The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton

The Political Philosophy of the American Founders

by Michael P. Federici

America’s first treasury secretary and one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers , Alexander Hamilton stands as one of the nation’s important early statesmen. Michael P. Federici places this Founding Father among the country’s original political philosophers as well. Hamilton remains something of an enigma. Conservatives and liberals both claim him, and in his writings one can find material to support the positions of either camp. Taking a balanced and objective approach, Federici sorts through the written and historical record to reveal Hamilton’s philosophy as the synthetic product of a well-read and pragmatic figure whose intellectual genealogy drew on Classical thinkers such as Cicero and Plutarch, Christian theologians, and Enlightenment philosophers, including Hume and Montesquieu. In evaluating the thought of this republican and would-be empire builder, Federici explains that the apparent contradictions found in the Federalist Papers and other examples of Hamilton’s writings reflect both his practical engagement with debates over the French Revolution, capital expansion, commercialism, and other large issues of his time, and his search for a balance between central authority and federalism in the embryonic American government. This book challenges the view of Hamilton as a monarchist and shows him instead to be a strong advocate of American constitutionalism. Devoted to the whole of Hamilton’s political writing, this accessible and teachable analysis makes clear the enormous influence Hamilton had on the development of American political and economic institutions and policies.

Genres: Politics

304 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2012

Reviews

[Elliot D · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book that I've had on my shelf for a long time without completion; its a great way in to learn about such a key founding father, from whom intellectual pursuits shaped his whole life. Getting into reading in the last year has allowed me to final complete what has been for me a long anticipated book.

The approach of the book was very effective in my view. Many similar books in the history of thought take a strictly historical perspective, focusing on cataloguing views and giving the context of the period. This book takes an approach more grounded in modern theory, albeit informally, which makes for a far more consistent and convincing coverage of the topic. To do this, Federici dedicates an early chapter to Hamilton's "Philosophical Anthropology" which covers what we would in modern parlance call the model, in a descriptive sense, that Hamilton felt described the positive behaviour of political and economic agents. He then documents this claimed model in the historical record to justify this as a foundation.

Starting from this model, Federici then takes various policy areas in turn and shows how the particular views espoused by Hamilton are rooted in the model. This makes for a much more convincing and holistic perspective, compared to merely discussing the ideas ungrounded from Hamilton's world view. It also gives convincing support to one of the main claims of the book; that Hamilton deserves respect as a political thinker in his own right, comparable with other thinkers studied in social science, rather than as a purely historical actor in terms of practical policy.

The treatment of each topic is substantial, it delves into Hamilton's published writings, his correspondence, and his personal accounts. It allows one to understand what shaped his approach to issues like the formation of the Bank of the United States, as well as how each issue related to each other (such as the relationship between Hamilton's advocacy for developing manufacturing and for a standing army). In some places, this approach can be repetitive. On multiple occasions, Federici reviews the same passage of Hamilton's writing or a particular issue to show its relevance to a new topic. While thorough, this style can sometimes lead to sections that are harder to traverse and take away any novel points relative to the previous treatment of that passage. This is perhaps especially true on the two separate chapters on Hamilton's contributions to constitutional law. Still, the use of the canonical model as a guide to interpretation allows readers to easily sort how a viewpoint fits into Hamilton's body of thought.

Perhaps of even greater importance, it also allows Federici to point to areas where Hamilton's thought it potentially contradictory. This speaks to how seriously the book takes its claim that Hamilton should be considered a theorist. if only considered as a historical figure, the focus is on specificity of views and the person's effort to implement them. Instead, Federici takes seriously the view that the views should be generalizable, beyond the specific issues that Hamilton was confronted with, and that Hamilton's thought can be applied to new areas that he himself did not address. To be able to be of such use, such a theory should be free of contradictions and Federici discusses briefly how they might be remedied.

On a final note, I'll go further and suggest that this "informal formalisation" of Hamilton's thought has wider implications for politics today. As I discussed in a previous review of another book, one is tempted to say that the schism in Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian thought represents an earlier incarnation of political schisms today; the clash between establishment centrists and revolutionary fringes. If this perspective holds merit then a deeper understanding of the foundations of these theories is a worthy starting point for the student of American (or wider!) politics.

In total, the book is an impressive effort in social science and merits its positive reviews. I hope to consume more books from the series, although I note that Johns Hopkins University Press seem to have discontinued them in print. I hope that when I do read them that they are of a comparable style and quality as Federici's work on Hamilton's thought. I am certainly grateful that I finally finished this book, after many years of wanting to return to it. I highly recommend it to someone interested in engaging with the founders as thinkers, not just politicians.

[Charles Gonzalez · Rating 5 out of 5]

The bastard son of Nevis turns out, in Federici's excellent book, to be among the pantheon of Founding political philosophers alongside Jefferson, Madison and Paine. The Hamiltonian section of my library is bulging at the seams with his original writing, collections and historical and biographical analyses of his life and politics. The issue with Hamilton especially is the slightly disjointed and volatile view a student gets from the multitude of books and articles about the man. Federici does much to clear up and explain in one relatively thin volume the totality of Hamilton's thinking and actions and seeks, successfully I believe to place him in his rightful context, as an original thinker and proponent of a unique political view, yes philosophy.
At its core, and Federici goes into great detail here, he identifies the key underpinning of the Hamiltonian world view. Federici identifies the important influences on Hamilton, including Hume, Cicero and James Steuart, whose 5 volume of political economy was in his library. Hamilton's philosophy was grounded in a realistic view of humankind, with the rose colored lenses removed to allow for a clear, sometimes confused with cynical view of human limitations. Unlike Jefferson and the rest of the Enlightenment elite, Hamilton saw the inherent risk in giving the "people" undo authority to govern themselves. While his detractors saw this view as a repudiation of the spirit of 1776 and the Declaration of Independence, Hamilton's view and knowledge of the the ancients, his study and experience of the polis led him to view unrestrained democracy as a clear and present danger to the survival of the nation.
Federici does a great service in dissecting all the varies points of Hamilton's thinking and voluminous writing,and its connection to his philosophy of organizing and governing the newly independent United States. I have included this book among my favorites because I have no doubt I will revisit it, refer to it again in conversation and when reading other views of Hamilton.
While there has been so much attention paid to him these past two years due to the Broadway smash, I fear that too much attention is laid to his compelling personal story, leaving his very concrete contributions to the survival of the young nation in those critical years as a footnote. This volume does him great justice in defining for all Americans his rightful place among the heroes of American liberty.

[The American Conservative]

'The significance of Federici’s work, in my estimation, can best be understood in this context because it presents persuasive evidence that Hamilton may well deserve a place in the pantheon of conservative statesmen, while it simultaneously undermines Jefferson’s credentials for any such status.

This is not to say that these are Federici’s conclusions, although he unquestionably believes that a major reappraisal of Hamilton’s legacy is in order. Rather, they are warranted simply in light of the totality of Hamilton’s political thought that he surveys.'

Read the full review, "Hamilton Was Right," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...

[Bobby · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent read.

[Emilija · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found Federici to be one of the more understandable and easy to read of Hamilton historians and he really gets to the heart of who Hamilton was and what his political ideology was.