WI Hamilton Lives

Senator Hamilton?

What about setting our sights on a lower office?

Could Hamilton have become a senator for New York or, possibly, New Jersey, if the Democratic-Republican hold on New York is too strong?

I like the thought of a somewhat chastened, post-duel Hamilton acting as a perpetual gadfly during the Jefferson and Madison administrations.

Give him a few years to mend his personal finances and become the voice of the well-to-do merchants of New York. I think the Bank of the United States would be re-chartered. Perhaps an even more interesting question would be 'How would General Hamilton have reacted to the run-up to the War of 1812'? Would he seek a military position? Would he be any better (not sure how he could be worse) than some of the OTL generals?

How would he have reacted to the proposals for the Erie Canal? Would that be a possible hook for a rapprochement with DeWitt Clinton?

My two cents,

David
 
What about setting our sights on a lower office?

Could Hamilton have become a senator for New York or, possibly, New Jersey, if the Democratic-Republican hold on New York is too strong?

No. Aside from the fact that the DRs are just as strong in New Jersey post 1805, he's burned too many people by this point. Hamilton is a spent force, viewed by most FEDERALISTS as an embarrassment.
 
What about setting our sights on a lower office?

As it happens, the next gubernatorial election in New York (following PoD) is in April of 1807; so that, or the legislature elects him Senator in November 1806, means he's got options for electoral prominence prior to 1808. (I'm still drawn to the idea of him and Madison butting heads at the national level.)

No... he's burned too many people by this point. Hamilton is a spent force, viewed by most FEDERALISTS as an embarrassment.

Would anyone care to elaborate on this? I know about Hamilton's letter criticizing John Adams in 1800; if that's the big source of contention in his own party, supposedly he didn't mean for it to get out. (As to Maria Reynolds, wouldn't exactly call that a career ender.)
 
This guy was a truly horrible man, I think he would have been killed at a later point

By 1804, no one like him and he had no friends or allies left

Trust me, Burr would not have been the last guy to try
 
The Federalists are a dying party, with or without Hamilton.

Consider 1804. What are the Federalists going to base their campaign on--apart from the tired attacks on Jefferson's personal character and "atheism"?

"Being back internal taxes!"?

Well, this does sort of describe the American System...
 
Would anyone care to elaborate on this? I know about Hamilton's letter criticizing John Adams in 1800; if that's the big source of contention in his own party, supposedly he didn't mean for it to get out.

The letter was, in many ways, the final straw for most Federalists--Hamilton had simply been a continuously divisive figure in the party by this point, with a tendency to yank the party into self-destructive factional feuds, and everyone was tired of it. Whether he intended it to be released or not, many people imagined that he had, and not without reason.

(As to Maria Reynolds, wouldn't exactly call that a career ender.)

It wasn't, though the fact is, when you have to escape a corruption scandal by revealing a sex scandal...

Well, lots of people who used to respect your judgment start reevaluating their opinions.

This guy was a truly horrible man, I think he would have been killed at a later point

By 1804, no one like him and he had no friends or allies left

Trust me, Burr would not have been the last guy to try

Allow me to point out that Hamilton nearly wound up fighting a duel with James Monroe at one point. What prevented it was one man coming together, and talking the two down.

The name of that man? Aaron Burr.
 
Well, this does sort of describe the American System...

The American System was different from anything Hamilton was trying to do, at least in terms of the actual implementation. Hamilton wanted to create a powerful fiscal-military state (to use the term I run across in the books) with a powerful manufacturing base to back it up. He wanted to do this by using tariffs for revenue to pay for subsidy programs to support manufacturers. Internal, direct taxes were there to help fund a permanent national debt to tie the wealthy and powerful to the interests of the government and maintain an active market in government bonds (so the government could borrow easily and cheaply).

The American System was more strictly protectionist in outlook, something that could only really have evolved in the decades after Hamilton's death once a manufacturing base to protect had already grown. In Hamilton's day the most wealthy Americans were merchants. (and planters. In fact, the planters probably made up the overwhelming majority of the wealthy, but they aren't as important to the point). In the day of men like Clay, the wealthiest businessmen were factory owners. The American System then posits a system of tariffs, not for revenue, but to protect American manufacturers from foreign competition. The government bank and the national debt is there to boost the funding available within the American financial system.

