What first struck Kent was Hamilton's "masterly" efforts "to reanimate the powers of the Confederation, and to infuse life, vigor, and credit into that languishing system" (283). This is all clear from Hamilton's early efforts beginning in 1782 to centralize the fiscal state of the nascent Confederation and to raise revenue for the national government. Hamilton was just 25 years old at the time:
it will abundantly appear, in the subsequent history of his life, that his zeal for the establishment of a national government, competent to preserve us from insult abroad and dissensions at home, and equally well fitted to uphold credit, to preserve liberty, and to cherish our resources, kept increasing; and that his views grew more and more enlarged and comprehensive as we approached the crisis of our destiny ... he did more with his pen and tongue than any other man, not only in reference to the origin and adoption of the Federal Constitution, but also to create and establish public credit, and defend the government and its measures, under the wise and eventful administration of Washington" (288).Kent is effusive on Hamilton's talent as a lawyer (though he notes the competence of American lawyers at that time was nothing inspirational). When he was arguing before the Supreme Court of NY, Hamilton was just 27.
On Hamilton's role in the constitutional convention, Kent writes that Hamilton's "avowed object was to make the experiment of a great federative republic, moving in the largest sphere and resting entirely on a possible basis, as complete, satisfactory, and decisive as possible" (299). It is clear that in Kent's judgment, Hamilton was the indispensable figure in the crafting and ratification of the constitution. Particularly notable, I think, is the praise of Hamilton's oratorical skill in dominating the ratifying debates in New York state.
I think the most interesting discussion is of Hamilton's role as Treasury Secretary.
Summarizing the report on manufactures:
He contended that the encouragement of manufactures tended to create a more extensive, certain, and permanent home market for the surplus produce of land, and that it was necessary, in self-defense, to meet and counteract the restrictive system of the commercial nations of Europe. IT was admitted, however, that if the liberal system of Adam Smith had been generally adopted, it would have carried forward nations, with accelerated motion, in the career of prosperity and greatness. The English critics spoke at the time of his report as a strong and able plea on the side of manufactures, and said that the subjects of trade, finance, and internal policy were not often discussed with so much precision of thought and perspicuity of language (314-5).Kent also brings to my attention Hamilton's pseudonymous pamphlets in favor of neutrality written under the names "No Jacobin" and "Pacificus." Kent thinks especially highly of Hamilton's "Camillus" pamphlets defending the Jay treaty. Kent predicts these will be long read, but I'd never heard of them.
By 1798, Hamilton's stance of neutrality had turned somewhat more bellicose, as he demanded a far firmer military response to potential French aggression.
Kent also quotes Washington's praise of Hamilton, which I hadn't seen before:
He declared Hamilton to be his 'principal and most confidential aid; that his acknowledged abilities and integrity had placed him on high ground and made him a conspicuous character in the United States and even in Europe; that he had the laudable ambition which prompts a man to excel in whatever he takes in hand; that he was enterprising, quick in his perceptions, and that his judgment was intuitively great.' (320)After his tenure in government, Hamilton returned to the law, where many of his most important cases dealt with libel and defamation:
While he regarded the liberty of the press as essential to the preservation of free government, he considered that a press wholly unchecked, with a right to publish anything at pleasure, regardless of truth or decency, would be, in the hands of unprincipled men, a terrible engine of mischief, and would be liable to be diverted to the most seditious and wicked purposes, and for the gratification of private malice or revenge. Such a free press would destroy public and private confidence, and would overawe and corrupt the impartial administration of justice. (325)Kent also recounts a dinner he had with Hamilton in April, 1804, where Hamilton expressed disappointment that he had not fully developed a systematic account of jurisprudence built "upon the principles of Lord Bacon's inductive philosophy. His object was to see what safe and salutary conclusions might be drawn from an historical examination of the effects of the various institutions heretofore existing" (328).
And here's quite a remark! "I have very little doubt that if General Hamilton had lived twenty years longer, he would have rivalled Socrates, or Bacon, or any other of the sages of ancient or modern times" (328).
No comments:
Post a Comment