of Washington as his adviser rather than subordinate, Hamilton,
doubtless ambitious, and perhaps elated by a sense of his own
importance, testily took offence at a hasty rebuke on the part of the
General and resigned his situation. Loath was Washington to part with
such a man from his household. But Hamilton was determined, and tardily
he obtained a battalion, with the brevet rank of general, and
distinguished himself in those engagements which preceded the capture of
Lord Cornwallis; and on the surrender of this general,--feeling that the
war was virtually ended,--he withdrew altogether from the army, and
began the study of law at Albany. He had already married the daughter of
General Schuyler, and thus formed an alliance with a powerful family.
After six months of study he was admitted to the Bar, and soon removed
to New York, which then contained but twenty-five thousand inhabitants.
His legal career was opened, like that of Cicero and Erskine, by a
difficult case which attracted great attention and brought him into
notice. In this case he rendered a political service as well as earned a
legal fame. An action was brought by a poor woman, impoverished by the
war, against a wealthy British merchant, to recover damages for the use
of a house he enjoyed when the city was occupied by the enemy. The
action was founded on a recent statute of the State of New York, which
authorized proceedings for trespass by persons who had been driven from
their homes by the invasion of the British. The plaintiff therefore had
the laws of New York on her side, as well as popular sympathies; and her
claim was ably supported by the attorney-general. But it involved a
grave constitutional question, and conflicted with the articles of peace
which the Confederation had made with England; for in the treaty with
Great Britain an amnesty had been agreed to for all acts done during the
war by military orders. The interests of the plaintiff were overlooked
in the great question whether the authority of Congress and the law of
nations, or the law of a State legislature, should have the ascendency.
In other words, Congress and the State of New York were in conflict as
to which should be paramount,--the law of Congress, or the law of a
sovereign State,--in a matter which affected a national treaty. If the
treaty were violated, new complications would arise with England, and
the authority of Congress be treated with contempt. Hamilton grappled
with the subject in the most comprehensive manner,--like a statesman
rather than a lawyer,--made a magnificent argument in favor of the
general government, and gained his case; although it would seem that
natural justice was in favor of the poor woman, deprived of the use of
her house by a wealthy alien, during the war. He rendered a service to
centralized authority, to the power of Congress. It was the incipient
contest between Federal and State authority. It was enlightened reason
and patriotism gaining a victory over popular passions, over the
assumptions of a State. It defined the respective rights of a State and
of the Nation collectively. It was one of those cases which settled the
great constitutional question that the authority of the Nation was
greater than that of any State which composed it, in matters where
Congress had a recognized jurisdiction.
It was about this time that Hamilton was brought in legal conflict with
another young man of great abilities, ambition, and popularity; and this
man was Aaron Burr, a grandson of Jonathan Edwards. Like Hamilton, he
had gained great distinction in the war, and was one of the rising young
men of the country. He was superior to Hamilton in personal popularity
and bewitching conversation; his equal in grace of manner, in forensic
eloquence and legal reputation, but his inferior in comprehensive
intellect and force of character. Hamilton dwelt in the region of great
ideas and principles; Burr loved to resort to legal technicalities,
sophistries, and the dexterous use of dialectical weapons. In arguing a
case he would descend to every form of annoyance and interruption, by
quibbles, notices, and appeals. Both lawyers were rapid, logical,
compact, and eloquent. Both seized the strong points of a case, like
Mason and Webster. Hamilton was earnest and profound, and soared to
elemental principles. Burr was acute, adroit, and appealed to passions.
Both admired each other's talents and crossed each other's
tracks,--rivals at the Bar and in political aspirations. The legal
career of both was eclipsed by their political labors. The lawyer, in
Hamilton's case, was lost in the statesman, and in Burr's in the
politician. And how wide the distinction between a statesman and a
politician! To be a great statesman a man must be conversant with
history, finance, and science; he must know everything, like Gladstone,
and he must have at heart the great interests of a nation; he must be a
man of experience and wisdom and reason; he must be both enlightened and
patriotic, merging his own personal ambition in the good of his
country,--an oracle and sage whose utterances are received with
attention and respect. To be a statesman demands the highest maturity of
reason, far-reaching views, and the power of taking in the interests of
a whole country rather than of a section. But to be a successful
politician a man may be ignorant, narrow, and selfish; most probably he
will be artful, dissembling, going in for the winning side, shaking
hands with everybody, profuse in promises, bland, affable, ready to do
anything for anybody, and seeking the interests and flattering the
prejudices of his own constituency, indifferent to the great questions
on which the welfare of a nation rests, if only his own private
interests be advanced. All politicians are not so small and
contemptible; many are honest, as far as they can see, but can see only
petty details, and not broad effects. Mere politicians,--observe, I
qualify what I say,--_mere_ politicians resemble statesmen,
intellectually, as pedants resemble scholars of large culture,
comprehensive intellects, and varied knowledge; they will consider a
date, or a name, or a comma, of more importance than the great universe,
which no one can ever fully and accurately explore.