People like to ascribe this magic prescience to Hamilton's vision for the United States. The problem is that what he had in mind had existed for decades in Great Britain and for centuries on the continent. He wasn't an original, innovative social genius, he was a powerfully intelligent analyst of power politics in the international arena. He could look back on what made the British and the Dutch powerful and want to imitate them, and be damned good at identifying the actually correct elements of policy that would be required to do so. He wasn't looking forwards, he was looking out, across the Atlantic.

Essentially no one had an accurate idea of what industrial society would come out looking like when it was less than a generation old anywhere on the planet.
 
The American System was different from anything Hamilton was trying to do, at least in terms of the actual implementation. Hamilton wanted to create a powerful fiscal-military state (to use the term I run across in the books) with a powerful manufacturing base to back it up. He wanted to do this by using tariffs for revenue to pay for subsidy programs to support manufacturers. Internal, direct taxes were there to help fund a permanent national debt to tie the wealthy and powerful to the interests of the government and maintain an active market in government bonds (so the government could borrow easily and cheaply).

The American System was more strictly protectionist in outlook, something that could only really have evolved in the decades after Hamilton's death once a manufacturing base to protect had already grown. In Hamilton's day the most wealthy Americans were merchants. (and planters. In fact, the planters probably made up the overwhelming majority of the wealthy, but they aren't as important to the point). In the day of men like Clay, the wealthiest businessmen were factory owners. The American System then posits a system of tariffs, not for revenue, but to protect American manufacturers from foreign competition. The government bank and the national debt is there to boost the funding available within the American financial system.

People like to ascribe this magic prescience to Hamilton's vision for the United States. The problem is that what he had in mind had existed for decades in Great Britain and for centuries on the continent. He wasn't an original, innovative social genius, he was a powerfully intelligent analyst of power politics in the international arena. He could look back on what made the British and the Dutch powerful and want to imitate them, and be damned good at identifying the actually correct elements of policy that would be required to do so. He wasn't looking forwards, he was looking out, across the Atlantic.

Essentially no one had an accurate idea of what industrial society would come out looking like when it was less than a generation old anywhere on the planet.

Well put.

Honestly, I think with Hamilton, people tend to look at the sound economic ideas, and ignore the self-destructive personality that was joined to them. And also, the somewhat... less sound ideas for how the central government was supposed to run.

You know, described that way, he comes out sounding like 17th century America's very own Oswald Mosley.
 
Well put.

Honestly, I think with Hamilton, people tend to look at the sound economic ideas, and ignore the self-destructive personality that was joined to them. And also, the somewhat... less sound ideas for how the central government was supposed to run.

You know, described that way, he comes out sounding like 17th century America's very own Oswald Mosley.

Reading through Empire of Liberty, Wood makes the point over and over and over that Hamilton is the US' Robert Walpole.
 
Hmmm....

Don't know if I completely agree with that. Walpole was much better at the politics part of politics than Hamilton...

Honestly? They made a lot of the same mistakes. Walpole just had more room to maneuver. There are a lot of similarities with the Excise Crisis and Election of 1734 in the UK and the issues surrounding direct taxes and the Election 1800 in the US. They just were working in different environments and Hamilton was in a weaker position than Walpole.

Most importantly, Walpole had just had more time to build a support base around his office. Secondarily, the country opposition was just plain stronger in the US in 1800 than in the UK in 1734.

Walpole even had his own Alien and Sedition Act moment with the Stage Licensing Act.

The analogy isn't one for one, I'll admit, but it's surprisingly apt.
 
Honestly? They made a lot of the same mistakes. Walpole just had more room to maneuver. There are a lot of similarities with the Excise Crisis and Election of 1734 in the UK and the issues surrounding direct taxes and the Election 1800 in the US. They just were working in different environments and Hamilton was in a weaker position than Walpole.

Most importantly, Walpole had just had more time to build a support base around his office. Secondarily, the country opposition was just plain stronger in the US in 1800 than in the UK in 1734.

Walpole even had his own Alien and Sedition Act moment with the Stage Licensing Act.

The analogy isn't one for one, I'll admit, but it's surprisingly apt.

I suppose the advantages of the relatively small world of 18th century British Parliamentary politics did give Walpole more room to maneuver in similar situations.

Actually, if you look at that way, a lot of Hamilton's flaws as a politician start making sense. "Why it's JUST as if I were in Parliament!"

Only of course, it wasn't...
 
Top