WI: Vice President Hamilton?

[Prussian1871]

Today I was looking up the first presidential election to look at the electoral votes and I noticed something interesting. Apparently because he thought that Adams and Washington were going to get even number of votes and embarrass the Contitution, Hamilton schemed to get other electors to vote for other candidates to prevent a split. This strategy would probably have been flawed anyway, since an Anti-Fed like George Clinton would have gotten at least a few votes.

Nevertheless, why didn't it ever occur to Hamilton to just run himself, and possibly beat Adams to the Vice Presidency? Instead of creating scheme after scheme and deteriorating the Federalist Party, would it have been wrong to just run against Adams and prove who's the real leader of the Federalists once and for all? It's just boggling how much Hamilton clashed with Adams and sidelines him when Hamilton clearly missed the boat and had to play for it...

Thus, would Hamilton be able to beat Adams to the Vice-Presidency or not? If so, would it allow him to run for President in 1796 and win?

 

[hzn5pk]

I think Hamilton would have had an uphill battle

Adams was more of the senior statesman. Adams was from NE to balance Washington from Virginia.

What election are you talking about 1788/89 when there were no parties or 1792?

No doubt, I think Hamilton would have been interesting as VP, I just do not think that it was in the cards.

What if Hamilton would have worked with Adams more. If he would have been more helpful perhaps the Federalists would have bee more united. Hamilton could of sustained a cabinet spot under Adams as well, maybe even being Adams VP and therefore setting a precedent that the VP would be the next POTUS instead of the Sec State as with the Dem-Reps.

 

[ManintheField]

There's a reason that Hamilton mostly had appointed office. Outside his relatively small circle of friends in New York, not incredibly many people liked him. Other army-rooted Federalists, like Washington, also had respect for him because of his war-record but in general a lot of people weren't too fond of him.

He wasn't going to be winning any nation-wide elections.

 

[Alt History Buff]

Was he even eligible? He was born in the West Indies.

 

[1940LaSalle]

I'm not sure he was even eligible to have been elected VP since he was not born in one of the jurisdictions that became states: recall he was born in the West Indies. It's said often--the truth of which is open to question--that the native-born citizen provision for presidential / vice-presidential eligibility was written into the Constitution specifically to exclude Hamilton.

I've also read often that he was particularly bright, and did not suffer fools gladly at all. Indeed, he apparently wasn't shy about letting his intellectual light shine, to his detriment socially and politically.

 

[PuffyClouds]

Since Hamilton was a resident of the continental colonies before the Revolution, his place of birth is irrelevant, IIRC. However, Hamilton only meets the age requirement in 1790.

 

[Napoleonrules]

There's a reason that Hamilton mostly had appointed office. Outside his relatively small circle of friends in New York, not incredibly many people liked him. Other army-rooted Federalists, like Washington, also had respect for him because of his war-record but in general a lot of people weren't too fond of him.

He wasn't going to be winning any nation-wide elections.

Actually the same thing could be said about John Adams. Not many people liked him, some respected him for his rhetoric and Revolutionary acts, both him and Samuel. Adams was so unpopular that he's the whole reason the VP is as limited a position as it is; the Senate wasn't going to let him be the President of the Senate in a position that makes it like the Speaker of the House, whereas someone like Jefferson probably would have had a stronger power base as VP.

I don't see it being a like or dislike problem, the main problem would have been his young age, and he probably thought he had more time than he ended up having. Back then the Secretary of State was believed to be the stepping stone to the presidency, the place that people were groomed to go on, not the VP position which was "first loser". Sec of State that became President- Jefferson (Washington's), Madison (Jefferson's), Monroe (Madison's), and John Quincy Adams (Monroe's) making it the 3rd through the 6th presidents all were Sec of State. Then Van Buren was Jackson's. Buchanan was the last Sec of State to become president.

I would say if Hamilton had lived (say he killed Burr, YAY!) he probably would have gone and got himself to be someone's Sec of State.. or at least kept trying, possibly getting his chance under JQ Adams since neither Jefferson, Madison, or Monroe were ever going to pick him.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Was he even eligible? He was born in the West Indies.

Will you bloody stop it. YES. He was bloody eligable.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Hamilton was a citizen of the United States at the time when the constitution was adopted. He had been in what was termed "The United States" for about 20 years.

Like i said to you in the other thread. If he is not eligable, Washington, Afdams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Quincy-Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison are not eligable because they were all born in the COLONIES of the UNITED KINGDOM.

Actually the same thing could be said about John Adams. Not many people liked him, some respected him for his rhetoric and Revolutionary acts, both him and Samuel. Adams was so unpopular that he's the whole reason the VP is as limited a position as it is; the Senate wasn't going to let him be the President of the Senate in a position that makes it like the Speaker of the House, whereas someone like Jefferson probably would have had a stronger power base as VP.

Adams may have been unpopular, but a lot of that was scheming by Hamilton, especially voting wise. I mean, the whole controversy surrounding Adams as VP is because people voted for him because they thought he would make a good President, that is also true for Jefferson and Burr. It was only after the Jefferson-Burr fiasco that they adopted the voting amendment. And then the VP position essentially became a nonsensical position until, i think it was Nixon or LBJ really. It was just a spare.

