The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms, and false reasonings is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges.1 And in a passage which contains an element of poetry as well as profound philosophy he wrote:

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself.2

Such utterances seem to answer in the affirmative the question: Did Hamilton begin public life as an American? The sentiments are those of Otis and Henry. It is easy however to draw from them false inferences. The words have a democratic ring, but there is little that is peculiarly American in them. They express universal rather than American democratic principles. Most of them a Frenchman might have uttered. Moreover, the circumstances under which he wrote make it clear that when Hamilton spoke of the rights of man, he had in mind communities rather than individuals. His quarrel was not with the aristocratic institutions of Great Britain, but with her policy. The question whether the English colonies in America had individually the right of self-government in respect to taxation was then the formal ground of dispute; and this question is radically distinct from that other one in regard to form of government which the colonies were soon to face. To this latter question, the determination of which involved a decision for or against democracy, we have no proof that Hamilton at this time had given serious attention. If he had done so, it could have been only in a speculative way. It seems not unreasonable to assume that he accepted democratic ideas in so far as they sustained the claim of the colonists to the right of self-taxation, and, in possible contingencies, to independence; but he did not consciously commit himself further. We know that certain strongly marked traits of his character inclined him from the beginning not only against democracy, but also against resistance to Great Britain. In the advertise1 A Full Vindication, Works I, 83. 2 Ibid. I, 108.

ment of The Farmer Refuted, Hamilton significantly declares that he knows his opinions have not been influenced by prejudice,

because he remembers the time when he had strong prejudices on the side he now opposes. His change of sentiment (he firmly believes) proceeded from the superior force of the arguments in favor of the American claims.1

Perhaps the most serious blemish of these early writings is an appeal to anti-papist feeling. But this was "a fault of youth"; throughout most of his later writings, and particularly in those which belong to his best period, from 1780 to 1797, Hamilton seeks to allay rather than to excite prejudice. Aside from their use in promoting resistance and preparing for revolution, and their significance as a revelation of character and talent, the chief interest of these papers consists in the fact that in every line they present the writer as in full sympathy with the people of his adopted country. This harmony, however, did not rest upon a durable basis; what made it for a short period possible, was a highly exceptional condition of public affairs in which those political interests wherein Hamilton and the people thought alike, overshadowed those wherein they could never agree. In 1774 the spirit of nationalism was dominant; local and particular interests were, for the time being, forgotten. But American particularism was not dead; it only slept; it was sure to awaken soon, and then the variance between Hamilton and the people must begin.

During the struggle for independence, Hamilton, although occupied with important military duties, found time to enter upon the task to which his life thereafter was to be devoted and (we may truly say) sacrificed the task, namely, of giving to the United States a national government, and therewith a national character and policy. In a letter dated September 3, 1780, to James Duane, a member of the Continental Congress, Hamilton gave his views "of the defects of our present system, and the changes necessary to save us from ruin.” "The funda

1 Works I, 53.

mental defect," he wrote, "is a want of power in Congress." This was due, in his opinion, to three causes:

--

An excess of the spirit of liberty, which has made the particular states show a jealousy of all power not in their own hands, and this jealousy has led them to exercise a right of judging in the last resort of the measures recommended by Congress, and of acting according to their own opinions of their propriety or necessity; a diffidence, in Congress, of their own powers, by which they have been timid and indecisive in their resolutions, constantly making concessions to the states, till they have scarcely left themselves the shadow of power; a want of sufficient means at their disposal to answer the public exigencies.1

To the plea that Congress "had never any definite powers granted them," he replies:

The manner in which Congress was appointed would warrant, and the public good required that they should have considered themselves as vested with full power to preserve the republic from harm. They have done many of the highest acts of sovereignty, which were always cheerfully submitted to: the declaration of independence, the declaration of war.... All these implications of a complete sovereignty were never disputed, and ought to have been a standard for the whole conduct of administration. Undefined powers are discretionary powers, limited only by the object for which they were given; in the present case the independence and freedom of America.2

Of the Confederation, then under discussion and soon to be established, he says:

It is neither fit for war nor peace. The idea of an uncontrollable sovereignty in each state over its internal police will defeat the other powers given to Congress, and make our union feeble and precarious.3 His enumeration of the powers which properly belong to Congress summarizes quite fairly the powers which, according to the interpretation of Hamilton and the early Federalists, were actually conferred on the general government by the constitution of 1787:

Congress should have complete sovereignty in all that relates to war, peace, trade, finance and to the management of foreign affairs; the right of declaring war; of raising armies, officering, paying them, directing their motions in every respect; of equipping fleets, and doing 3 Ibid. I, 205.