I have given but a short notice of Hamilton as a lawyer, because his
services as a statesman are of so much greater importance, especially to
the student of history. His sphere became greatly enlarged when he
entered into those public questions on which the political destiny of a
nation rests. He was called to give a direction to the policy of the
young government that had arisen out of the storms of revolution,--a
policy which must be carried out when the nation should become powerful
and draw upon itself the eyes of the civilized world. "Just as the twig
is bent, the tree's inclined." It was the privilege and glory of
Hamilton to be one of the most influential of all the men of his day in
bending the twig which has now become so great a tree. We can see his
hand in the distinctive features of our Constitution, and especially in
that financial policy which extricated the nation from the poverty and
embarrassments bequeathed by the war, and which, on the whole, has been
the policy of the Government from his day to ours. Greater statesmen may
arise than he, but no future statesman will ever be able to shape a
national policy as he has done. He is one of the great fathers of the
Republic, and was as efficient in founding a government and a financial
policy, as Saint Augustine was in giving shape to the doctrines of the
Church in his age, and in mediaeval ages. Hamilton was therefore a
benefactor to the State, as Augustine was to the Church.
But before Hamilton could be of signal service to the country as an
organizer and legislator, it was necessary to have a national government
which the country would accept, and which would be lasting and
efficient. There was a political chaos for years after the war. Congress
had no generally recognized authority; it was merely a board of
delegates, whose decisions were disregarded, representing a league of
States, not an independent authority. There was no chief executive
officer, no court of national judges, no defined legislature. We were a
league of emancipated colonies drifting into anarchy. There was really
no central government; only an autonomy of States like the ancient
Grecian republics, and the lesser States were jealous of the greater.
The great questions pertaining to slavery were unsettled,--how far it
should extend, and how far it could be interfered with. We had ships and
commerce, but no commercial treaties with other nations. We imported
goods and merchandise, but there were no laws of tariff or of revenue.
If one State came into collision with another State, there was no
tribunal to settle the difficulty. No particular industries were
protected. Of all things the most needed was a national government
superior to State governments, taking into its own hands exclusively the
army and navy, tariffs, revenues, the post-office, the regulation of
commerce, and intercourse with foreign States. Oh, what times those
were! What need of statesmanship and patriotism and wisdom! I have
alluded to various evils of the day. I will not repeat them. Why, our
condition at the end of the War of the Rebellion, when we had a national
debt of three thousand millions, and general derangement and
demoralization, was an Elysium compared with that of our fathers at the
close of the Revolutionary War,--no central power, no constitution, no
government, with poverty, agricultural distress, and uncertainty, and
the prostration of all business; no national credit, no national
éclat,--a mass of rude, unconnected, and anarchic forces threatening to
engulf us in worse evils than those from which we had fled.
The thinking and sober men of the country were at last aroused, and the
conviction became general that the Confederacy was unable to cope with
the difficulties which arose on every side. So, through the influence of
Hamilton, a convention of five States assembled at Annapolis to provide
a remedy for the public evils. But it did not fully represent the varied
opinions and interests of the whole country. All it could do was to
prepare the way for a general convention of States; and twelve States
sent delegates to Philadelphia, who met in the year 1787. The great
public career of Hamilton began as a delegate from the State of New York
to this illustrious assembly. He was not the most distinguished member,
for he was still a young man; nor the most popular, for he had too much
respect for the British constitution, and was too aristocratic in his
sympathies, and perhaps in his manners, to be a favorite. But he was
probably the ablest man of the convention, the most original and
creative in his genius, the most comprehensive and far-seeing in his
views,--a man who inspired confidence and respect for his integrity and
patriotism, combining intellectual with moral force. He would have been
a great man in any age or country, or in any legislative assembly,--a
man who had great influence over superior minds, as he had over that of
Washington, whose confidence he had from first to last.
