The Dark Side of Alexander Hamilton
The first treasury secretary's plans would have created cartels that mainly benefited the wealthy at the expense of small competitors.

The Hamilton Scheme: An Epic Tale of Money and Power in the American Founding, by William Hogeland, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 544 pages, $35
Over the last two decades, Alexander Hamilton has become a folk hero. In 2004, Ron Chernow's massive Hamilton biography was a bestseller. A decade later, Lin-Manuel Miranda's spectacularly successful Hamilton: An American Musical further heightened the popularity of America's first treasury secretary, despite—or, more likely, because of—its inaccuracies and simplifications. And this year, The New York Times and Bloomberg have run stories titled "There is a Secret Hamiltonian in the White House" and "Industrial Policy and Alexander Hamilton," celebrating President Joe Biden's economic initiatives.
Hamilton's fondness for industrial policy was also one of the reasons the libertarian economist Murray Rothbard dubbed him the Mephistopheles of early U.S. history. William Hogeland's new book, The Hamilton Scheme, essentially shares Rothbard's view, although not for all the same reasons.
Unaffiliated with any university or think tank, Hogeland nonetheless has written several books about early U.S. history that are deservedly well-respected. His latest is not a full biography of Hamilton. It focuses instead on his political and economic policies and proposals, interlaced with mini-biographies of several of his supporters and opponents. Besides George Washington, these include Robert Morris, who served as the country's superintendent of finance before the Constitution's adoption; William Findley, one of Hamilton's most vehement critics in the House of Representatives; and Albert Gallatin, who became treasury secretary under Thomas Jefferson. Hogeland does stray from his main themes to criticize Miranda's portrayal of young Hamilton as a poor immigrant who had to surmount prejudice, emphasizing Hamilton's "birth in a central economic site of a great empire [the British Caribbean] and his instant embrace by some of the most powerful people in revolutionary America." Hogeland also debunks Chernow's claim that Hamilton was an "uncompromising abolitionist."
Hogeland is an enthusiastic egalitarian often hostile to market outcomes, which somewhat skews his analysis of such tax revolts as Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. Indeed, rather than treating this period of American history the way most accounts do, as an ongoing conflict between nationalists and defenders of states' rights, he instead sees three separate contending interests: Continentalists, State Sovereigntists, and "the Democracy." To be sure, the State Sovereigntists were dominated by elite leaders, and a fear of too much democracy was a major motivation for the Constitutional Convention. Some of the participants in the Democracy's various revolts did indeed want to level wealth and cancel debts. Among the most extreme was Herman Husband, a peripatetic, popular, but bizarre religious zealot who is one of Hogeland's heroes. But none of this undermines the book's scrupulous scholarship.
Hogeland's discussion of Hamilton's role in what is called the Newburgh Conspiracy is original and convincing. After the victory at Yorktown, the Continental Congress, starved for revenue, had been unable to persuade enough states to pass an amendment granting it the power to directly impose taxes in the form of import duties. Hamilton and other nationalists in Congress, including Morris, therefore tried to employ discontent among the Continental Army's officers over lack of pay and other unfulfilled promises to pressure the states. The conspiracy involved the possibility that the Continental Army would refuse to disband with the coming onset of peace—and even a possible military coup. Historians still debate the seriousness of the threat and how deeply the nationalists were implicated. But what is clear is that Hamilton exploited the danger in his efforts to get the tax amendment ratified.
Ultimately Washington, the army's commander, quelled the officers' discontent, and the amendment never passed. But Congress did replace a promised lifetime pension at half pay for the officers with commutation payments costing $5 million, a significant increase in the unpaid war debt.
Hamilton was one of the prime architects of the Constitutional Convention, held in secret. There he revealed himself as a closet monarchist: Expressing his admiration for the British system of government as the world's best, he declared that he preferred a lifetime president with an absolute veto over all legislation. He was appalled that senators would be chosen by the states; indeed, he wished to see the states and their militias virtually obliterated. Yet some increase in central power was better than none, so Hamilton was willing to disguise his actual views when contributing to the Federalist Papers. Many historians have dismissed Hamilton's convention remarks as a mere aberration, but Hogeland reveals that these extremely oligarchic inclinations informed Hamilton's efforts throughout his career.
