THE NEW FEDERALIST

A NEWS WEB SITE

FEATURING A CONSERVATIVE PERSPECTIVE

WITH LINKS TO ARTICLES ABOUT CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

The Adeptness of the Hamiltonian Viewpoint

         Alexander Hamilton, more than any of the early ardent nationalists, personifies the conservative viewpoint with its emphasis on a strong national government within a republican structure. Although he favored a monarchy and called the new constitution “…a frail and worthless fabric…” and stated that it would fail within a short time, he realized, perhaps better than anyone else, that it was the best hope for the survival of the fledgling republic. Although he was as subject to the foibles of human nature as anyone of his age, he was unique in his approach to establishing the new government. He welcomed challenges to its authority as evidenced by his plan to finance it with a tariff and a tax on whiskey, which would surely be strongly resisted. Challenges to its authority would give the new government an opportunity to demonstrate its ability to curtail opposition.

         Hamilton argued forcefully in the letters he wrote to a New York newspaper that states rights and individual rights must be curtailed in order to give the new administration the ability to govern effectively. Known as the Federalist Papers, these arguments in favor of the new government by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay are often referred to by constitutional scholars today in an effort to discern the intent of the framers of the constitution. A lifelong abolitionist, Hamilton was opposed by Jefferson and other states rights advocates on this issue. They insisted that a bill of rights be affixed to the constitution, which Hamilton opposed on the grounds that by listing some rights, others would be omitted. By neglecting to mention slavery, however, Hamilton’s opponents took contradictory positions on these issues. They felt that the best way to protect individual rights was to make government as weak and decentralized as possible. (A concomitant result would be to insure that slavery would be relatively free from the authority of the central government). Hamilton argued the opposite since as a conservative he felt that the stronger the national government was the more likely that individual rights would be secured.

         Today, liberals who consider themselves the heirs of Jefferson’s principles, argue the opposite, feeling that the best way to secure individual liberties is for government to be as strong as possible. Conservatives propose that the best way to secure individual rights is to reduce the size and authority of the national government. Thus, the positions of Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians have reversed and are exactly the opposite of what they were in Hamilton’s day. The old adage, “Today’s liberal is tomorrow’s conservative…” could also be applied regarding the switch in perspective by the liberals. Their viewpoint has become that of the early conservatives.

Despite his eccentricity, Hamilton has been shown to be correct in almost all of his assumptions about how the new government should function. Although time and space will not allow a full discussion of his entire position here, it is sufficient to say that a through study of the political views of Alexander Hamilton establishes him as the individual who, more than anyone else, knew, in both a practical and theoretical sense, what needed to be done in order to allow the fledgling republic to not only survive but also to flourish.

         Although he died in a dual with Aaron Burr that was both tragic and unnecessary, before his death, Hamilton defined the national spirit that was to take the country to its proper place in the community of nations. And only he saw in its entirety what course needed to be taken. Whereas Jefferson wavered as president about purchasing Louisiana, feeling that he did not have the constitutional authority to do so, Hamilton would never have hesitated.

Where Jefferson opposed a standing army in peacetime and opted for small gunboats called “mosquito fleets” to patrol the nation’s shores, Hamilton realized all too well the need protect our nation’s security by maintaining a strong navy and army. Jefferson was constantly of the verge of personal insolvency, and had a farmer’s aversion to strong financial institutions. Hamilton likewise left his wife and several children insolvent as well when he died. The difference was that Hamilton insisted that the United States pay all of it creditors 100 cents on the dollar at the end of the Revolutionary War in order to establish its credibility. Hamilton also proposed a national bank that would be powerful enough to control financial markets and curb the “wildcat tendencies” of state banks in overextending credit. Jefferson opposed such a powerful institution.

Hamilton belonged to an age when political parties were considered divisive, but the Federalists urged adoption of the Constitution, while the Anti-Federalists, led by Jefferson sought to prevent this. Hamilton became the acknowledged leader of the Federalist Party even after he ceased to hold any political office. He was such a through-going nationalist that his desire to strengthen the national government was likened by his opponents to simply an attempt to help the Federalists remain in control of it. While he did abhor Jefferson and his followers, the sentiment was mutual, and should not detract from the importance of Hamilton’s goal to make the national government as strong as possible in order for it to survive.

This was the proper path to take and while others were quibbling about protecting individual rights as well as property rights, Hamilton linked his theoretical approach to a practical one—the establishment of a political system that would allow the new government to endure in a world of strong nation states. Hamilton was a nationalist in an age when 90% of the country was composed of small farmers who were strongly individualistic and resisted the encroachment of government into their lives with a determination that can best be regarded as something akin to patriotism, except the goal was freedom from the ties of country rather than the love of country.

Before the Revolution, if he were asked what country he was from, Jefferson would have replied, “Virginia,” as most of the other colonists from there would have done. Accordingly, when the Federalist threatened individual rights during the War of 1812 with the Alien and Sedition Acts, limiting the ability of newspapers to criticize the actions of the government, Jefferson and his followers responded with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. These resolutions proposed that if the national government exceeded its authority, then the states had an obligation to declare its actions unlawful and unconstitutional.

Although this was the most extreme position Jefferson took in advocating states rights and these resolutions were withdrawn after the war, it points out the opposition that nationalists faced in attempting to strengthen the authority of the national government. It is also worth noting that “nullification” of a federal law as advocated by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and the attendant premise of secession are the two pillars upon which John C. Calhoun based his states rights argument

The thesis of this article is that Hamilton saw more clearly than anyone else of his day, including John Adams, James Madison, “the Father of the Constitution,” and especially Jefferson, the need for a strong central government and a strong military to protect the country, as well as the need for a strong financial institution to provide the stability necessary for business to flourish. This is despite the fact that he was contemptuous of democracies but wanted the strongest possible form of republic if a monarchy was ruled out.  

He wanted a strong military because it appealed to his vanity since he knew that Washington would give him command of it. But he also recognized the need for the weak new nation to protect itself. He was a great admirer of Great Britain and felt that it would dominate the economic life of the nation even after the war was over no matter how strong our central bank was.

This leads to a novel idea—that Hamiltonian principles underlie the concept of a state that by its very nature is strong enough to affect reform—reforms that conservatives endorse. Foremost among these would be the role of government in reducing taxation, since the mentality that has developed since the ascendancy of the Democratic Party in the last century has brought us to the point that is best illustrated by this truism that has developed in Washington, D. C. “If you are not in favor of a tax cut, you are automatically in favor a tax increase.”

But wait, you say, higher taxes equal stronger government and lower taxes equal weaker government. Not any longer, since it now takes a powerful political system just to restrain runaway spending and the accompanying continuous increases in taxation by government.

What shall we see if the “nanny state” is given another eight years to put forward its agenda? Methinks we shall rue the day that we ever allowed our leaders to further emulate the socialism of the European nations.

And finally, to end on a comical, albeit a logical, note. Since the European nations in the Common Market cannot agree on how to elect a president and simply pass the presidency from one nation to another, why not offer them the presidential candidate that is touring there now that they are so enamored of?

A final question: who would be the more logical choice to unite the country? The candidate who spent 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton, or the candidate who spent 20 years in Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church?                 O. P.