Alexander Hamilton (2004)
5 Stars out of 5
Ron Chernow
818 pages
“Justice shall be done to the
memory of my Hamilton”
Eliza Hamilton
In this presidential election year of 2016, I wonder what the
average American thinks when they think of our “founding fathers”? I imagine
most Americans no matter their educational attainments could name a few
characteristics of George Washington, maybe a few for Thomas Jefferson, but who
else? This presumed American voter might well know that Alexander Hamilton (AH)
is on our ten dollar bill, but would they connect the link from the 10 dollar
bill to AH’s role as our first Secretary of Treasury; to him laying the foundations for the American economic juggernaut that America is today? As I drill down further to
the details of our country’s formative years, and ignoring for the moment the
specifics of AH’s role, how many modern Americans know how close it was for our
country to emerge from our long War of Independence from England into a near
fatal series of political and economic skirmishes (if not in fact minor wars). Skirmishes
that were to define in much greater detail what our nascent country would be
like: a strong centralized government overseeing a manufacturing-based economy or
a decentralized, agrarian chain of states only loosely connected for defense or
economy. Ron Chernow’s 2004 biography of AH entitled “Alexander Hamilton” seeks
to delve deeply into the psychologies of all the major proto-American Founding Fathers
and to a large extent carefully explore all the political events in late 18th
century America in his remarkable effort to answer these questions.
Chernow’s biography of AH contains, as one would expect,
many features and aspects of Hamilton’s personal life that are enlightening about
Alexander Hamilton. However, the most amazing thing to me as a reader is not Chernow’s
well described American War of Independence but rather the aforementioned struggle
after the war as the young country sought to govern itself via the Articles of
Confederation. This unfortunate document with its utter inability to unite the
new country as was partially demonstrated in the original battle over state’s
rights (incredibly led by the State of New York and not the South!) versus a strong federal
government; a strong central government that was sorely needed to properly unite
the country into the United States of America. The cure for this legal and
national identity malaise was the US Constitution. Again, how many modern
Americans know what a close thing it was to get the US Constitution approved,
let alone the use of a Constitutional Convention as an “end run” to overcome
the opposition of local power brokers such as the Governor of New York, George
Clinton? (As is so often the case, Clinton merely saw the changes that would be
brought by the new Constitution as erosion to his personal power – the safety
and security of the US were of secondary importance to Clinton.)
The most influential tool in terms of getting the Constitution
approved (and it was never a sure thing) were the Federalist Papers. This
incredible collection of papers was written by future Supreme Court Justice John
Jay, the Constitution’s author James Madison, and most significantly in terms
of effort and persuasion, Alexander Hamilton. The authorship of the 85 papers was
kept secret at the time, though subsequent scholarship has shown that Jay has
written 5, Madison 29, and AH 51. While the Federalist Papers would not only prove to be
a singular factor in getting the Constitution approved, they have also been
referred to by many scholars as the defining document that describes American
governmental philosophy. The only weakness in Chernow’s book, if there is
indeed a weakness, is that he spends rather too little time examining the
various Federalist papers and AH’s philosophical opinions that informed his
writing. Instead, Chernow preferred to comment again and again on how hard a worker
AH was as he frequently marveled at AH’s work ethic. I’ll grant him this point,
but will recommend the reader to Forest McDonald’s 1979 biography on AH as a
better examination of the philosophical underpinnings to AH and the Federalist
Papers.
Where Chernow shines is in his exploration of the events
that led AH to be such a intellectual powerhouse in early America. Hamilton’s
story begins on the West Indian islands of St. Croix and Nevis where AH will
learn to despise slavery, to admire personal and national industry, and where
one of AH’s personal defects will begin to take root: reflexive defensiveness
over his reputation and honor. He was born to a ne’er do well fourth son (James)
of a Scottish Laird and an already married English/French woman (Rachel
Faucette). One aspect of Rachel’s situation was that her first husband (Johann
Lavien) treated her so brutally she had to flee from him (and her son by Lavien).
The consequence of this desertion by Rachel was that Lavien held all the legal powers
as he sought to further destroy poor Rachel (and her later children) in court.
As such, the unfortunate AH and his older brother (James) were legally described as
bastards – their parents’ “marriage” never being sanctioned by the local law
due to the first husband’s legal opposition. This event in AH’s life might well
have played a significant role in his later years in America where he
would fight every assault on his honor, no matter how insignificant. Little did
he know but young AH’s troubles were just beginning. His father James (legitimate
or not) would abandon Rachel and the two boys while AH was only 10. His mother
would die two years later and the loving (though depressed) cousin that would
take the boys in after Rachel's death would shortly thereafter commit suicide. And
just to make an absolute mess of their situation, the newly orphaned and then
re-orphaned boys would have what few assets they had inherited from their mother
claimed by Lavien – all according to the local Danish law. Rachel was declared
a whore (again thanks to Lavien) in the eyes of the law, the boys’ bastards,
and all their assets seized. Pretty cool law, don’t you think?
This is where one of the oddities of AH really begins to
appear. He is hard working and immensely intelligent; all quite at odds with
his dissolute father and dim-witted brother; though it must be noted, not at
all at odds with a very close childhood friend. Chernow notes that maybe AH’s mother did
get around and quite possibly the Scottish Laird’s son was not actually AH’s
father, but was instead a very successful neighbor and father to AH’s closest
childhood friend/”brother”. In any event, AH’s abilities catch the eyes of
several import/export businessmen. They will pave and pay the way for AH to
attend college at Kings’ College (later Columbia) in New York City. AH will
move there, never to return to the West Indies. He will excel at college as he begins an academic
path to the law. Before he finishes school though, the American War of
Independence will begin.