No one denies that Hamilton displayed financial genius as treasury secretary. As Hogeland puts it, he always "crossed every t and dotted every i." Anyone who has ever looked at any one of Hamilton's lengthy reports cannot fail to be impressed with the tireless energy and overwhelming comprehensiveness they displayed in an era without even typewriters, when everything was written and computed by hand.
But the very density and intricacy of these reports helped stymie his critics. Few if any in Congress wanted the war debt repudiated entirely, but because the debt securities had fallen in value and speculators had largely gobbled them up, some legislators wished to fund the securities at less than face value so that they could be paid off rapidly. Hamilton himself actually instituted a partial default through a complex reduction in promised interest rates, but that was so he could have the Treasury also assume the states' war debts. Overall, he wished for a large perpetual debt that would tie the loyalty of wealthy investors, as a powerful interest group, to the national government.
The story of Hamilton's fight to create a nationally chartered bank that would facilitate his goals is well-known. Less well-known is his failed attempt at industrial policy, through the creation of what was known as the Society for the Establishment of Useful Manufactures. This was a state-chartered and state-funded corporation that would establish mills and other factories; it was closely tied to both the national bank and the Bank of New York, another Hamilton creation. The plan eventually failed, in part because of the reckless speculation of Hamilton's close associate William Duer.
Why does Hogeland, sympathetic to government intervention, find this and other Hamilton schemes objectionable? Because they would have created cartels that mainly benefited the wealthy and privileged at the expense of small competitors.
This goal is clearest in one of the most chilling sections of Hogeland's book: its detailed account of the Whiskey Rebellion. The tax was highly regressive, designed by Hamilton to squeeze out small distillers and benefit large producers, one of whom was even paid to enforce the tax. In many accounts, the rebellion comes across as almost a bland affair, in which simple refusal to pay the tax was quelled with a mostly bloodless show of force. Hogeland demonstrates that in fact—unlike in other areas, where individuals just ignored the tax—the resistance in Pennsylvania was initially quite violent. Tax collectors and supporters of the tax were beaten, tarred and feathered, or otherwise violently intimidated.
By the time Washington had called out 12,000 militia, which would march under Hamilton's effective command, overt resistance had subsided, mainly due to the calming influence of Gallatin, Findley, and even Husband. To buy time, the government had sent commissioners to negotiate and promise amnesty to any who signed a loyalty oath. Much of the area's population did so—but when the militia arrived, that didn't matter. Hamilton presided over a reign of terror in which the government's men broke into houses and many Americans were arrested without charges and held for long periods under degrading conditions. Hamilton was attempting to gather evidence to drag perpetrators back to Philadelphia for trial, in violation of the Bill of Rights' guarantee that all criminal trials be conducted in the district in which the crime had been committed. Hamilton hoped to find enough evidence to hang Gallatin, Findley, and Husband.
Fortunately, that effort mostly failed—although Husband died as a result of his prolonged imprisonment back east. Gallatin, first serving in the Senate and then the House,* was the one person who could master and critique Hamilton's opaque Treasury reports. Hogeland details how Gallatin, once he became treasury secretary, dismantled much of Hamilton's financial system. Before the subsequent outbreak of the War of 1812, Gallatin had reduced the national debt—which, by Jefferson's first term as president, had risen to $84 million—nearly in half. He also oversaw the repeal of all internal taxes even while he had to finance the Louisiana Purchase. One of this book's contributions is to show Gallatin's often unrecognized financial brilliance.
The Hamilton Scheme casts new light on the character of the country's first treasury secretary. As even Noah Webster, Hamilton's contemporary and fellow Federalist, aptly put it, Hamilton's "ambition, pride, and overbearing temper" destined him "to be the evil genius of this country."
