ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S USE, ABUSE, AND DEFENSE OF THE PRESS
Thesis for the Degree of MA
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JANE ZYLSTRA OPHOFF
1976
ABSTRACT
ALEXANDER HAMILTON'S USE, ABUSE, AND DEFENSE OF THE PRESS
By Jane Zylstra Ophoff
The purpose of this study is to recount Alexander Hamilton's experiences with the newspapers of his day and to present his attitudes toward the free press concept.
By means of a historical review, it seeks to establish his reputation with regard to the press.
The first chapter shows Hamilton taking advantage of the journalistic outlets of his day.
He wrote a reputation as an effective contributor to the press, even serving as the Federalist Party's unofficial press secretary when Secretary of the Treasury.
The second chapter concerns the damage Hamilton did his own and his party's reputation by rushing in to print inappropriately and carelessly.
The third chapter examines the two reputations Hamilton has earned: as opponent and defender of the free press.
The conclusion is drawn that he considered the press to be the appropriate forum for criticizing government both before and after he assumed power.
But when in power, Hamilton considered it an irresponsible threat to national security.
Hamilton's final word on the subject of the press was a most libertarian one.
In fact, he can be credited with moving the country in the direction of democratizing libel law.
Accepted by the faculty of the School of Journalism,College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree.
Director of Thesis
TO BE CONTINUED ...
HAMILTON ON THE PRESS
Re: HAMILTON ON THE PRESS
ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S USE, ABUSE, AND DEFENSE OF THE PRESS, continued ...
INTRODUCTION
In 1943, Frank Luther Mott wrote a monograph entitled Jefferson and the Press in order to gather in one place Jefferson's major statements and actions with regard to the press.
The purpose of this study is to do the same with Alexander Hamilton: to recount his experiences with the newspapers of his time and to present his attitudes toward the free press concept.
The press played an enormous role in the lives and times of Jefferson and Hamilton.
They both read the papers of the day.
Both sought out editors who might establish papers supportive of their respective philosophies.
Both felt much more affection for the concept of a free press when outside of power -~ from a loyal opposition point of view -- than when in power, under the scrutiny of unfriendly as well as friendly individuals.
But while it is common knowledge that Jefferson's attitude toward the First Amendment was a libertarian one, Hamilton's attitude is less well known.
He, too, finally took a libertarian point of view, though it was not until the last of his forty-seven years that he made his final, strong statement in recognition of the need for a fourth estate as a check on government and public officials.
In1804, in People versus Croswell, he defined the liberty of the press as consisting "in the right to publish with impunity truth, with good motives, for justifiable ends, though reflecting on government, magistry, or individuals."
Unlike Jefferson, whose temperament led him to write privately, Hamilton took advantage of the printing presses of the day to add his thoughts to the marketplace of ideas.
He was not a regular contributor to newspapers, but his pieces usually had some effect.
He established a reputation as a spokesman for both popular and unpopular causes -- for the revolution, for the Loyalists after the war, for the proposed Constitution, and for the Federalist Party, among others.
In his position as President Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, he served at times as the Federalist Party's unofficial press secretary, a perfectly acceptable phenomenon in the days before reporter interviews and press conferences.
His reputation as an effective writer even earned Jefferson's praise on at least three occasions, including the ultimate compliment that Hamilton was "an host unto himself" when he took up his pen for a cause.
But Hamilton's judgment was not always as masterful as his prose.
He wrote well, but he never learned when it was inappropriate to write.
He came to believe that his pen was all-powerful.
His pen, which did much to make him a figure of respect, also stained his character.
Lacking Jefferson's power of restraint, Hamilton rushed into print whenever he considered himself criticized.
In retaliation, he often responded more emotionally than rationally.
As a result, he damaged his own and his party's reputation on more than one occasion.
Most notably, by attacking President John Adams in print, he helped to split the Federalist Party, and by entering into a newspaper feud while Secretary of the Treasury, he hastened the rise of the two-party system, a development he dreaded.
So Hamilton experienced both the rewards of well-received authorship and the consequences of ill-chosen public expressions.
For him the press must surely have been a mixed blessing, as it has been for most politicians since.
When the press was critical of him he considered it an irresponsible and licentious threat to national security.
When the Federalists lost their power and became the minority party, Hamilton viewed the press as an indispensable and primary ingredient to the Republic.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
INTRODUCTION
In 1943, Frank Luther Mott wrote a monograph entitled Jefferson and the Press in order to gather in one place Jefferson's major statements and actions with regard to the press.
The purpose of this study is to do the same with Alexander Hamilton: to recount his experiences with the newspapers of his time and to present his attitudes toward the free press concept.
The press played an enormous role in the lives and times of Jefferson and Hamilton.
They both read the papers of the day.
Both sought out editors who might establish papers supportive of their respective philosophies.
Both felt much more affection for the concept of a free press when outside of power -~ from a loyal opposition point of view -- than when in power, under the scrutiny of unfriendly as well as friendly individuals.
But while it is common knowledge that Jefferson's attitude toward the First Amendment was a libertarian one, Hamilton's attitude is less well known.
He, too, finally took a libertarian point of view, though it was not until the last of his forty-seven years that he made his final, strong statement in recognition of the need for a fourth estate as a check on government and public officials.
In1804, in People versus Croswell, he defined the liberty of the press as consisting "in the right to publish with impunity truth, with good motives, for justifiable ends, though reflecting on government, magistry, or individuals."
Unlike Jefferson, whose temperament led him to write privately, Hamilton took advantage of the printing presses of the day to add his thoughts to the marketplace of ideas.
He was not a regular contributor to newspapers, but his pieces usually had some effect.
He established a reputation as a spokesman for both popular and unpopular causes -- for the revolution, for the Loyalists after the war, for the proposed Constitution, and for the Federalist Party, among others.
In his position as President Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, he served at times as the Federalist Party's unofficial press secretary, a perfectly acceptable phenomenon in the days before reporter interviews and press conferences.
His reputation as an effective writer even earned Jefferson's praise on at least three occasions, including the ultimate compliment that Hamilton was "an host unto himself" when he took up his pen for a cause.
But Hamilton's judgment was not always as masterful as his prose.
He wrote well, but he never learned when it was inappropriate to write.
He came to believe that his pen was all-powerful.
His pen, which did much to make him a figure of respect, also stained his character.