AH will seek opportunity to fight the English as a captain
of artillery. He will have a couple of chances to prove his mettle; one chance
even occurring during the final battles at Yorktown. But his real skills as a
manager and tireless writer will come to the attention of George Washington.
His abilities will prove so valuable to Washington that Washington will
actively work to prevent AH’s desired move to an active military position. Such
frustrations will play havoc with their relationship – at least from AH’s point
of view. Chernow will make it exceedingly clear that this period in AH’s life
is a crucial one for him and for Washington. The bottom-line being that the
steadiness and reserve of Washington will pair very well with the frantic and
intellectual AH, and further Chernow believes that neither man would have
succeeded without the other. This point will be made again when Washington will
serve as America’s first president (something that AH worked over and again to
convince Washington to do) and AH as the first Secretary of the Treasury.
Chernow will expend the remaining bulk of his book examining
the post-war and Presidential years of Washington and Adams and of AH’s immense
influence over both administrations (though Adams little knew of it at the
time). There were at least two significant lessons learned by AH during the
war: during the winter at Valley Forge, AH experienced in painful detail the
inability of American industry to either build the needed implements of war or
to supply whatever they did manufacture them to the struggling army; the second lesson was AH’s frustration
with the manner in which the war was administered by “committee” from Philadelphia.
Hamilton would take both of these wartime experiences to create within his mind
a theory if not necessarily a detailed plan to forge a home-grown industrial base during his tenure
as Secretary of the Treasury and to argue forcibly during the Constitutional
Convention for a strongly centralized government with a leader that had near
monarchial powers. AH did not get all he wanted in terms of the future
President’s powers, and quite possibly he created a number of life-long enemies
during the convention’s battles over doctrine and law, but because of the force
of his will and the strength of his logic, the future American government and
economy were considerably improved. One might even be tempted to suggest that
his influence set the stage for an American government that would succeed where
it would have otherwise completely failed, quite possibly leading to a
splintering of the nation into a variety of mini-nations or even to renewed
domination by England.
In Washington’s first administration, AH will try to create
a new United States of America based on a manufacturing economy rather than the
agrarian utopia sought by Thomas Jefferson and former AH Federalist Papers ally
James Madison. Before Hamilton could get to his vision of a robust industrial economy, he
needed to solve an intransigent problem that was badly eroding the cohesiveness
of the country: war time debt. Some of the states (notably Virginia) had
managed their debt, while others had big problems. These divisions were largely
though not completely along North/South lines. AH’s solution was two-fold:
nationalize the debt and create a national bank. Some of the states felt they
had handled their debt and argued against bailing out those that did not, but
it was as much a philosophical argument that split the country: what is the
role of government in the economy. Jefferson, Madison, and fellow Virginian
Monroe were staunchly opposed to the bank. Their supporters would argue that
their opposition was based on philosophy; their opponents would argue it was
out of political and economic self-interest. Was their opposition rooted in a
desire to protect a slave-based economy, an opposition against to non-local
governance, or just simply personal enmity directed to AH and his personality?
You will find biographers that will support their subject materials point of
view and deride their opponents. And one thing you will readily grasp from
Chernow’s book is that he most definitely shares Hamilton’s antipathy towards
Jefferson and Madison. Consider the following:
“It is a testimony to the
political genius of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison that they diverted
attention from the grisly realities of southern slavery by casting a lurid
spotlight on Hamilton’s system as the paramount embodiment of evil. They
inveighed against the concentrated wealth of northern merchants when southern
slave plantations clearly represented the most heinous form of concentrated wealth.
Throughout the 1790s, planters posed as the tribunes of small farmers and
denounced the depravity of stocks, bonds, banks, and manufacturing—the whole
wicked apparatus of Hamiltonian capitalism.”
One thing is certain for every reader that studies Chernow’s
book is that the reader will truly understand and appreciate Alexander Hamilton’s
role in forging the foundations of our country. He may not have a statue in his
honor in Washington DC. He may have had had his history tarnished by political
enemies that outlived him by 25 years or more and who as a result could polish
in print their accomplishments as they tarnished Hamilton’s. Hamilton may have transitioned
in his later years from an optimist to one suffering from depression and overly
concerned about his honor (even leading to his fatal appointment with Aaron
Burr in Weehawken NJ), but no one who reads Chernow’s book will doubt the
immense debt modern Americans owe this man for his role (if for nothing else)
in establishing an economic system that allowed America to transition within a
span of 75 years to being one of the world’s manufacturing powerhouses. Possibly
you may not agree with Talleyrand who considered Hamilton to be one of the
three greatest leaders of their shared era, but you will almost certainly agree
that AH’s legacy is one sadly under-studied by modern Americans. I think, too
you will believe as I do, that Chernow has finished the job alluded to above by
Hamilton’s widow, Eliza.
Chernow has written four books on banking and three on
political history, the 2011 book on George Washington earning him the Pulitzer
Prize for biography. Chernow’s explorations of political philosophies may be
somewhat superficial, but his examination of the psychologies involved, at
least as manifested in this book on Alexander Hamilton places this author near
the top of my list of favorite biographers. I strongly recommend this book to
every reader interested in American history, and personally look forward to
reading his book on George Washington.
No comments:
Post a Comment