CORRECTION: This article originally misstated the order in which Albert Gallatin held different public offices.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well, Hamilton was a Puerto Rican. What did you expect?
The island of Nevis - part of the West Indies
The dark side of people then as now, what drives evil, is greed.
Freemasonry, brought here by colonialism, is a secret satanic cult. A pyramid scheme to get power and wealth in an otherwise civilized society through secrets and lies.
One third of the founders belonged to that satanic cult and their power and reach has only grown today.
We don’t know their objective and we couldn’t believe them anyways. We should ask ourselves what kind of society needs to be secret and why.
A few Freemasons have left to disclose their agenda under the threat of death.
Altiyan Childs exposed the intent and spread of Freemasonry, that Jews claim ownership of.
The people committing and advocating genocide in Gaza.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPisjVhIZSc
There is no genocide in Gaza, you dishonest, lying Satanist.
How come you will disbelieve a holocaust based on the testimony of millions of witnesses and mountains of physical evidence, but lie that there is a genocide using the say-so of a terrorist organization that keeps changing its own numbers constantly?
Refuted!
Gauleiter Misek again?
The people advocating genocide in Gaza are Hamas.
You never answered my question about camping. What gives?
Refuted.
Are you one of the “chosen people” or is it “the master race”?
Which secret satanic pyramid scheme society do you belong to, the Freemasons or the Thule?
Do you chant the Kol Nidre plan to lie to people?
It doesn’t matter, you advocate it just the same.
Jews not Nazis or Palestinians have been ruled against and are on trial for committing genocide in Gaza, by the UN international court of justice.
The Jews OWN and CONTROL Freemasonry today and have from the beginning. Its beginnings were entirely Jewish and it is controlled by the Jews to this day.
Here’s what the JEWS have to say about THEIR ownership of Freemasonry!
THE JEWISH TRIBUNE, New York, Oct. 28, 1927, Cheshvan 2, 5688, Vol. 91, No. 18: “Masonry is based on Judaism. Eliminate the teachings of Judaism from the Masonic ritual and what is left?”
LA VERITE ISRAELITE, Jewish paper 1861, IV, page 74: “The spirit of Freemasonry is the spirit of Judaism in its most fundamental beliefs; it is its ideas, its language, it is mostly its organization, the hopes which enlighten and support Israel. It’s crowning will be that wonderful prayer house of which Jerusalem will be the triumphal centre and symbol.”
LE SYMBOLISM, July, 1928: “The most important duty of the Freemason must be to glorify the Jewish Race, which has preserved the unchanged divine standard of wisdom. You must rely upon the Jewish race to dissolve all frontiers.”
AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FREEMASONRY,Philadelphia, 1906: “Each Lodge is and must be a symbol of the Jewish temple; each Master in the Chair, a representative of the Jewish King; and every Mason a personification of the Jewish workman.”
MANUAL OF FREEMASONRY, by Richard Carlile: “The Grand Lodge Masonry of the present day is wholly Jewish.”
THE FREEMASON, April 2, 1930, quoting Br. Rev. S. McGowan: “Freemasonry is founded on the ancient law of Israel. Israel has given birth to the moral beauty which forms the basis of Freemasonry.”
Rabbi Br. Isaac Wise, in The Israelite of America, March 8, 1866: “Masonry is a Jewish institution whose history, degrees, charges, passwords and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end.”
Benjamin Disraeli, Jew, Prime Minister of England, in The Life of Lord George Bentick: “At the head of all those secret societies, which form provisional governments, men of the Jewish race are to be found.”
LATOMIA, a German Masonic journal, Vol. 12, July 1849, Page 237: “We cannot help but greet socialism (Marxism – Communism) as an excellent comrade of Freemasonry for ennobling mankind, for helping to further human welfare. Socialism and Freemasonry, together with Communism are sprung from the same source.”
BERNARD STILLMAN, Jew, in Hebraic influences on Masonic Symbolism, 1929, quoted The Masonic News, London: “I think I have proved sufficiently that Freemasonry, as what concurs symbolism, lays entirely on a formation which is essentially Jewish.”