Lacking Jefferson's power of restraint, Hamilton rushed into print whenever he considered himself criticized.
In retaliation, he often responded more emotionally than rationally.
As a result, he damaged his own and his party's reputation on more than one occasion.
Most notably, by attacking President John Adams in print, he helped to split the Federalist Party, and by entering into a newspaper feud while Secretary of the Treasury, he hastened the rise of the two-party system, a development he dreaded.
So Hamilton experienced both the rewards of well-received authorship and the consequences of ill-chosen public expressions.
For him the press must surely have been a mixed blessing, as it has been for most politicians since.
When the press was critical of him he considered it an irresponsible and licentious threat to national security.
When the Federalists lost their power and became the minority party, Hamilton viewed the press as an indispensable and primary ingredient to the Republic.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: HAMILTON ON THE PRESS
ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S USE, ABUSE, AND DEFENSE OF THE PRESS, continued ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION
At an early age Alexander Hamilton experienced the satisfaction of publication and saw the dramatic impact a single newspaper piece can make.
When he was seventeen, he wrote an account of a fierce hurricane that swept through his West Indian island home of St. Croix.
Addressed to his father, Hamilton also showed his essay to a Presbyterian clergyman, the Reverend Hugh Knox, who saw that it was published in The Royal Danish-American Gazette, the chief English newspaper on the island.
Knox was sufficiently impressed with Hamilton's talent to collect the money necessary to send him to the American colonies for an education. 1
The "Hurricane Letter" is a dramatic example of purple prose, the product of a teen-ager, who wrote:
It seemed as if a total dissolution of nature was taking place.
The roaring of the sea and wind — fiery meteors flying about in the air -- the prodigious glare of almost perpetual lightning -- the crash of the falling houses -- and the ear-piercing shrieks of the distressed, were sufficient to strike astonishment into Angels. 2
Although it is doubtful whether Hamilton "would have shone with equal luster in the reportorial room of a modern paper,"3 as one biographer suggested,he illustrated his ability to communicate a graphic picture of his observations.
More glaring than the youthful, featurized account is the stilted quality of the prose, the heavy moralizing of a young man under the heavy influence of religion.
After his description of the hurricane, Hamilton went on to reflect:
Where now, Oh! vileworm, is all thy boasted fortitude and resolution?
What is become of thy arrogance and self-sufficiency?
Why dost thou tremble and stand aghast?
How humble -- how helpless -- how contemptible you now appear.
And for why?
The jarring of the elements -- the discord of clouds?
Oh, impotent presumptuous fool!
How darest thou offend that omnipotence, whose nod alone were sufficient to quell the destruction that hovers over thee, or crush thee into atoms. 4
Hamilton was to later eliminate this sort of sermonizing from his newspaper contributions, though the tendency toward self-righteousness never entirely left him.
1 Broadus Mitchell, Alexander Hamilton: The Revolutionary Years (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company,1970), p.3; Claude G. Bowers, Jefferson and Hamilton: The Struggle for Democracy in America (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,1966), p.2A; and John C. Miller, Alexander Hamilton: Portrait in Paradox (NewYork: Harper and Row,1959), p.3.
2 The Royal Danish-American Gazette, vol.3, no.23A, Saturday, October 3,1772; cited by Gertrude Atherton,ed., A Few of Hamilton's Letters (New York: The Macmillan Company,1903), p. 262.
3 Bowers, Jefferson and Hamilton, p.25.
4 Atherton, Letters, p. 263.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION
At an early age Alexander Hamilton experienced the satisfaction of publication and saw the dramatic impact a single newspaper piece can make.
When he was seventeen, he wrote an account of a fierce hurricane that swept through his West Indian island home of St. Croix.
Addressed to his father, Hamilton also showed his essay to a Presbyterian clergyman, the Reverend Hugh Knox, who saw that it was published in The Royal Danish-American Gazette, the chief English newspaper on the island.
Knox was sufficiently impressed with Hamilton's talent to collect the money necessary to send him to the American colonies for an education. 1
The "Hurricane Letter" is a dramatic example of purple prose, the product of a teen-ager, who wrote:
It seemed as if a total dissolution of nature was taking place.
The roaring of the sea and wind — fiery meteors flying about in the air -- the prodigious glare of almost perpetual lightning -- the crash of the falling houses -- and the ear-piercing shrieks of the distressed, were sufficient to strike astonishment into Angels. 2
Although it is doubtful whether Hamilton "would have shone with equal luster in the reportorial room of a modern paper,"3 as one biographer suggested,he illustrated his ability to communicate a graphic picture of his observations.
More glaring than the youthful, featurized account is the stilted quality of the prose, the heavy moralizing of a young man under the heavy influence of religion.
After his description of the hurricane, Hamilton went on to reflect:
Where now, Oh! vileworm, is all thy boasted fortitude and resolution?
What is become of thy arrogance and self-sufficiency?
Why dost thou tremble and stand aghast?
How humble -- how helpless -- how contemptible you now appear.
And for why?
The jarring of the elements -- the discord of clouds?
Oh, impotent presumptuous fool!
How darest thou offend that omnipotence, whose nod alone were sufficient to quell the destruction that hovers over thee, or crush thee into atoms. 4
Hamilton was to later eliminate this sort of sermonizing from his newspaper contributions, though the tendency toward self-righteousness never entirely left him.
1 Broadus Mitchell, Alexander Hamilton: The Revolutionary Years (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company,1970), p.3; Claude G. Bowers, Jefferson and Hamilton: The Struggle for Democracy in America (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,1966), p.2A; and John C. Miller, Alexander Hamilton: Portrait in Paradox (NewYork: Harper and Row,1959), p.3.
2 The Royal Danish-American Gazette, vol.3, no.23A, Saturday, October 3,1772; cited by Gertrude Atherton,ed., A Few of Hamilton's Letters (New York: The Macmillan Company,1903), p. 262.
3 Bowers, Jefferson and Hamilton, p.25.
4 Atherton, Letters, p. 263.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: HAMILTON ON THE PRESS
ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S USE, ABUSE, AND DEFENSE OF THE PRESS, continued ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION, continued ...
The one quality of the "Hurricane Letter" that recurs in almost all of his publications is "the intense seriousness of youth." 5
The " Hurricane Letter" was significant in Hamilton's life not only because it was his ticket to America, but also because it gave him an early sense of confidence with a pen in his hand.
