 1804 in 1840, at the back of a populist wave. Hamilton had walked a delicate line between promoting the interests of capital, which he saw as key to the country’s power, and doing what he could for the people at large, who he of course needed to vote for him, and who he did have genuine compassion for. The rest of his party can’t walk this line. One faction is much more wedded to big money interests, and includes many people who joined up simply because it was the way to gain power. The other faction includes a lot of radicals, particularly a big abolitionist faction. When the Democrats take office there is a massive anti-corruption campaign in both the federal government and Wall Street, but they don’t manage to steer the country too much off the track Hamilton put it on (they didn’t even really manage that in OTL when they got to run the country for that whole period).

Interesting tidbit: ITTL George Washington is viewed as almost a puppet for Hamilton, who is seen as the Great Man of the revolutionary and post-revolutionary eras. Rather than getting less credit for his role in Washington’s many achievements than he should, Hamilton gets more, and Washington as a historical figure is a bit diminished.

Slavery peters out more gradually than IOTL. By the end of Hamilton’s Presidency a solid majority of states have banned slavery, and it is seen as an archaic institution. The vast cotton plantations of Alabama and Mississippi are worked by free labor. There are a lot of federal and state programs set up to buy and free slaves, and to encourage voluntary manumission. The slave free areas of the South don’t end up quite as full of independent yeoman farmers as the North does, since cotton does encourage economies of scale, but they are also far from OTL’s slavery-dominated nightmare. In the 1850s the first post-Hamilton Federalist (often called Hamiltonians ITTL) wins the Presidency on a reasonably strident anti-slavery platform, and manages to pass a law mandating that all children are born free. With this law in place, and no provision to actually enslave new people, the clock really starts ticking on slaveries continued viability. There are a lot more manumissions, and some slave states even begin to voluntarily ban the practice. By 1870 only 10% of the nation’s black population is enslaved, and in the early 1870s abolition finally becomes law nationally.

The American settlers who spearheaded Texan independence from Mexico were in large part driven by the desire to own slaves, which was illegal in Mexico. ITTL it’s clear that they won’t be able to have slaves as Americans either, so thing stay quieter. The US never takes over and territory from Mexico, which retains control of the sweep of territory from Texas to California. This territory gathers a similar population to OTL, including the Native American inhabitants, immigrants from the United States, internal migration from more populous areas of Mexico, and a huge amount of international immigration, particularly from Asia. This accelerates whenever they find gold in California. With this larger territory and without the devastating wars against the United States, Mexico does quite a bit better than IOTL. It manages to evolve into a reasonably stable democratic republic by the middle of the 1850s, and by 1900 is considered a developed nation.

Any thoughts?
 
Dear Mr. Yossarian,

I saw "Hamilton" on Broadway about a month ago and aside from agreeing that it is a brilliant, transformative musical experience, I believe that Lin Manuel Miranda captured the essence of Alexander Hamilton.
Unfortunately for your imaginative timeline, I believe that this essence was that of a brilliant writer and administrator who was hopeless as a politician.
To put it simply, AH never had an unexpressed thought. He never learned to keep his mouth shut or his pen sheathed. You don't win elections by telling the voters exactly what you think of them, your opponents and every issue under the sun.
I believe that AH was unelectable on a national level in his USA or any conceivable USA. The best he might be able to do if there was no Reynolds scandal would be U.S. Senator from NY (Senators were still elected by the state legislature) or Secretary of State under a Federalist President if the Jeffersonians imploded because of bigger protests over the Embargo Acts.
As "Hamilton" has Aaron Burr advise the young AH "Talk less, smile more". Advice that AH was never able to accept.

Your obedient servant
Alexander Hamilton
Proud graduate of Hamilton College
 
Alexander Hamilton becoming president is unlikely. Alexander Hamilton becoming President and then staying president for 30 years is completely ASB. He was nowhere near popular enough to get that kind of support, not even from his own party or even his home state. At most, you'd have two terms of Hamilton, that's about as long as anyone would tolerate him.

As for "President Hamilton", I think it's a cool idea, since Hamilton was one of those guys who had a lot of great ideas but wasn't necessarily the best leader or politician. A Hamilton Administration could have been incredibly successful or a failure so bad it destroyed the country. I've been kicking the idea around in a couple of word documents, but I've never managed to get a real TL off the ground.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Hamilton's affair with Maria Reynolds likely doomed any chance of him gaining the Presidency. Now, if the affair somehow remains unknown or secret, or if the sordid details do not make their way outside a few small circles, he likely has a chance.

The best way to bring Hamilton to power is by utterly discrediting Jefferson. Say Jefferson is found to have sent money to French radicals to use in the terror, or Jefferson in turn has an affair that becomes public and it is one that makes him look really bad. Maybe you could even have Jefferson get linked to corruption, with an associate of his misusing government funds.

Basically, Hamilton could become President if it was him vs. Jefferson and Jefferson messes up badly. Otherwise, Hamilton will not appeal to anyone south of the Mason Dixon Line other than the ex-Tory vote in NC that occasionally proved decisive.
 
Alexander Hamilton becoming president is unlikely. Alexander Hamilton becoming President and then staying president for 30 years is completely ASB. He was nowhere near popular enough to get that kind of support, not even from his own party or even his home state. At most, you'd have two terms of Hamilton, that's about as long as anyone would tolerate him.

As for "President Hamilton", I think it's a cool idea, since Hamilton was one of those guys who had a lot of great ideas but wasn't necessarily the best leader or politician. A Hamilton Administration could have been incredibly successful or a failure so bad it destroyed the country. I've been kicking the idea around in a couple of word documents, but I've never managed to get a real TL off the ground.