O.B. Good, M.A. in The Hidden Hand of Judah, 1936: “The influence of the Jewish Sanhedrin is today more powerful than ever in Freemasonry.”
JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1903, Vol, 5, page 503: “The technical language, symbolism and rites of Freemasonry are full of Jewish ideas and terms … In the Scottish Rite, the dates on official documents are given according to the era and months of the Jewish calendar, and use is made of the Hebraic alphabet.”
B’NAI B’RITH MAGAZINE, Vol. 13, page 8, quoting rabbi and mason Magnin: “The B’nai B’rith are but a makeshift. Everywhere that Freemasonry can admit that it is Jewish in its nature as well as in its aims, the ordinary lodges are sufficient for the task.
The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) of B’nai B’rith is a totally Jewish controlled organization with its main goal to destroy Christianity. (Also, the B’nai B’rith form a super-Masonic lodge where no “Gentiles” are admitted.)
TRANSACTIONS OF THE JEWISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY Vol. 2, p 156: “The Coat of Arms used by the Grand Lodge of England is entirely composed of Jewish symbols. FREEMASONS WORSHIP LUCIFER!
You're just picking on him because he was Black!
Yes Hamilton was a closet monarchist and it shows in everything he did. Thank goodness his 'ideas' weren't written in the US Constitution.
More like, "If only", I think. Most of the founders were trying to create a limited government that would respect rights. Hamilton was planting an acorn in order to get an oak tree, he was everything the anti-Federalists were warning against.
If he had a non-dark side, it's news to me.
Hamilton supported a central bank and a fed, burr was right to kill him
Yep
Read McCullough's "John Adams" and you'll see that what Hamilton wanted was for the US to be a military dictatorship / Shogunate, with Hamilton as Shogun.
The only reason Hamilton has become a folk hero of the moment that one of his forebears came from the dark continent.
I read Hummel's book Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men many years ago. I highly recommend it.
Thanks. Never heard of it. No kindle edition, just some "e-textbook" which I remember mostly as a swindle. Ordered it anyway, because it says he is one of the few authors to see slavery as two separate economic issues -- profitable for slave owners, bad for the economy as a whole. I had never realized no one else thought that way, since it's just like everything else that happens when government meddles -- a few people benefit and everyone else loses.
He's an economist so that's his perspective. What I took away was the fact that slavery was not a viable economic model in the 19th century and with the blockades and whatnot was on it's last legs. Which leads to the question, was ending it in the Confederacy worth 600,000 lives? Of course anyone making that suggestion is immediately pilloried for ignoring the moral imperative. But I think it's still a question worth asking.
I've long been convinced that slavery was dying already, what with border states selling their slaves to the states farther away because so many were escaping, and such a gradual transition to no slavery would have engendered a whole lot less racism and Jim Crow segregation, not to mention not having embiggened the federal government. How much of the Progressive movement was inspired by the example of a big bold government crushing the evil of slavery, and dreaming of what other evils could be similarly crushed?
Most people don't know that two slave states remained in the Union through the war and did not abolish slavery until the 13th Amendment was passed.
Yeah the emancipation proclamation purported to free slaves in states where Lincoln arguably had no jurisdiction but left them in slavery where he did have jurisdiction.
Lincoln recognized that neither he nor Congress had any constitutional authority to abolish slavery either through Executive Order or legislation, so he always framed secession as a rebellion or insurrection on the part of the seceding states. That said, Lincoln's views as an abolitionist were well-known in the South and his election in 1861 prompted them to secede. Every southern state's statement of secession mentions slavery as the cause. None calls out tariffs nor any other reason.
You can make a case for the notion that not every abolitionist was an advocate of racial tolerance (the state of Oregon was founded as a free state that did not allow black people to be residents). The only thing that abolitionists had in common was that they opposed the chattel ownership of human beings and their use as forced labor, but you can't make a case against the fact that the reason for the secession was slavery.
I agree that the secession was about slavery. Just not sure that justified the war.
