THE ARGUMENTS - There are many fallacious arguments about Hamilton's place in history and his positions. Here are some of the leading claims and the explanation why they are nonsense.
THE GREAT BEAST: One of the worst fallacies about Hamilton is the "Great Best" quote. Supposedly Hamilton responded to talk of democracy (mob rule) at a dinner party in New York by saying, "Your people, sir - your people is a great beast." This was quoted as authentic by Henry Adams in his book on Jefferson in 1889 and has been relied on as accurate ever since. Even today the media (people like Glenn Beck) rather stupidly use this quote as authentic. This quote was first cited 40 years after it allegedly happened by an enemy of Hamilton's legacy. The Library of Congress researched the quote and deemed it unfounded in 1957 for Hamilton's 200 year anniversary. In other words, it's a typical slander by Southern apologists and/or Jeffersonians.
CENTRAL BANK: Many, starting with Madison and Jefferson, have chosen to vilify the banking system and blame Hamilton for its existence in America. Hamilton would have pointed out that it's not banking but its abuses that are the problem. Banking has helped make America the greatest financial power in the history of the world. Hamilton knew banking was essential from the beginning and his policies launched America's financial future. This can't be denied. Hamilton critics should remember that after the war of 1812, during which Madison borrowed $18 million from private citizens John Jacob Astor and Stephen Girard at very high rates, he regretted allowing the national bank charter to lapse (1811) and refounded the bank in 1816. Madison had spent 20 years vilifying Hamilton and banking but wised up in the end - much to Thomas Jefferson's complete shock and horror. When Andrew Jackson defunded the bank to kill it again it led to the panic of 1837 because the remaining banks couldn't control the money supply effectively. Jackson, like other banking opponents, was economically daft and literally crazy and should be replaced on the 20 dollar bill with image of Ronald Reagan - otherwise known as Ronaldus Magnus.
ARISTOCRACY: Many Hamilton opponents claim he was an aristocrat. This is honestly one of the dumbest arguments against Hamiton. Hamilton was an orphan. He had no inheritance and no family land. He was the epitome of the self-made man. He married into the rich Schuyler family but refused to accept money from his father-in-law out of honor. His chief accuser was Jefferson whose whole life was supported by slave labor and who inherited or married into everything he ever owned. Jefferson was by every sense of the definition an aristocrat. Only an aristocrat could spend his whole life in pursuits of leisure and indulgence the way Jefferson did. His constant work on Monticello, his 14-hour/day study habits, and his fabled eclectic interests are proof of this. Thus we have the hypocritical picture of slave-owning, hereditary, plantation masters accusing Hamilton of aristocratic behavior. This is somewhat akin to Al Gore lecturing people about their carbon footprints as he gets on another plane to fly home to his giant mansion. There have always been hypocrites in politics.
Hamilton was accused of and investigated for financial abuse and fraud through all his years at the Treasury. He was never found to have done anything improper in his government service. The reason for this was simple - he was obsessed with the most honorable behavior in his public life and went to impressive lengths to keep the reputation of the new government untarnished. He had friends like William Duer who did not share this virtue and Hamilton did not protect them. Duer ended his life in debtors prison after his invenstment speculation ruined him. He asked Hamilton to save him and Hamilton refused to intervene out of principle.
When Talleyrand, the greedy French minister, came to America he marveled that Hamilton was so poor. He told a mutual friend that "he found it very strange that a man of his (Hamilton's) quality, blessed with such outstanding gifts, should resign a ministry in order to return to the practice of law and give as his reason that as a minister he did not earn enough to bring up his eight children." Talleyrand was going to dinner late one night in New York when he saw Hamilton though the window working by candlelight in his office. Talleyrand said, "I have seen a man who made the wealth of a nation laboring all night to support family." He was stunned by this.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT: One of the most misunderstood notions about Hamilton was that he would have been a modern Progressive because he believed in a strong central government. Tom Hartman loves to suggest this on his liberal radio show. What such critics forget or ignore is Hamilton's devotion to the power and stability of the Nation. Unlike Jefferson, who was a Virginian first and an American second, Hamilton was an American first. He had fought for the independence of the nation at Washington's side while Jefferson and others sat the war out. Hamilton understood, following the chaos in the Continental Army and the lack of support it received, that a strong central government was critical for the survival of America's freedom.
Probably most significant in this discussion is that Hamilton was for a bigger central government at a time when there was NO central government. When I say "No" here I really mean "No". The government was so small that President Washington was writing his own administrative letters because he didn't have an assistant - not just composing them - writing them by hand. President Obama in contrast has a staff of 2,000. Hamilton wouldn't have supported the New Deal or the Great Society because he understood human nature too well. He would have seen them as doomed to fail because making and keeping people dependent on government was and is not the American dream.
FDR and the progressives of his time were not fans of Hamilton, but of Jefferson. Except for his fear of central government power, Jefferson was a modern Democrat. Of course, the Democrats (FDR) built the Jefferson Memorial. Some people in the early 20th century tried for a short time to paint Hamilton as a progressive, but they couldn't reconcile Hamilton's policies with Progressivism. It has been conservatives that have been confused into branding Hamilton a progressive despite the actual progressives' best historical attempts to dissuade them. Hamilton was for a strong military, economy, manufacturing, banking and a government sufficient to protect the nation - all in contrast with Jefferson and the Progressive movement.
MARIA REYNOLDS: Hamilton was said to be a lecher by many critics. There is no question that Hamilton was a dashing figure and was very popular with ladies his whole life because of his charisma. It is not likely however that his flirtations before his marriage were of an inappropriate nature because as a member of Washington's staff that type of behavior would have caused Washington embarrassment.
Later in his married life, during a period when his family was removed from Philadelphia during the summer to avoid diseases that were common due to the heat, he did have a notorious affair with Maria Reynolds. However, the Reynolds affair is not something that he sought out, but was literally a conspiracy to use this extremely attractive and devious woman to play upon his sympathies, seduce him and then blackmail him. This is in sharp contrast to Aaron Burr's renowned philandering behavior or Jefferson's longtime affair with his slave Sally Hemmings or his flirtations with Maria Cosgrove. He was also very frank and public about his misbehavior with Maria Reynolds (too frank) as he thought honorable. Jefferson and his political allies like James Monroe became aware of Hamilton's affair and used it against him which caused Hamilton to publish a very extensive account of the whole story. He did this to prove that his affair had nothing to do with any financial impropriety, which is the conclusion Jeffersonians originally came to when they found out about the blackmail and which they stuck to for years despite all evidence to the contrary.