I was thinking about the super-long time in office because of the part in the Hamilton musical where he's horrified to hear that George Washington isn't going to run for a third term. It got me thinking of the possibility of a President Hamilton deciding that no one less brilliant could be trusted to run the country, and just running over and over again. Maybe people are right that he's just too volatile to keep getting elected, but I think if he was sufficiently successful people would forgive a lot, and I doubt he would hesitate to stoop to some dirty tricks to stay in power if needed.
 
I think the Federalists are a hopeless minority by 1808, with or without Hamilton. Yes, the Embargo gave them something of a renewed lease on life in New England, but you can't win a national election with New England alone.
 
Hamilton's affair with Maria Reynolds likely doomed any chance of him gaining the Presidency. Now, if the affair somehow remains unknown or secret, or if the sordid details do not make their way outside a few small circles, he likely has a chance.

The best way to bring Hamilton to power is by utterly discrediting Jefferson. Say Jefferson is found to have sent money to French radicals to use in the terror, or Jefferson in turn has an affair that becomes public and it is one that makes him look really bad. Maybe you could even have Jefferson get linked to corruption, with an associate of his misusing government funds.

Basically, Hamilton could become President if it was him vs. Jefferson and Jefferson messes up badly. Otherwise, Hamilton will not appeal to anyone south of the Mason Dixon Line other than the ex-Tory vote in NC that occasionally proved decisive.

Discrediting Jefferson isn't that hard; maybe the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions blow up in his face before he reaches the Presidency, or his affair with Sally Hemmings comes to light (or, I dunno, he says something stupid about the terror and the establishment panics). Do that, and butterfly away Hamilton's affair with Maria Reynolds (or at least do a better job of concealing it) and Hamilton is the Federalists man come 1804 or 1808.
 
I think the Federalists are a hopeless minority by 1808, with or without Hamilton. Yes, the Embargo gave them something of a renewed lease on life in New England, but you can't win a national election with New England alone.

Why do you think that is though? Did they just have demographics working against them, or was it a more flexible political issue?

I've heard that a big part of the Federalist decline was that they just didn't have a strong leader after Hamilton died and Adams retired. If Hamilton stayed alive and untainted by scandal it could be a very different story.
 
Why do you think that is though? Did they just have demographics working against them, or was it a more flexible political issue?

I've heard that a big part of the Federalist decline was that they just didn't have a strong leader after Hamilton died and Adams retired. If Hamilton stayed alive and untainted by scandal it could be a very different story.

Let's look at the elections of 1802-3, *before* Hamilton died. "

"The membership of the House increased significantly as a result of population gains revealed in the United States Census of 1800. The greatest growth was in territories that constituted the western regions of the country at the time, a tremendous boost for Democratic-Republican candidates. Nearly all of the new seats created as a result of the Census of 1800 went to Democratic-Republicans, closely aligned as they were with the agrarian interests of Western farmers. As a result, the Democratic-Republicans won the largest proportion of seats that either they or the competing Federalists had ever been able to secure in any earlier Congress, a supermajority greater than two-thirds of the total number." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1802

Or look at the Senate elections from the same years (again, before Hamilton's death): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1802_and_1803

To quote an old post of mine,

Think about it: In 1804, what are the Hamilton-backed Federalists going to base their campaign on--apart from the tired attacks on Jefferson's personal character and "atheism"?

"Being back internal taxes!"?

"Let's have an expensive military and a big national debt!"?

"Bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts!"?

"We're tired of peace--let's have another quasi-war with France! In fact, if not for that wimp Adams, we would have had a *real* war!"?

"Let's have more pomp and formality in the White House! Less 'republican simplicity'!"?

Not terribly appealing slogans, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Why do you think that is though? Did they just have demographics working against them, or was it a more flexible political issue?

I've heard that a big part of the Federalist decline was that they just didn't have a strong leader after Hamilton died and Adams retired. If Hamilton stayed alive and untainted by scandal it could be a very different story.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that the Federalist party was a sectional party of wealthy commercial and manufacturing interests. Once wider suffrage started spreading and more people who were eligible started voting in elections, those interests are going to be outvoted every single time. The Hamiltonian dream of a commercial aristocracy that supported the national government in return for support from it died in the face of a tide of antipathy from the much larger base of the Democratic-Republicans. The popular vote total more than doubled from 1796 to 1804 and the increase was overwhelmingly for Jefferson.

You see something like this happen again for Jackson in 1828.

People seem to back-project modern ideas about politics and political parties, where both sides are, on some level, socially equal, with roughly equally sized bases and large backing amongst the middle and lower classes. This wasn't true in the early Republic. The Federalist party really, genuinely was aristocratic to a greater degree than the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans (who were themselves aristocratic in composition at the top, if not in rhetoric and ideology). Its support lay scattered across a series of interests that were dominated by the merchants and financiers who had done very well out of Hamilton's financial program. What popular support they had was limited to laborers who were closely tied to these wealthy interests, a difficult base to live off of in a country where close to three quarters of laborers were agricultural well into the middle of the 19th century.

Unless the Federalists could find a way to broaden their support amongst regular Americans they are always going to be doomed as the franchise expands and voter participation goes up.

Hamilton is never going to be president without essentially stealing the election. He was the hardest core of the Federalist hardcore. There was a penumbra of members of the Federalist party in the 1790's who were, essentially, political nationalists without the deep economic nationalism of the High Federalist faction. Madison is the most famous example, and a salient one because of his eventual switch to the Republicans. He and people like him were driven out of the Federalist party entirely by the machinations of Hamilton. This guy just had a habit of making enemies amongst people who weren't his people (the social elite of New York City and their cognates in other coastal trading cities) and he didn't have a compromising bone in his body.
 
Top