James Foster
November 16, 2006
American
Machiavelli: Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of U.S. Foreign Policy
By: John Lamberton Harper
Introduction: In writing his book, American
Machiavelli: Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of U.S. Foreign Policy,
John Lamberton Harper seeks to shed more like on the controversial figure that
digressed from the prevailing revolutionary ethos of agrarian classical
republicanism, and sought to harness the varied interests of the American
population through a strong central government. This strong central government
would serve as the means to advance the burgeoning nation to a position of
strength that would rival the great prevailing nations of the world. By
referencing the infamous Italian political theorist Niccolo Machiavelli, whose
work The Prince serves as a sort of manual for rulers to achieve and
maintain power while being indifferent to moral considerations, Harper seeks to
parallel the lives of the theorist and founding father to show that they not
only had similar ideas, but that their lives resembled each other (6). Additionally,
Harper seeks to move away from the prevailing partisan literature on Hamilton and focus on his
foreign policy and ideas (2).
Part I:
In the
first part of his book, Harper expounds upon the political themes of
Machiavelli. The main overarching idea to Machiavelli’s political notions was
his belief that human nature was inherently fixed and that it is unchangeable over
time. What primarily drives human beings is a desire to pursue one’s own self
interest, usually at the expense of another’s. Machiavelli also believed that human
affairs were in a state of constant flux and that life was guided by “unreason,
chance, and contingency”(12). His idea of fortuna and virtu
differed from the metaphysical terms associated with classical and Christian
ideas. Like Machiavelli, Hamilton
also believed human nature was fixed and that it would take a strong leader to
harness the resources of the burgeoning country to bring it to a position of strength.
Like Machiavelli, he believed that, for the most part, people were driven by
the love of power and wealth, instead of rationality. For people with “higher
passions,” he believed their love of fame would compel those who possessed it
to work towards the greater public good (21). Harper also parallels the lives
of Machiavelli and Hamilton to show their similarities. Both were born into
questionable circumstances, both were trying to guide their fledgling republics
in times of peril, and more importantly, “Each was driven by a vision of
national greatness, but destined for personal disenchantment and defeat.” (6).
In regards to Hamilton, Harper shows that he had
a deep distrust of France, who he believed wanted a weak America. In contrast, he pushed for a strong
relationship with Britain,
whose model and people he admired (21).
Concerning internal politics, Hamilton
pushed for a strong central government because he believed that confederations
would ultimately disintegrate and that outside powers would play one state
against the other (Their motto would be Divide and conquer). The Newburgh Conspiracy, the status of western
land, Indian and foreign encroachments, and the post-war economic depression,
all contributed to Hamilton’s
argument for a stronger central government (32).
Part II
With regard to Hamilton’s
controversial decision to fund foreign debt, Lambert argues that Hamilton’s
push toward the funding of old Continental paper debt at its original value,
which was in the hands of speculators for the most part, would concentrate the
wealth into the hands of the financial elite, give them a greater stake in the
government, and lead to greater productive investment (45). Hamilton
continued to pursue a nurturing relationship with Britain. He differed from James
Madison and Thomas Jefferson in the sense that he did not entertain a romantic
agrarian vision of America
and instead looked to manufacture and a monied economy instead. The Nootka
Sound Crisis, which resulted from a dispute along the northwest coast of North
America, contributed to fear that the U.S. would be entangled in a
European war. The Crisis also led to a broach with Britain
on the subject of abducted slaves, the occupied strategic posts, and the commercial
treaty with Britain.
While Jefferson continued to support France
and Spain, Hamilton
pushes for U.S. manufactures
to stimulate more amicable relations with Britain,
instead of the confrontational strategy endorsed by Jefferson
(96).
Part III
When hostilities between France and Britain
broke out again in 1793, both Hamilton and Jefferson agreed on a policy of U.S. neutrality (Hamilton
interpreting this as favoring Britain,
and Jefferson as it favoring France).
Both also had difficulties working out the policy of neutrality in regard to the
impressments of ships and contraband. Jefferson,
in particular, found himself dealing with an indignant Minister Genet when he
had to reject plans for a liquidation of debt and a “national compact” between
the republics. Ultimately Genet’s
conduct led to his recall and a “form of neutrality favorable to Britain had
been established” (125). Hamilton himself often found it difficult to deal with
the British whose order-in-council of 1793 pushed him into defending a settlement
that took defensive steps, but was ultimately a peace mission (135). The Jay Treaty of 1794, though leading to positive outcomes such as free
navigation of the Mississippi and the port of New Orleans in Pinckney’s treaty, was
opposed by Republicans because it was seen as a violation of neutral rights.