In the fall of 1772, after the appearance of the "Hurricane Letter," Hamilton sailed for New York and entered King's College (now Columbia University).
Soon he became interested and involved in the revolutionary spirit of many of his classmates.
While at King's, he learned of the Boston Tea Party and wrote a "Defence of the Destruction of the Tea," which appeared in Holt's Journal.
His revolutionary sympathies continued to emerge after the First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in 1774 and decided to boycott all English goods.
In response to that decision an Anglican clergyman, Dr. Samuel Seabury, addressed an effective pamphlet to the farmers of America.
He argued the conservative position that little was to be gained from the radical boycott.
He signed it "A WestchesterFarmer."
A response to Seabury appeared on December 15, from the printing press of James Rivington in New York.
Entitled "A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress from the calumnies of their enemies,in answer to a letter under the signature of a Westchester Farmer," it was Hamilton's "first important work, a major contribution to the literature of the American Revolution." 6
His purpose was to debunk the assertion of the conservatives that the colonies had everything to lose by boycotting English goods.
Like the "Hurricane Letter," this pamphlet was full of immature phrases, but it was the first example of Hamilton's ability to logically sum up all arguments of a position and to present them to every element of society through generalities.
"It was a catch-all, a net in which togather all classes and conditions of society for a single defense against British aggression." 7
Hamilton's theme embodied the argument -- more of the heart than of the head -- of natural rights.
"That Americans are entitled to freedom is incontestable on every rational principle," he claimed, and went on: All men have one common original: they participate in one common nature, and consequently have one common right.
No reason can be assigned why one man should exercise any power or pre-eminence over his fellow-creatures more than another; unless they have voluntarily vested him with it.
Since, then, Americans have not, by any act of theirs, empowered the British Parliament to make laws for them, it follows they can have no just authority to do it. 8
5 Frederick Scott Oliver, Alexander Hamilton: An Essay on American Union (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons,1923), p.429.
6 Saul K. Padover, ed., The Mind of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Harper and Row,1953), p. 6
7 Nathan Schachner, Alexander Hamilton (New York: D. Appleton Century Company, Inc., 1936), p. 37.
8 Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, ed., Henry Cabot Lodge, vol. 1 (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1904), p.6
TO BE CONTINUED ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION, continued ...
The one quality of the "Hurricane Letter" that recurs in almost all of his publications is "the intense seriousness of youth." 5
The " Hurricane Letter" was significant in Hamilton's life not only because it was his ticket to America, but also because it gave him an early sense of confidence with a pen in his hand.
In the fall of 1772, after the appearance of the "Hurricane Letter," Hamilton sailed for New York and entered King's College (now Columbia University).
Soon he became interested and involved in the revolutionary spirit of many of his classmates.
While at King's, he learned of the Boston Tea Party and wrote a "Defence of the Destruction of the Tea," which appeared in Holt's Journal.
His revolutionary sympathies continued to emerge after the First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in 1774 and decided to boycott all English goods.
In response to that decision an Anglican clergyman, Dr. Samuel Seabury, addressed an effective pamphlet to the farmers of America.
He argued the conservative position that little was to be gained from the radical boycott.
He signed it "A WestchesterFarmer."
A response to Seabury appeared on December 15, from the printing press of James Rivington in New York.
Entitled "A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress from the calumnies of their enemies,in answer to a letter under the signature of a Westchester Farmer," it was Hamilton's "first important work, a major contribution to the literature of the American Revolution." 6
His purpose was to debunk the assertion of the conservatives that the colonies had everything to lose by boycotting English goods.
Like the "Hurricane Letter," this pamphlet was full of immature phrases, but it was the first example of Hamilton's ability to logically sum up all arguments of a position and to present them to every element of society through generalities.
"It was a catch-all, a net in which togather all classes and conditions of society for a single defense against British aggression." 7
Hamilton's theme embodied the argument -- more of the heart than of the head -- of natural rights.
"That Americans are entitled to freedom is incontestable on every rational principle," he claimed, and went on: All men have one common original: they participate in one common nature, and consequently have one common right.
No reason can be assigned why one man should exercise any power or pre-eminence over his fellow-creatures more than another; unless they have voluntarily vested him with it.
Since, then, Americans have not, by any act of theirs, empowered the British Parliament to make laws for them, it follows they can have no just authority to do it. 8
5 Frederick Scott Oliver, Alexander Hamilton: An Essay on American Union (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons,1923), p.429.
6 Saul K. Padover, ed., The Mind of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Harper and Row,1953), p. 6
7 Nathan Schachner, Alexander Hamilton (New York: D. Appleton Century Company, Inc., 1936), p. 37.
8 Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, ed., Henry Cabot Lodge, vol. 1 (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1904), p.6
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: HAMILTON ON THE PRESS
ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S USE, ABUSE, AND DEFENSE OF THE PRESS, continued ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION, continued ...
"A Full Vindication" must have hit its mark, since Seabury considered the pamphlet worthy of response -- always a good test of the significance of a piece.
And again Hamilton answered, pursuing "his victim with an ardour whetted on applause." 9
His second essay was entitled "The Farmer Refuted or a more comprehensive and impartial View of the Disputes between Great Britain and the Colonies."
It may have been more comprehensive than "A Full Vindication," filling 122 pages in the Lodge edition of Hamilton's works, but it was no more impartial.
Characteristically, the young Hamilton employed logic wherever possible, but also used emotional sentiments where necessary, as in this passage of full capital-lettered prose: THE SACRED RIGHTS OF MANKIND ARE NOT TO BE RUMMAGED FOR AMONG OLD PARCHMENTS OF MUSTY RECORDS.
THEY ARE WRITTEN, AS WITH A SUNBEAM, IN THE WHOLE VOLUME OF HUMAN NATURE, BY THE HAND OF THE DIVINITY ITSELF, AND CAN NEVER BE ERASED OR OBSCURED BY MORTAL POWER. 10
At least Hamilton concluded in a mature vein, noting with a realist's common sense that "the best way to secure a permanent and happy union between Great Britain and the colonies, is to permit the latter to be as free as they desire." 11
When the patriot leaders learned that the author of the two pamphlets was not an experienced practitioner of patriot literature, but just a college student, they were startled -- and of course pleased.
Hamilton's reputation as an effective author was thus solidly established by the time he was twenty years old.
