One in a series on Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow. So far, we have discussed these topics:
- central government vs. states’ rights:
After last weekend’s events in Charlottesville, Va., I thought slavery would be a good topic this week.
Hamilton unequivocally opposed slavery, a position he never changed throughout his life.
The memories of his West Indian childhood left Hamilton with a settled antipathy to slavery … He had expressed an unwavering belief in the genetic equality of blacks and whites – unlike (Thomas) Jefferson, for instance, who regarded blacks as innately inferior – that was enlightened for his day. And he knew this from his personal boyhood experience. (p. 210)
Hamilton claimed Nevis in the British West Indies as his birthplace. “British authorities colonized Nevis with vagabonds, criminals and other riffraff swept from the London streets to work as indentured servants or overseers.” (p. 8)
Hamilton rarely talked about his childhood with anyone. He was illegitimate. He was raised in “the insecure middle rung of West Indian life, squeezed between plantation aristocrats above and street rabble and unruly slaves below.” (p.8)
Nevis, in the Caribbean, was (and still is) a producer of sugar cane, which required slaves in Hamilton’s day. “The eight thousand captive blacks easily dwarfed in number the one thousand whites …” (p. 19) Hamilton saw slave-auction blocks and frequent public whippings. “The Caribbean sugar economy was a system of inimitable savagery …” (p. 19), which made a huge impression on Hamilton as a child.
As an adult helping to form the nascent United States of America, Hamilton continued to oppose slavery. However, because slavery was deeply ingrained in the South, he and other abolitionists had no chance to write their views into the Constitution.
… the American Revolution had been premised on a tacit bargain that regional conflicts would be subordinated to the need for unity among the states. This understanding dictated that slavery would remain a taboo subject. (p. 122)
Southern leaders would not compromise on this issue. Indeed, they “wondered how their human property would be counted for congressional-apportionment purposes.”
Northern states finally agreed that five slaves would be counted as equivalent to three free whites, the infamous “federal ratio” that survived for another eighty years. … Without the federal ratio, Hamilton glumly concluded, “no union could possibly have been formed.” Indeed, the whole superstructure erected in Philadelphia rested on that unstable, undemocratic foundation. (p. 239)
When Jefferson moved into the brand-new White House as U.S. president in 1801, he continued to own slaves. Indeed, for more than 50 years of owning and running Monticello, he bought and sold human beings. He never freed even one until his death, when he emancipated only five slaves – all of them relatives of his mistress, Sally Hemings.
… the majority of the six hundred workers who erected the White House and the Capitol were slaves whose wages were garnisheed by their masters. (p. 635-6)
It took another half-century, long after Hamilton’s death in 1804, for a Civil War to be fought over slavery.
While the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed by Congress on Jan. 31, 1865, abolished slavery legally, the fight for equality for minority groups, including blacks, continues today. White supremacists, who rallied in Charlottesville on Saturday over the fate of a monument of Robert E. Lee, a Confederate general, have no place in the United States, legally or morally.
All humans, regardless of race or ethnic background, are created equal in the eyes of God – and U.S. law. As a white male, I am ashamed that some of my race and gender refuse to acknowledge this.
White supremacists do not speak for all white males – not even close. I hope the man who drove a car into a crowd of peaceful protesters who were opposing the supremacists’ rally, killing one and injuring 19, gets prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I hope that kind of anger and hatred never appears in this country again.
The authority of the judiciary
As a lawyer, Hamilton preferred cases that established Constitutional law, preferring precedence-setting cases to those that benefited only one individual – even if that meant he passed up lucrative cases filed by wealthy landowners to take a case of someone whom Hamilton felt was being wronged.
One such case was Rutgers v. Waddington, held in the New York City Mayor’s Court in 1784.
Following the Revolutionary War, New York’s legislature enacted a series of laws that stripped British Tories of their property and privilege. One such law passed by the legislature in 1783 was the Trespass Act. It gave patriots the legal right to sue anyone who had occupied, damaged or destroyed homes they had left behind British lines during the war. This law served the foundation for the case.
The plaintiff, Elizabeth Rutgers, owned a large brewery and alehouse that she was forced to abandon during the British occupation of New York City. Under the then recently enacted Trespass Act, Rutgers demanded rent in the sum of 8,000 pounds from Joshua Waddington, who had been running the brewery since it was abandoned.
Hamilton defended Waddington, the British man managing the brewery, claiming the Trespass Act violated the 1783 peace treaty ratified by Congress.
Chief Justice James Duane handed down a split verdict that entitled Rutgers to rent only from the time before the British occupation, and the two parties agreed to the amount of 800 pounds. This case set a precedent for Congress’ legal authority over the states. Duane wrote in his ruling that “no state in this union can alter or abridge, in a single point, the federal articles or the treaty.”
Hamilton expounded the all-important doctrine of judicial review – the notion that high courts had a right to scrutinize laws and if necessary declare them void. (p. 198)
This was a radical argument because at the time, the country “still lacked a federal judiciary.” (p. 198) State legislatures set the law of the land. Rutgers’ lawyers defended this position, while Hamilton defended the British Tory – which cost him huge political points among his opponents.
But the judge’s ruling defended the law of nations over states’ rights.
At about the same time as this case, Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay were writing 85 essays defending the U.S. Constitution called The Federalist Papers. Hamilton wrote six of those essays on the judiciary.
In number 78, Hamilton introduced an essential concept, never made explicit in the Constitution: that the Supreme Court should be able to review and overturn legislation as unconstitutional. … “no legislative act … contrary to the constitution can be valid …” (p. 259)
This is why appointments to the politically divided U.S. Supreme Court have caused large debates in recent years. Top Court rulings do establish law by either upholding or overturning it. We can thank Alexander Hamilton for first promoting this idea.