Part IV
The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 helped to support Hamilton’s arguments for a strong central
government. According to Harper, “Washington, Hamilton, and many others
connected the defiance of federal authority with the pernicious influence of
the pro-French Democratic Societies.” (154) The Jay Treaty continued to draw criticism.
Opposition and pressure on Washington to
reject it continued and another order-in-council infuriated many, including Washington (159). The
Fauchet dispatch, which suggested that Edmund Randolph was trying to obtain a
bribe from the French in regard to the Whiskey Rebellion, impelled Washington to finally
ratify the treaty. According to Harper, Hamilton
tried to take an equitable approach towards the French and British. In this
way, if the French still refused to meet the U.S. halfway, a break in the relationship
would fall on them (170). During his discussion of Washington’s
Farewell Address of 1796, Harper gives us a more intimate glimpse in Hamilton’s role in drafting
the document. Washington
hated political faction and he wanted to articulate this in his address. Harper
argues that Hamilton’s draft included ideas that
were not present in Washington’s
and that what was distinct about them were their Machiavellianism. They
included his position on the “precariousness of alliances and confederations”
and the predominant human passion of “love of power, and proneness to abuse it.”
(178)
Part V
In this section, Harper expounds upon the relationship between Jefferson
and John Adams. Both admired the British system and recognized the need of
competing interests but differed in policy. Jefferson
rejected an American bank resembling the British one. This difference
culminated in the attempt by Hamilton
to have Thomas Pinckney obtain more votes in the election of 1796. Harper
argues, however, that Hamilton “simply thought
Pinckney had a better chance to beat Jefferson
and acted on that belief” (197). In 1797, Hamilton
found himself in the midst of a barrage of accusations regarding blackmail of
the husband of Hamilton’s
lover, Maria Reynolds (202). Unfortunately for Hamilton, the affair only tarnished his
reputation for having “bad blood” (204). The XYZ affair, in which France
essentially requested a bribe from the U.S as a precondition for negotiations, incited
anti-French sentiments and led to a Federalist campaign to provision new
warships, harbor fortifications, a Navy department, and an abrogation of the
French treaty. It also led to the Naturalization Act and the Alien and Sedition
Act of 1798 (217). Harper argues that Hamilton
reacted to the recent events “with a mixture of expectation and trepidation” (217).
When war with France
loomed just around the corner, accusations were being thrown around about
Hamilton’s and the Federalists’ intent with the army. His defenders argued he responded
appropriately to a possible external threat and that there was never a
readiness to conquer Florida and Louisiana or incite a
civil war favorable to the Federalists. His opponents, however, argued just that.
Harper maintains that Hamilton
separated the “imagined” with what was feasible (228).
Part VI
If there was any hint of Hamilton’s
Machiavellianism is was during the 1800 election. In order to prevent Jefferson
winning the election Hamilton urged Federalist
in New England to give equal support to Adams and Pinckney, in the hope of
securing Pinckney’s victory over Jefferson. Hamilton is known to have
said to Governor Jay, “In times like these in which we live, it will not do to
be over scrupulous. It is easy to sacrifice the substantial interests of
society by a strict adherence to ordinary rules” (254). Adams responded with
furor to Hamilton’s
attempt to prevent his reelection. Accusations that Hamilton was “of a British faction in the
Country” only exacerbated the Adams-Hamilton fued. Hamilton’s “Letter from Alexander Hamilton
Concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams” only hastened his
loss of authority in the government. Harper says that “even for friendly
observers, Hamilton’s subsequent role in the
presidential campaign, culminating in his notorious attack on Adams,
is evidence of a self-destructiveness and loss of equilibrium for which the
Federalist party paid the price.”
Conclusion:
Despite Hamilton’s political defeat, his legacy has continued with the
financial system that survived his death “with its monetized national debt,
secure federal revenues, and national bank, needed to promote economic
development and to mobilize wealth for military purposes” and “minimum standing forces, peacetime
cultivation of the military arts and sciences, and defense-industrial
preparedness” (272). Hamilton’s
reputation as an American Machiavelli doesn’t take into account his ability at
self restraint and pragmatism. He recognized the danger of a War with Britain
and the benefits of maintaining amicable relations. The Jay treaty, though
being criticized by the opposition, helped secure the navigation of the Mississippi. Most importantly,
Hamilton recognized the burgeoning republic needed a “heroic leadership” and a
strong central government to sustain the republic in its early stages.