Perhaps Hamilton was feeling too secure in his own ability after sensing the sweet taste of well-received authorship.
For now, in June of 1775, he made the mistake of rushing into print without careful thought.
He wrote regarding the Quebec Act, passed by the British Parliament in part to avert the possibility of Canadian revolutionary fervor.
The act restored the full religious liberty of Canada's French Catholics, as well as their legal and political institutions.
Historians today consider this a most statesmanlike and wise piece of legislation, but it brought cries of "Popery" from Protestant ministers in the northern colonies.
Hamilton, eager to capitalize on any situation that might help to unite the colonists in ill feeling against the British, expediently seized the opportunity "to excite religious prejudice against the British Government for their toleration, or, as Hamilton preferred to allege, their establishment of Roman Catholicism in Canada." 12
In his "Remarks on the Quebec Bill," Hamilton raged against an act that "makes effectual provision not only for the protection but for the permanent support of Popery," an act that "develops the dark designs of the ministry more fully than anything they have done." 13
His remarks were blatant propaganda, "a frank appeal to racial and religious prejudice." 14
What Hamilton did not consider as he dashed off his angry tirade was that while he might be increasing the degree of hatred toward the British in a few cases, he was also risking the loss of Canadian support in the revolutionary cause.
While it is difficult to ascertain, John C. Miller found that Hamilton had occasion to regret his "unsparing condemnation of the Roman Catholics," for within a month or two of his published remarks the Continental Congress was seeking French Canadian support in the revolutionary cause. 15
9 Oliver,Hamilton, p.29.
10 Works,vol.1, p. 113.
11 Works,vol.1, p. 113.
[12 Oliver, Hamilton, p. 31.
13 Works, vol.1, pp.187,194.
14 Schachner, Hamilton, p.39.
15 Hamilton, p.20.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION, continued ...
"A Full Vindication" must have hit its mark, since Seabury considered the pamphlet worthy of response -- always a good test of the significance of a piece.
And again Hamilton answered, pursuing "his victim with an ardour whetted on applause." 9
His second essay was entitled "The Farmer Refuted or a more comprehensive and impartial View of the Disputes between Great Britain and the Colonies."
It may have been more comprehensive than "A Full Vindication," filling 122 pages in the Lodge edition of Hamilton's works, but it was no more impartial.
Characteristically, the young Hamilton employed logic wherever possible, but also used emotional sentiments where necessary, as in this passage of full capital-lettered prose: THE SACRED RIGHTS OF MANKIND ARE NOT TO BE RUMMAGED FOR AMONG OLD PARCHMENTS OF MUSTY RECORDS.
THEY ARE WRITTEN, AS WITH A SUNBEAM, IN THE WHOLE VOLUME OF HUMAN NATURE, BY THE HAND OF THE DIVINITY ITSELF, AND CAN NEVER BE ERASED OR OBSCURED BY MORTAL POWER. 10
At least Hamilton concluded in a mature vein, noting with a realist's common sense that "the best way to secure a permanent and happy union between Great Britain and the colonies, is to permit the latter to be as free as they desire." 11
When the patriot leaders learned that the author of the two pamphlets was not an experienced practitioner of patriot literature, but just a college student, they were startled -- and of course pleased.
Hamilton's reputation as an effective author was thus solidly established by the time he was twenty years old.
Perhaps Hamilton was feeling too secure in his own ability after sensing the sweet taste of well-received authorship.
For now, in June of 1775, he made the mistake of rushing into print without careful thought.
He wrote regarding the Quebec Act, passed by the British Parliament in part to avert the possibility of Canadian revolutionary fervor.
The act restored the full religious liberty of Canada's French Catholics, as well as their legal and political institutions.
Historians today consider this a most statesmanlike and wise piece of legislation, but it brought cries of "Popery" from Protestant ministers in the northern colonies.
Hamilton, eager to capitalize on any situation that might help to unite the colonists in ill feeling against the British, expediently seized the opportunity "to excite religious prejudice against the British Government for their toleration, or, as Hamilton preferred to allege, their establishment of Roman Catholicism in Canada." 12
In his "Remarks on the Quebec Bill," Hamilton raged against an act that "makes effectual provision not only for the protection but for the permanent support of Popery," an act that "develops the dark designs of the ministry more fully than anything they have done." 13
His remarks were blatant propaganda, "a frank appeal to racial and religious prejudice." 14
What Hamilton did not consider as he dashed off his angry tirade was that while he might be increasing the degree of hatred toward the British in a few cases, he was also risking the loss of Canadian support in the revolutionary cause.
While it is difficult to ascertain, John C. Miller found that Hamilton had occasion to regret his "unsparing condemnation of the Roman Catholics," for within a month or two of his published remarks the Continental Congress was seeking French Canadian support in the revolutionary cause. 15
9 Oliver,Hamilton, p.29.
10 Works,vol.1, p. 113.
11 Works,vol.1, p. 113.
[12 Oliver, Hamilton, p. 31.
13 Works, vol.1, pp.187,194.
14 Schachner, Hamilton, p.39.
15 Hamilton, p.20.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: HAMILTON ON THE PRESS
ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S USE, ABUSE, AND DEFENSE OF THE PRESS, continued ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION, continued ...
Nathan Schachner also concluded that Hamilton's remarks did "infinite harm to the cause of revolution "since" the agitation over the Quebec Act and the vituperation poured over the Catholic sensibilities of the Canadians were to hold them loyal to the cause of England in the forthcoming struggle." l6
While Hamilton had firmly placed himself on the revolutionary side by 1775 and had defended the action of those who had dumped taxed tea into the Boston Harbor, he was a conservative on the question of law and order.
Between his two passions in early life -- love of freedom and hatred of mob rule —~ his passion for the latter was stronger.
In October a Connecticut mob was recruited by Issac Sears, a leader of the New York Sons of Liberty, to come to New York and stir things up.
They destroyed the printing press of James Rivington.
Hamilton was furious.
Rivington was the printer who had published Hamilton's two pamphlets in response to "The Westchester Farmer," but he was a publisher of Loyalist tracts for whom Hamilton had no love.
Hamilton wrote John Jay his reaction: You will probably ere this reaches you have heard of the late incursion made in to this city by a number of horsemen from New England under the command of Capt. Sears, who took away Mr. Rivington's types and a Couteau or two.