1 Works I, 203.

2 Ibid. I, 204.

the same with them; of building fortifications, arsenals, magazines, etc., etc.; of making peace on such conditions as they think proper; of regulating trade, determining with what countries it shall be carried on; granting indulgences; laying prohibitions on all the articles of export or import; imposing duties; granting bounties and premiums for raising, exporting or importing, and applying to their own use the product of these duties only giving credit to the states on whom they are raised in the general account of revenues and expenses; instituting admiralty courts, etc., of coining money; establishing banks on such terms and with such privileges as they think proper; appropriating funds, and doing whatever else relates to the operations of finance; transacting every thing with foreign nations; making alliances, offensive and defensive, treaties of commerce, etc., etc.1

He favored a more efficient executive, with the following secretaryships: Foreign Affairs, War, Marine, Finance, Trade.2 A paragraph, prophetic of one of the greatest of its author's achievements, advocates the establishment of a national bank. During the years 1781 and 1782 the substance of this letter was given to the public in a series of essays, six in number, which received the name of The Continentalist.

The letter to Duane makes it clear that, in 1780, the views of the writer had already come to differ widely from those generally held by the American people. It is true that he and they were moving in the same general direction, that is, towards national unity and national government, but not at an equal pace. He was advancing rapidly, constantly, and with confident step; they slowly, reluctantly, with many misgivings and backward turnings. It is certainly remarkable that at the age of twentythree, and before the adoption of our first constitution, namely the Articles of Confederation, Hamilton should have detected and exposed its inadequacy, should have foretold its failure; and that he should have thought out, in its most important features, that second and durable constitution which went into operation nine years later. In 1780 Hamilton, although far ahead, was still in the same pathway with the people.

Even before the war closed Hamilton had come to regard the states as a highly inconvenient and mischievous element of the 2 Ibid. I, 215.

1 Works I, 214.

political system. He now entered on a course of experiences which confirmed this view, and, at the same time, caused him to distrust and dislike democracy. In 1782 he became a member of Congress, and struggled manfully to commit that body to a national policy. But his efforts were in vain. Now that the pressure of war was removed the reaction towards state rights carried everything before it. His colleagues admired, but would not support him. In the states the democratic element began to get control and to abuse its power flagrantly.

In 1784, while a private citizen engaged in the practice of the law, Hamilton made a heroic stand against the persecution of the Tories. The Letters from Phocion, which this persecution called forth from him, after dwelling upon the inhumanity, the unlawfulness and the impolicy of persecution, direct attention in closing to its influence upon the future of the state:

acter.

Early habits [he wrote] give a lasting bias to the temper and charOur governments, hitherto, have no habits. How important to the happiness, not of America alone, but of mankind, that they should acquire good ones!

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. If, on the contrary, the public councils are guided by humor, passion and prejudice, . . . the future spirit of government will be feeble, distracted, and arbitrary. The rights of the subject will be the sport of every party vicissitude. . . . With the greatest advantages for promoting it that ever a people had, we shall have betrayed the cause of human nature.1

This solicitude for the future and for the world; for the permanent effects of a particular policy upon the character of the people and the government, and thereby upon the welfare of mankind, — is a strongly marked trait of Hamilton and proves the high quality of his statesmanship. Moreover the stand he took not only in these letters but in defending in a celebrated case the legal rights of the hated loyalists, showed that Hamilton did not share the prejudices of the multitude and had the courage to stand alone, if need be, against the multitude. But these considerations do not fully explain his course. His tol

1 Works III, 504.