I am inclined to think that no such an assembly of statesmen has since
been seen in this country as that which met to give a constitution to
the American Republic. Of course, I cannot enumerate all the
distinguished men. They were all distinguished,--men of experience,
patriotism, and enlightened minds. There were fifty-four of these
illustrious men,--the picked men of the land, of whom the nation was
proud. Franklin, now in his eightieth year, was the Nestor of the
assembly, covered with honors from home and abroad for his science and
his political experience and sagacity,--a man who received more
flattering attentions in France than any American who ever visited it;
one of the great savants of the age, dignified, affable, courteous, whom
everybody admired and honored. Washington, too, was there,--the Ulysses
of the war, brave in battle and wise in council, of transcendent dignity
of character, whose influence was patriarchal, the synonym of moral
greatness, to be revered through all ages and countries; a truly
immortal man whose fame has been steadily increasing. Adams, Jefferson,
and Jay, three very great lights, were absent on missions to Europe;
but Rufus King, Roger Sherman, Oliver Ellsworth, Livingston, Dickinson,
Rutledge, Randolph, Pinckney, Madison, were men of great ability and
reputation, independent in their views, but all disposed to unite in the
common good. Some had been delegates to the Stamp Act Congress of 1765;
some, members of the Continental Congress of 1774; some, signers of the
Declaration of Independence. There were no political partisans then, as
we now understand the word, for the division lines of parties were not
then drawn. All were animated with the desire of conciliation and union.
All felt the necessity of concessions. They differed in their opinions
as to State rights, representation, and slavery. Some were more
democratic, and some more aristocratic than the majority, but all were
united in maintaining the independence of the country and in distrust of
monarchies.
It is impossible within my narrow limits to describe the deliberations
of these patriots, until their work was consummated in the glorious
Constitution which is our marvel and our pride. The discussions first
turned on the respective powers to be exercised by the executive,
judicial, and legislative branches of the proposed central government,
and the duration of the terms of service. Hamilton's views favored a
more efficient executive than was popular with the States or delegates;
but it cannot be doubted that his powerful arguments, and clear
enunciation of fundamental principles of government had great weight
with men more eager for truth than victory. There were animated
discussions as to the ratio of representation, and the equality of
States, which gave rise to the political parties which first divided the
nation, and which were allied with those serious questions pertaining to
State rights which gave rise, in part, to our late war. But the root of
the dissensions, and the subject of most animated debates, was
slavery,--that awful curse and difficult question, which was not settled
until the sword finally cut that Gordian knot. But so far as compromises
could settle the question, they were made in the spirit of
patriotism,--not on principles of abstract justice, but of expediency
and common-sense. It was evident from the first that there could be no
federal, united government, no nation, only a league of States, unless
compromises were made in reference to slavery, whose evils were as
apparent then as they were afterwards. For the sake of nationality and
union and peace, slavery was tolerated by the Constitution. To some this
may appear to have been a grave error, but to the makers of the
Constitution it seemed to be a less evil to tolerate slavery than have
no Constitution at all, which would unite all the States. Harmony and
national unity seemed to be the paramount consideration.
So a compromise was made. We are apt to forget how great institutions
are often based on compromise,--not a mean and craven sentiment, as some
think, but a spirit of conciliation and magnanimity, without which there
can be no union or stability. Take the English Church, which has
survived the revolutions of human thought for three centuries, which has
been a great bulwark against infidelity, and has proved itself to be
dear to the heart of the nation, and the source of boundless blessings
and proud recollections,--it was a compromise, half-way indeed between
Rome and Geneva, but nevertheless a great and beneficent organization on
the whole. Take the English constitution itself, one of the grandest
triumphs of human reason and experience,--it was only gradually formed
by a series of bloodless concessions. Take the Roman constitution, under
which the whole civilized world was brought into allegiance,--it was a
series of concessions granted by the aristocratic classes. Most
revolutions and wars end in compromise after the means of fighting are
expended. Most governments are based on expediency rather than abstract
principles. The actions of governments are necessarily expedients,--the
wisest policy in view of all the circumstances. Even such an
uncompromising logician as Saint Paul accepted some customs which we
think were antagonistic to the spirit of his general doctrines. He was a
great temperance man, but recommended a little wine to Timothy for the
stomach's sake. And Moses, too, the great founder of the Jewish polity,
permitted polygamy because of the hardness of men's hearts. So the
fathers of the Constitution preferred a constitution with slavery to no
constitution at all. Had each of those illustrious men persisted in his
own views, we should have had only an autonomy of States instead of the
glorious Union, which in spite of storms stands unshaken to-day.
I cannot dwell on those protracted debates, which lasted four months, or
on the minor questions which demanded attention,--all centering in the
great question whether the government should be federative or national.