That said, the Speaker of the House only became the powerhouse it is today because of Henry Clay, and that mostly happened during the Jefferson, Madison and Monroe terms as President.

 

[David T]

Will you bloody stop it. YES. He was bloody eligable.

Hamilton was a citizen of the United States at the time when the constitution was adopted.

Hamilton was ineligible in 1788, not because he was born in the West Indies, but because he was not yet 35 (whether he was born in 1755 or 1757). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton

 

[Napoleonrules]

Hamilton was ineligible in 1788, not because he was born in the West Indies, but because he was not yet 35 (whether he was born in 1755 or 1757). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton

Actually, the Constitution as originally written does not put a lower limit on being VP, it is the 12th amendment in 1804 makes it where every restriction on Presidency applies to VP as well.

And even if someone said at the time "hey, we were all alive back then, in fact we were the people in the room making the decisions, we know what we meant" then it still only means he can't take the OATH and actually sit as VP, the Constitution still has provisions for what to happen if someone is elected but can't meet the requirements. The Constitution only applies to someone trying to be given the oath, not to bar someone from running or being elected, SCOTUS would throw out any cases wishing to hear a ruling on the election for 2 reasons- 1) it's political; 2) no standing for anyone to sue until the said president-elect is actually sworn in, as long as he/she/it doesn't try to be sworn in then there is no actionable offense. Mickey Mouse (or a yellow dog) can really be put on the ballot, can even win, and it would be constititutional, but they can't take the oath and serve until they meet the requirements, which in those cases would be never and the VP would be ACTING President until... the next election in which case I assume people would still reelect Mickey Mouse as he'd be the best president ever- one that did nothing.

 

[David T]

Actually, the Constitution as originally written does not put a lower limit on being VP, it is the 12th amendment in 1804 makes it where every restriction on Presidency applies to VP as well.

There is a fairly obvious reason why there were no separate qualifications for vice-president under the original Constitution: there was no vote for vice-president!

"The explanation is simple. The Vice President was voted for as President and his qualifications were those of the President. That is the clue, seldom explained in our textbooks, to the whole system. As the Constitution then stood, each elector wrote the names of two persons on a ballot. The first was perhaps that of a local luminary, a favorite son of the district or state he represented; the second was that of a person not an inhabitant of the same state as himself -- presumably, therefore, a "continental character." Both of these names were of persons whom the elector and, we may be sure, his constituents considered qualified for the office of President. Either of them might be President, and the elector could not know which. No vote at all was cast for Vice President, but it was provided that "in every case, after the choice of the President the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President."" https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/pres/wilmer.htm

 

[Napoleonrules]

There is a fairly obvious reason why there were no separate qualifications for vice-president under the original Constitution: there was no vote for vice-president!

"The explanation is simple. The Vice President was voted for as President and his qualifications were those of the President. That is the clue, seldom explained in our textbooks, to the whole system. As the Constitution then stood, each elector wrote the names of two persons on a ballot. The first was perhaps that of a local luminary, a favorite son of the district or state he represented; the second was that of a person not an inhabitant of the same state as himself -- presumably, therefore, a "continental character." Both of these names were of persons whom the elector and, we may be sure, his constituents considered qualified for the office of President. Either of them might be President, and the elector could not know which. No vote at all was cast for Vice President, but it was provided that "in every case, after the choice of the President the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President."" https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/pres/wilmer.htm

Yes, I'm aware, but at the same time- someone under 35 can legally run for president today, or back then, and back then if they came in second- they would become VP regardless of their age. The Constitution does not set a lower limit on being VP. The limit for someone being president requires they be that age upon taking the oath, it does not mean you have to be 35 when running or when elected, nor does it mean you have to show you WILL in the future be 35 upon taking the oath, it simply means when you take the oath, you are 35 or older. You don't have to qualify to be Pres or VP in order to run. Technically, unless a party has qualifications of its own barring you, even Schwarzenegger can RUN for president.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Yes, I'm aware, but at the same time- someone under 35 can legally run for president today, or back then, and back then if they came in second- they would become VP regardless of their age. The Constitution does not set a lower limit on being VP. The limit for someone being president requires they be that age upon taking the oath, it does not mean you have to be 35 when running or when elected, nor does it mean you have to show you WILL in the future be 35 upon taking the oath, it simply means when you take the oath, you are 35 or older. You don't have to qualify to be Pres or VP in order to run. Technically, unless a party has qualifications of its own barring you, even Schwarzenegger can RUN for president.

Incorrect. The 12th Amendment states

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

I don't know about the US, but in Canada laws stating that you can't be elected in more than one constituency have been interpreted by the courts to mean you can't RUN in more than one, either.

I suspect that anyone who tried to run and was ineligible, would not be allowed on the ballot.

 

[imperial emperor]

The twelfth amendment hadn't been passed at the time. Hamilton was 100% eligible to run, just not to win the presidency.