Though I am fully sensible how dangerous and pernicious Rivington's press has been, and how detestable the character of the man is in every respect, yet I cannot help disapproving and condemning this step. 17
The issue of freedom of the press was probably not fore-front in Hamilton's mind.
Indeed there is no reason to think it was even present.
But it is noteworthy that Hamilton objected strongly to a relatively minor act of lawlessness in a chaotic period of history.
One could well imagine him rejoicing in the loss of Rivington's Loyalist printing press, or at least being indifferent to the ill fortune of a Tory printer.
When Hamilton next appeared in the press, he had spent a year as General George Washington's closest military aide, writing correspondence for him and growing increasingly frustrated with the Continental Congress' unwillingness to provide more support for the Continental Army.
He was particularly angered when he learned of the speculation of Maryland Congressman Samuel Chase.
Chase had taken advantage of inside information concerning a government purchase of grain and had sent agents to corner the market.
In three successive letters in Holt's Journal, and writing under the pen name of Publius, Hamilton attacked Chase.
Without naming the congressman, Hamilton wrote that any member of Congress who speculates "ought to feel the utmost vigor of public resentment, and be detested as a traitor of the worst and most dangerous kind." 18
His second letter still mentioned no names, though by this time it was public knowledge who had cornered the grain market.
In his third and final letter, Hamilton promised that "the defects" of the corrupt congressman's "private character shall pass untouched." 19
He then went on to attack Chase's character, calling him a callous and cunning man guilty of self-love and incapable of remorse, implying thereby, unworthy of forgiveness.
Perhaps it has been overstated by Claude G. Bowers, a Jefferson partisan, that "nowhere in the literature of invective is there anything more vitriolic than the attack on a war speculator." 20
But the letters were brutally sarcastic and rather" a pompous exercise." 21
They were effective to the extent that the publicity forced the Maryland legislature to hold a hearing into the charges, but an expected partisan vote cleared Chase of any wrong-doing.
Chase never discovered the identity of Publius and, ironically, later became a close political associate of Hamilton's in the highest circles of the Federalist Party.
16 Hamilton, p. 40.
17 "Letter to John Jay," November 26, 1775, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed., Harold C. Syrett and Jacob E. Cooke, vol.1 (NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1961), p.176.
18 October 19, 1778, Works, vol. 1, p. 201.
19 November 16, 1778, Works, vol.1, p. 206.
20 Jefferson and Hamilton, p. 26.
21 Oliver, Hamilton, p. 84.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION, continued ...
Nathan Schachner also concluded that Hamilton's remarks did "infinite harm to the cause of revolution "since" the agitation over the Quebec Act and the vituperation poured over the Catholic sensibilities of the Canadians were to hold them loyal to the cause of England in the forthcoming struggle." l6
While Hamilton had firmly placed himself on the revolutionary side by 1775 and had defended the action of those who had dumped taxed tea into the Boston Harbor, he was a conservative on the question of law and order.
Between his two passions in early life -- love of freedom and hatred of mob rule —~ his passion for the latter was stronger.
In October a Connecticut mob was recruited by Issac Sears, a leader of the New York Sons of Liberty, to come to New York and stir things up.
They destroyed the printing press of James Rivington.
Hamilton was furious.
Rivington was the printer who had published Hamilton's two pamphlets in response to "The Westchester Farmer," but he was a publisher of Loyalist tracts for whom Hamilton had no love.
Hamilton wrote John Jay his reaction: You will probably ere this reaches you have heard of the late incursion made in to this city by a number of horsemen from New England under the command of Capt. Sears, who took away Mr. Rivington's types and a Couteau or two.
Though I am fully sensible how dangerous and pernicious Rivington's press has been, and how detestable the character of the man is in every respect, yet I cannot help disapproving and condemning this step. 17
The issue of freedom of the press was probably not fore-front in Hamilton's mind.
Indeed there is no reason to think it was even present.
But it is noteworthy that Hamilton objected strongly to a relatively minor act of lawlessness in a chaotic period of history.
One could well imagine him rejoicing in the loss of Rivington's Loyalist printing press, or at least being indifferent to the ill fortune of a Tory printer.
When Hamilton next appeared in the press, he had spent a year as General George Washington's closest military aide, writing correspondence for him and growing increasingly frustrated with the Continental Congress' unwillingness to provide more support for the Continental Army.
He was particularly angered when he learned of the speculation of Maryland Congressman Samuel Chase.
Chase had taken advantage of inside information concerning a government purchase of grain and had sent agents to corner the market.
In three successive letters in Holt's Journal, and writing under the pen name of Publius, Hamilton attacked Chase.
Without naming the congressman, Hamilton wrote that any member of Congress who speculates "ought to feel the utmost vigor of public resentment, and be detested as a traitor of the worst and most dangerous kind." 18
His second letter still mentioned no names, though by this time it was public knowledge who had cornered the grain market.
In his third and final letter, Hamilton promised that "the defects" of the corrupt congressman's "private character shall pass untouched." 19
He then went on to attack Chase's character, calling him a callous and cunning man guilty of self-love and incapable of remorse, implying thereby, unworthy of forgiveness.
Perhaps it has been overstated by Claude G. Bowers, a Jefferson partisan, that "nowhere in the literature of invective is there anything more vitriolic than the attack on a war speculator." 20
But the letters were brutally sarcastic and rather" a pompous exercise." 21
They were effective to the extent that the publicity forced the Maryland legislature to hold a hearing into the charges, but an expected partisan vote cleared Chase of any wrong-doing.
Chase never discovered the identity of Publius and, ironically, later became a close political associate of Hamilton's in the highest circles of the Federalist Party.
16 Hamilton, p. 40.
17 "Letter to John Jay," November 26, 1775, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed., Harold C. Syrett and Jacob E. Cooke, vol.1 (NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1961), p.176.
18 October 19, 1778, Works, vol. 1, p. 201.
19 November 16, 1778, Works, vol.1, p. 206.
20 Jefferson and Hamilton, p. 26.
21 Oliver, Hamilton, p. 84.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: HAMILTON ON THE PRESS
ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S USE, ABUSE, AND DEFENSE OF THE PRESS, continued ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION, continued ...
It is interesting to note that in 1778 Hamilton recognized the public press as the proper forum for criticism of a public figure.
He was to lose sight of this realization later when he became a public figure himself.
He was later to consider criticism of a government figure a threat to national security and an untolerable excess.