But the ablest debater of the convention was Hamilton, and his speeches
were impressive and convincing. He endeavored to impress upon the minds
of the members that liberty was found neither in the rule of a few
aristocrats, nor in extreme democracy; that democracies had proved more
short-lived than aristocracies, as illustrated in Greece, Rome, and
England. He showed that extreme democracies, especially in cities, would
be governed by demagogues; that universal suffrage was a dangerous
experiment when the people had neither intelligence nor virtue; that no
government could last which was not just and enlightened; that all
governments should be administered by men of experience and integrity;
that any central government should have complete control over commerce,
tariffs, revenues, post-offices, patents, foreign relations, the army
and navy, peace or war; and that in all these functions of national
interest the central government should be independent of State
legislatures, so that the State and National legislatures should not
clash. Many of his views were not adopted, but it is remarkable that the
subsequent changes and modifications of the Constitution have been in
the direction of his policy; that wars and great necessities have
gradually brought about what he advocated with so much calmness and
wisdom. Guizot asserts that "he must ever be classed among the men who
have best understood the vital principles and elemental conditions of
government; and that there is not in the Constitution of the United
States an element of order, or force, or duration which he did not
powerfully contribute to secure." This is the tribute of that great and
learned statesman and historian to the genius and services of Hamilton.
What an exalted praise! To be the maker of a constitution requires the
highest maturity of reason. It was the peculiar glory of Moses,--the
ablest man ever born among the Jews, and the greatest benefactor his
nation ever had. How much prouder the fame of a beneficent and
enlightened legislator than that of a conqueror! The code which Napoleon
gave to France partially rescues his name from the infamy that his
injuries inflicted on mankind. Who are the greatest men of the present
day, and the most beneficent? Such men as Gladstone and Bright, who are
seeking by wise legislation to remove or meliorate the evils of
centuries of injustice. Who have earned the proudest national fame in
the history of America since the Constitution was made? Such men as
Webster, Clay, Seward, Sumner, who devoted their genius to the
elucidation of fundamental principles of government and political
economy. The sphere of a great lawyer may bring more personal gains, but
it is comparatively narrow to that of a legislator who originates
important measures for the relief or prosperity of a whole country.
The Constitution when completed was not altogether such as Hamilton
would have made, but he accepted it cordially as the best which could be
had. It was not perfect, but probably the best ever devised by human
genius, with its checks and balances, "like one of those rocking-stones
reared by the Druids," as Winthrop beautifully said, "which the finger
of a child may vibrate to its centre, yet which the might of an army
cannot move from its place."
The next thing to be done was to secure its ratification by the several
States,--a more difficult thing than at first sight would be supposed;
for the State legislatures were mainly composed of mere politicians,
without experience or broad views, and animated by popular passions. So
the States were tardy in accepting it, especially the larger ones, like
Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts. And it may reasonably be doubted
whether it would have been accepted at all, had it not been for the able
papers which Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote and published in a leading
New York paper,--essays which go under the name of "The Federalist,"
long a text-book in our colleges, and which is the best interpreter of
the Constitution itself. It is everywhere quoted; and if those able
papers may have been surpassed in eloquence by some of the speeches of
our political orators, they have never been equalled in calm reasoning.
They appealed to the intelligence of the age,--an age which loved to
read Butler's "Analogy," and Edwards "On the Will;" an age not yet
engrossed in business and pleasure, when people had time to ponder on
what is profound and lofty; an age not so brilliant as our own in
mechanical inventions and scientific researches, but more contemplative,
and more impressible by grand sentiments. I do not say that the former
times were better than these, as old men have talked for two thousand
years, for those times were hard, and the struggles of life were
great,--without facilities of travel, without luxuries, without even
comforts, as they seem to us; but there was doubtless then a loftier
spiritual life, and fewer distractions in the pursuit of solid
knowledge; people then could live in the country all the year round
without complaint, or that restless craving for novelties which
demoralizes and undermines the moral health. Hamilton wrote sixty-three
of the eighty-five (more than half) of these celebrated papers which had
a great influence on public opinion,--clear, logical, concise, masterly
in statement, and in the elucidation of fundamental principles of
government. Probably no series of political essays has done so much to
mould the opinions of American statesmen as those of "The
Federalist,"--a thesaurus of political wisdom, as much admired in Europe
as in America. It was translated into most of the European languages,
and in France placed side by side with Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws" in
genius and ability. It was not written for money or fame, but from
patriotism, to enlighten the minds of the people, and prepare them for
the reception of the Constitution.
In this great work Hamilton rendered a mighty service to his country.
Nothing but the conclusive arguments which he made, assisted by Jay and
Madison, aroused the people fully to a sense of the danger attending an
imperfect union of States. By the efforts of Hamilton outside the
convention, more even than in the convention, the Constitution was
finally adopted,--first by Delaware and last by Rhode Island, in 1790,
and then only by one majority in the legislature. So difficult was the
work of construction. We forget the obstacles and the anxieties and
labors of our early statesmen, in the enjoyment of our present
liberties.
But the public services of Hamilton do not end here. To him
pre-eminently belongs the glory of restoring or creating our national
credit, and relieving universal financial embarrassments. The
Constitution was the work of many men. Our financial system was the work
of one, who worked alone, as Michael Angelo worked on the ceiling of the
Sistine Chapel.