Considering the Articles of Confederation violated the laws of the time, and that the 1787 Constitution illegally usurped the Articles of Confederation, I'd say the Confederacy was just following precedent. Lincoln overreacted.
On the other hand, one of the hallmarks of an election is having winners and losers. Seems to me that having participated in an election, everyone involved is duty-bound to honor the election results; the southern states would have been mighty pissed if the northern states had seceded because a southerner had won, and the southern states were indeed mighty pissed when the New England states discussed secession during the War of 1812.
Lincoln hadn't even been inaugurated yet, when they claimed they had to secede to buck his policies. Their secession was pure sour grapes. Then bombarding Fort Sumter when they knew the likely outcome was more stupidity.
All discussion of southern "honor" that ignores the manner of secession is just so much hot air. It was idiots and rascals on both sides.
Sure, you could argue that endlessly. The one thing that I don't believe you can argue that even if the North had arrived at an accommodation in 1861 that there would not have been massive destruction and loss of live as the Confederate States when ahead with their goals to expand slavery to the west an into Mexico and South America.
Actually, there were four so-called "border states or the Border South" (ie: slave states that "primarily supported the Union.") They were Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. One could, in fact, say five, since after West Virginia was admitted as a state in 1863, slavery remained legal there.
But only in Delaware and Kentucky was slavery still legal AFTER the war, to be abolished only upon the passage of the 13th Amendment.
So, when was slavery made illegal in MD, WV and MO? I know, I could google it, But you know so you can tell me.
The information is in the article you linked to.
I generally exclude George Washington from consideration as a politician, since I have the impression he really just wanted to be a farmer and he was good at it, always experimenting and evolving. He also set the standard of two terms and out, possibly settled that Newburgh Conspiracy, and I believe only became President because he really did think the country needed it, which might even be true.
But he was an aristocrat and believed in the elite, and Hamilton played to that, starting the country off wrong in way too many ways. It's not really surprising that so many people have been fooled into adoring Hamilton, but it's sure disappointing. The guy was a scoundrel from top to bottom.
"The first treasury secretary's plans would have created cartels that mainly benefited the wealthy at the expense of small competitors."
Well thank God we dodged that bullet.
At least Hamilton didn’t dodge his bullet.
I see what you did there AND note your sarcasm.
Well played.
No widespread fraud.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr
@RobertKennedyJr
Puerto Rico’s primary elections just experienced hundreds of voting irregularities related to electronic voting machines, according to the Associated Press.
Luckily, there was a paper trail so the problem was identified and vote tallies corrected.
What happens in jurisdictions where there is no paper trail?
US citizens need to know that every one of their votes were counted, and that their elections cannot be hacked. We need to return to paper ballots to avoid electronic interference with elections.
My administration will require paper ballots and we will guarantee honest and fair elections.
Similar story. Bridgeport, Connecticut:
I was assured that this doesn’t happen.
It was captured on video. Fox 61 reports.
It’s odd how most countries can manage to hold elections but we can’t.
Other countries WANT to hold honest elections. In the US, the power elite believe that democracy can't be entrusted to the voters.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the executive branch gets a say in HOW the voting is done.
What kind of fairy world do you live in, where politicians obey the peasants' rules?
See 2020 election in Pennsylvania.
Dark side? I thought all sides of Hamilton were dark.
Mankind finally founded a free country, and he wanted to turn it into a quasi-monarchy, run by a powerful ruler of a strong central government, with buildings full of bureaucrats managing the currency and everything else.
Unfortunately, he succeeded.
Hamilton also wanted a king (read dictator) as a ruler.
Now you know why so many proggies worship this closet fascist.
So pretty much what we have today?
Reason blocking my comments today. Has the grim commenter reaper finally come? On a Sunday? On FATHER'S DAY? This is both cruel and unusual.
OK that one slipped through security. Must be the links or something.
I tried to read Reason earlier and was getting time outs. Either they were doing work or having issues, I think.
It's responding quickly now, though.
I've been getting slow loads and timeouts all weekend, on and off.
Really well written write up of the book.