But his criticism of Chase placed him on the record in support of a free press.
He also placed himself on the record by a covering letter to publisher Holt, which accompanied his first attack on Chase.
In it he explained that he had chosen Holt's Journal for his letters because "the opinion I have of the independence of your spirit convinces me you will ever be a faithful guardian of the liberty of the press." 22
Hamilton did not appear in print publicly again until he had resigned as Washington's aide-de-camp.
In the spring of 1781, he took advantage of the leisure time he had before he was elected to the Continental Congress from New York to reflect on his plan for the organization of the national government.
In a series of six newspaper articles from July 12,1781, to July 4, 1782, he "made an eloquent and closely reasoned plea for a closer union of the States under the aegis of the Continental Congress." 23
Writing as "A.B.," Hamilton's "The Continentalist" series accentuated his lifelong theme: that continental nationalism was essential to the survival of the new nation and that the means to that end was more power to Congress and less to the individual states.
The series marked the early beginning of a movement toward a new system of government.
Hamilton appealed to the people to drop their excessive state loyalties and to become a race of Americans.
He proposed that a Constitutional Convention be held to write a solid foundation for a strong federal government, one strong enough to be able to win the war by having the power to tax the people directly.
The war did end and the British left New York in November, 1783.
In that year, Hamilton championed the cause of civil liberties by his defense of the Loyalists.
A great many New Yorkers, behind Governor Clinton, were swept by a wave of hostility toward those who had remained loyal to England during the war.
Hamilton thought it wise to make peace with the Loyalists and keep their good services in the country.
So he addressed the "considerate Citizens of New York"as Phocion.*
His argument was good and his appeal was noble.
He wrote that "there is not a "single interest of the community but dictates moderation rather than violence."
"That honesty is still the best policy; that justice and moderation are the surest supports of every government, are maxims which, however they may be called trite, are at all times true; though too seldom regarded, but rarely neglected with impunity." 24
When Phocion was answered by ananonymous Mentor, Hamilton wrote again, probably in April, on the same theme: If we set out with justice, moderation, liberality, and a scrupulous regard to the constitution, the government will acquire a spirit and tone, productive of permanent blessings to the community ....
The world has its eye upon America. 25
This rhetoric supports the conclusion that the two Phocion letters "are among the noblest and most persuasive of his writings." 26
Historian John C. Miller, who has written one of the most objective and thorough biographies of Hamilton, concluded that for his courage as Phocion, Hamilton suffered.
"By championing the Loyalists, Hamilton exposed himself to the charge of being a Tory lover...."
"Newspaper writers speculated as to the number of pieces of silver for which he had sold his country." 27
* Phocion was an Athenian leader who embraced the cause of those who most differed from him.
22 Works, vol.1, p. 199.
23 Miller, Hamilton, p. 59.
24 Papers, vol. 3, p. A95.
25 Papers, vol.3, pp. 556,557.
26 Oliver, Hamilton, p. 120.
27 Miller, Hamilton, p. 103.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION, continued ...
It is interesting to note that in 1778 Hamilton recognized the public press as the proper forum for criticism of a public figure.
He was to lose sight of this realization later when he became a public figure himself.
He was later to consider criticism of a government figure a threat to national security and an untolerable excess.
But his criticism of Chase placed him on the record in support of a free press.
He also placed himself on the record by a covering letter to publisher Holt, which accompanied his first attack on Chase.
In it he explained that he had chosen Holt's Journal for his letters because "the opinion I have of the independence of your spirit convinces me you will ever be a faithful guardian of the liberty of the press." 22
Hamilton did not appear in print publicly again until he had resigned as Washington's aide-de-camp.
In the spring of 1781, he took advantage of the leisure time he had before he was elected to the Continental Congress from New York to reflect on his plan for the organization of the national government.
In a series of six newspaper articles from July 12,1781, to July 4, 1782, he "made an eloquent and closely reasoned plea for a closer union of the States under the aegis of the Continental Congress." 23
Writing as "A.B.," Hamilton's "The Continentalist" series accentuated his lifelong theme: that continental nationalism was essential to the survival of the new nation and that the means to that end was more power to Congress and less to the individual states.
The series marked the early beginning of a movement toward a new system of government.
Hamilton appealed to the people to drop their excessive state loyalties and to become a race of Americans.
He proposed that a Constitutional Convention be held to write a solid foundation for a strong federal government, one strong enough to be able to win the war by having the power to tax the people directly.
The war did end and the British left New York in November, 1783.
In that year, Hamilton championed the cause of civil liberties by his defense of the Loyalists.
A great many New Yorkers, behind Governor Clinton, were swept by a wave of hostility toward those who had remained loyal to England during the war.
Hamilton thought it wise to make peace with the Loyalists and keep their good services in the country.
So he addressed the "considerate Citizens of New York"as Phocion.*
His argument was good and his appeal was noble.
He wrote that "there is not a "single interest of the community but dictates moderation rather than violence."
"That honesty is still the best policy; that justice and moderation are the surest supports of every government, are maxims which, however they may be called trite, are at all times true; though too seldom regarded, but rarely neglected with impunity." 24
When Phocion was answered by ananonymous Mentor, Hamilton wrote again, probably in April, on the same theme: If we set out with justice, moderation, liberality, and a scrupulous regard to the constitution, the government will acquire a spirit and tone, productive of permanent blessings to the community ....
The world has its eye upon America. 25
This rhetoric supports the conclusion that the two Phocion letters "are among the noblest and most persuasive of his writings." 26
Historian John C. Miller, who has written one of the most objective and thorough biographies of Hamilton, concluded that for his courage as Phocion, Hamilton suffered.
"By championing the Loyalists, Hamilton exposed himself to the charge of being a Tory lover...."
"Newspaper writers speculated as to the number of pieces of silver for which he had sold his country." 27
* Phocion was an Athenian leader who embraced the cause of those who most differed from him.
22 Works, vol.1, p. 199.
23 Miller, Hamilton, p. 59.
24 Papers, vol. 3, p. A95.
25 Papers, vol.3, pp. 556,557.
26 Oliver, Hamilton, p. 120.
27 Miller, Hamilton, p. 103.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: HAMILTON ON THE PRESS
ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S USE, ABUSE, AND DEFENSE OF THE PRESS, continued ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION, continued ...
As Phocion, Hamilton employed his talent as an effective writer for a useful, important, and worthwhile cause.
He was to do the same in 1787 when the proposed Constitution needed defending.
The Constitution agreed upon at the Constitutional Convention was hardly the ideal model Hamilton had envisioned, but he was willing and even eager to defend it.
He considered it far superior to the Articles of Confederation in that it provided for a central government with more authority, and he always assumed that it would serve only as a guide which could be interpreted to suit his philosophy.
Even as the Constitution was still on the drafting table, New York Governor Clinton, an avid states-rights man opposed to strong federal government, urged his people to rally around the old Articles.
In the Daily Advertiser of June 21,1787, Hamilton accused Clinton of prejudging the document.
Soon after the Constitution made its appearance, Clinton wrote as Cato in the New York Journal, and was answered by Caesar in the Daily Advertiser.
Caesar has been widely thought to be Hamilton.
But in 1960 a case was made disputing the assertion of Hamilton's authorship, a case which is well documented and wholly convincing. 28
Whoever Caesar was, he adopted a tone almost certain to bring about the defeat of the Constitution.
In an indignant and disdainful voice, he branded Governor Clinton a demagogue and his followers fools.
After just two Caesar diatribes a more reasonable and persuasive voice rose in defense of the proposed Constitution -~ that of Publius.*
On October 27, 1787, the first essay of Hamilton's most positive newspaper contribution was published in the New York Independent Journal.
With the change from Caesar to Publius, "the controversy was abruptly transferred to another plane: from a name-calling brawl...it became a penetrating analysis of the proposed Constitution." 29
And so Hamilton,with the help of James Madison and John Jay, began the ambitious task of writing one of the most famous treatises on constitutional government: the Federalist Papers.
It is universally agreed that these essays are not only an American classic, but one of the greatest discussions of the principles of free government anywhere written and a great aid in interpreting the Constitution.
* Publius Valerius was the hero who established a just republican government after the fall of the last king of Rome.
28 See Jacob E. Cooke, "Alexander Hamilton's Authorship of the 'Caesar' Letters," William and Mary Quarterly 17 (January 1960) pp. 78-85.
29 Miller, Hamilton,p. 188.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION, continued ...
As Phocion, Hamilton employed his talent as an effective writer for a useful, important, and worthwhile cause.
He was to do the same in 1787 when the proposed Constitution needed defending.
The Constitution agreed upon at the Constitutional Convention was hardly the ideal model Hamilton had envisioned, but he was willing and even eager to defend it.
He considered it far superior to the Articles of Confederation in that it provided for a central government with more authority, and he always assumed that it would serve only as a guide which could be interpreted to suit his philosophy.
Even as the Constitution was still on the drafting table, New York Governor Clinton, an avid states-rights man opposed to strong federal government, urged his people to rally around the old Articles.
In the Daily Advertiser of June 21,1787, Hamilton accused Clinton of prejudging the document.
Soon after the Constitution made its appearance, Clinton wrote as Cato in the New York Journal, and was answered by Caesar in the Daily Advertiser.
Caesar has been widely thought to be Hamilton.
But in 1960 a case was made disputing the assertion of Hamilton's authorship, a case which is well documented and wholly convincing. 28
Whoever Caesar was, he adopted a tone almost certain to bring about the defeat of the Constitution.
In an indignant and disdainful voice, he branded Governor Clinton a demagogue and his followers fools.
After just two Caesar diatribes a more reasonable and persuasive voice rose in defense of the proposed Constitution -~ that of Publius.*
On October 27, 1787, the first essay of Hamilton's most positive newspaper contribution was published in the New York Independent Journal.
With the change from Caesar to Publius, "the controversy was abruptly transferred to another plane: from a name-calling brawl...it became a penetrating analysis of the proposed Constitution." 29
And so Hamilton,with the help of James Madison and John Jay, began the ambitious task of writing one of the most famous treatises on constitutional government: the Federalist Papers.
It is universally agreed that these essays are not only an American classic, but one of the greatest discussions of the principles of free government anywhere written and a great aid in interpreting the Constitution.
* Publius Valerius was the hero who established a just republican government after the fall of the last king of Rome.
28 See Jacob E. Cooke, "Alexander Hamilton's Authorship of the 'Caesar' Letters," William and Mary Quarterly 17 (January 1960) pp. 78-85.
29 Miller, Hamilton,p. 188.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: HAMILTON ON THE PRESS
ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S USE, ABUSE, AND DEFENSE OF THE PRESS, continued ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION, continued ...
What is relevant here is how much of an impact they had on the state legislatures of the time.
The truth is that they made little difference to the early state conventions, since the early papers are less substantive and less controversial than the later ones.
Five or six conventions had met and ratified the plan before the more specific, controversial aspects were dealt with. 30
But it seems fairly certain that the papers made a difference in the two states where ratification hung in the balance: in Virginia and New York.
Hamilton was able to send copies of the completed text in book form to Madison in Virginia in May, 1788, where it served as a handbook for the cause -- and won the day.
In New York, Hamilton and his essays were responsible for achieving a narrow victory.
The Constitution was adopted and General Washington was sworn in as the first president.
He chose Hamilton to be his Secretary of the Treasury.
Given hat position, one might think that Hamilton's contributions to the press would have abruptly disappeared.
But in that position -- and in fact he served more as a prime minister, he had so much authority in the first administration -- he continued to write publicly, though still anonymously.
Whether out of habit, or the lack of any equally gifted writer of Hamilton's political philosophy, he continued to take up his pen to defend his decisions and the measures adopted by the administration of which he was a part.
Since he was a part of the first administration, there were no precedents to guide Hamilton on the propriety of writing his own press releases.
When, for instance, President Washington issued a proclamation of neutrality on April 19, 1793, toward both France and England, who had been at war since January, Hamilton took to the press to defend the action.
It needed defending.
Republicans were furious that the Congress had not been consulted (though it had not been in session).
This gave Hamilton the opportunity to argue a point that seemed to him eminently clear: that the Constitution is full of implied powers, and that the general executive clause permits the broad use of power over the subsequent enumeration of presidential powers.
30 Miller, Hamilton, pp. 206-207.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION, continued ...
What is relevant here is how much of an impact they had on the state legislatures of the time.
The truth is that they made little difference to the early state conventions, since the early papers are less substantive and less controversial than the later ones.
Five or six conventions had met and ratified the plan before the more specific, controversial aspects were dealt with. 30
But it seems fairly certain that the papers made a difference in the two states where ratification hung in the balance: in Virginia and New York.
Hamilton was able to send copies of the completed text in book form to Madison in Virginia in May, 1788, where it served as a handbook for the cause -- and won the day.
In New York, Hamilton and his essays were responsible for achieving a narrow victory.
The Constitution was adopted and General Washington was sworn in as the first president.
He chose Hamilton to be his Secretary of the Treasury.
Given hat position, one might think that Hamilton's contributions to the press would have abruptly disappeared.
But in that position -- and in fact he served more as a prime minister, he had so much authority in the first administration -- he continued to write publicly, though still anonymously.
Whether out of habit, or the lack of any equally gifted writer of Hamilton's political philosophy, he continued to take up his pen to defend his decisions and the measures adopted by the administration of which he was a part.
Since he was a part of the first administration, there were no precedents to guide Hamilton on the propriety of writing his own press releases.
When, for instance, President Washington issued a proclamation of neutrality on April 19, 1793, toward both France and England, who had been at war since January, Hamilton took to the press to defend the action.
It needed defending.
Republicans were furious that the Congress had not been consulted (though it had not been in session).
This gave Hamilton the opportunity to argue a point that seemed to him eminently clear: that the Constitution is full of implied powers, and that the general executive clause permits the broad use of power over the subsequent enumeration of presidential powers.
30 Miller, Hamilton, pp. 206-207.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: HAMILTON ON THE PRESS
ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S USE, ABUSE, AND DEFENSE OF THE PRESS, continued ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION, continued ...
Choosing the pseudonym of Pacificus, between June 29 and July 20,1793, Hamilton argued that America need not live up to any treaty obligations with France since she was the aggressor in an offensive war with England.
Besides, he wrote, America had exaggerated the services of France during the Revolutionary War.
Pacificus was stating a party line.
The impact of the essays was significant, judging by the reaction of Hamilton's formidable political nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, who was Secretary of State at the time.
Though unenthusiastically so, he had agreed to Washington's proclamation of neutrality.
But he strongly 21 objected to Hamilton's use of the occasion to justify broad assumption of implied powers.
He wrote to James Madison and, referring to "Col.H's" Pacificus essays, asked him to respond: Nobody answers him, & his doctrines will therefore be taken for confessed.
For God's sake, my dear Sir, take up your pen, select the most striking heresies and cut him to pieces in the face of the public.
There is nobody else who can & will enter the lists with him. 31
The next time the Secretary of the Treasury wrote publicly was as Tully in four essays addressed "To the People of the United States."
Hamilton had imposed excise taxes on the whiskey distilled by frontiersmen from home—grown grain.
In August, 1794, a minor rebellion broke out in Pennsylvania against the hated tax.
This threat to governmental authority, as Hamilton interpreted the situation, gave him the excuse to test the strength of the federal government.
On August 17 the government sent orders to the state governors of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia to call out 12,500 militiamen to be ready for a march on the farmers.
"Since it was doubtful whether the militia would willingly respond to this order, Hamilton undertook to mobilize public opinion on the side of the government." 32
Hamilton's Tully essays were pep talks on respect for law, calling for the public's solid and complete support of the administration at all times, especially in times of crisis.
Hamilton posed these rhetorical questions:
Shall the majority govern or be governed? shall the nation rule or be ruled? shall the general will prevail, or the will of a faction? shall there be government or no government? It is impossible to deny that this is the true and the whole question.33
The true and whole question was not quite as simplistic as Hamilton perceived it.
His questions were a bit too grand for a situation in which other, equally appropriate questions might be whether the tax was indeed fair, whether the farmers had a justifiable complaint, or whether the national government's authority was really being threatened.
31 "Letter to James Madison," July 7, 1793, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford, vol. 7 (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1895),p. 436.
32 Miller, Hamilton, p. 407.
33 Works, vol. 6, pp. 414, 415.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
I. HAMILTON WRITES HIMSELF INTO REPUTATION, continued ...
Choosing the pseudonym of Pacificus, between June 29 and July 20,1793, Hamilton argued that America need not live up to any treaty obligations with France since she was the aggressor in an offensive war with England.
Besides, he wrote, America had exaggerated the services of France during the Revolutionary War.
Pacificus was stating a party line.
The impact of the essays was significant, judging by the reaction of Hamilton's formidable political nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, who was Secretary of State at the time.
Though unenthusiastically so, he had agreed to Washington's proclamation of neutrality.
But he strongly 21 objected to Hamilton's use of the occasion to justify broad assumption of implied powers.
He wrote to James Madison and, referring to "Col.H's" Pacificus essays, asked him to respond: Nobody answers him, & his doctrines will therefore be taken for confessed.
For God's sake, my dear Sir, take up your pen, select the most striking heresies and cut him to pieces in the face of the public.
There is nobody else who can & will enter the lists with him. 31
The next time the Secretary of the Treasury wrote publicly was as Tully in four essays addressed "To the People of the United States."
Hamilton had imposed excise taxes on the whiskey distilled by frontiersmen from home—grown grain.
In August, 1794, a minor rebellion broke out in Pennsylvania against the hated tax.
This threat to governmental authority, as Hamilton interpreted the situation, gave him the excuse to test the strength of the federal government.
On August 17 the government sent orders to the state governors of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia to call out 12,500 militiamen to be ready for a march on the farmers.
"Since it was doubtful whether the militia would willingly respond to this order, Hamilton undertook to mobilize public opinion on the side of the government." 32
Hamilton's Tully essays were pep talks on respect for law, calling for the public's solid and complete support of the administration at all times, especially in times of crisis.
Hamilton posed these rhetorical questions:
Shall the majority govern or be governed? shall the nation rule or be ruled? shall the general will prevail, or the will of a faction? shall there be government or no government? It is impossible to deny that this is the true and the whole question.33
The true and whole question was not quite as simplistic as Hamilton perceived it.
His questions were a bit too grand for a situation in which other, equally appropriate questions might be whether the tax was indeed fair, whether the farmers had a justifiable complaint, or whether the national government's authority was really being threatened.
31 "Letter to James Madison," July 7, 1793, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford, vol. 7 (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1895),p. 436.
32 Miller, Hamilton, p. 407.
33 Works, vol. 6, pp. 414, 415.
TO BE CONTINUED ...