HAMILTON, ALEXANDER (I 7 5 7-1804) , American statesman, was born a British subject, on the island of Nevis in the West Indies, on Jan. I1, 1757. He came of good family on both sides. His father was James Hamilton, a Scottish merchant of St. Christopher. His mother, Rachael Fawcett (Faucette, of French Huguenot descent), married a Danish proprietor of St. Croix with whom she lived unhappily and whom she soon left, subsequently living with James Hamilton ; her husband procured a divorce in 1759 and the court forbade her remarriage. What ever the fault or the excuse of the parents, the anxiety bestowed upon these facts by the son's biographers seems exaggerated. Business misfortunes having caused his father's bankruptcy, and his mother dying in 1768, young Hamilton was thrown upon the care of maternal relatives in St. Croix, where, in his I2th year, he entered the counting-house of Nicholas Cruger. Shortly after ward Cruger, going abroad, left the boy in charge of the business. The extraordinary specimens we possess of his letters, mercantile and friendly, written at this time, attest an astonishing poise and maturity of mind. His opportunities for regular schooling must have been very scant ; but he early formed the habits of wide reading and industrious study that were to persist through his life. An accomplishment later of great service to Hamilton, common enough in the Antilles but very rare in the English con tinental colonies, was a familiar command of French. In 1772 some friends, impressed by his talents, made it possible for him to complete his education in the colonies of the mainland. He pre pared for college at Elizabethtown, N.J., and in 1774 entered King's college (now Columbia university) in New York city. His studies, however, were interrupted by the Revolutionary War. A visit to Boston confirmed him in an opinion that he should cast his fortunes with the colonists. Into their cause he threw himself with ardour. In 1774-75 he wrote two influential anonymous pamphlets (entitled "A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress from the Calumnies of their Enemies," and "The Farmer Refuted") which were attributed to John Jay; they show remarkable maturity and controversial ability, and rank high among the political arguments of the time. Concerning them George Ticknor Curtis (Constitutional History of the United States, vol. i. p. 274) has said, "There are displayed in these papers a power of reasoning and sarcasm, a knowledge of the principles of government and of the English constitution, and a grasp of the merits of the whole controversy, that would have done honour to any man at any age." He then organized an artillery company, was awarded its captaincy on examination, won the interest of Nathanael Greene and Washington by the profi ciency and bravery he displayed in the campaign of 1776 around New York city, joined Washington's staff in March 1777 with the rank of lieutenant-colonel, and during four years served as his private secretary and confidential aide. The duties with which he was entrusted—including constant correspondence with Congress, and some very important military missions—attest a complete confidence in his abilities and character. But Hamilton was ambitious for military glory—it was an ambition he never lost ; he became impatient of detention in what he regarded as a position of unpleasant dependence, and seized a slight reprimand administered by Washington as an excuse for abandoning his staff position (Feb. 1 7 81 ; see his Works, vol. ix., p. 232) ; the inci dent, however, involved no break in their good relations. Later he secured, through Washington, a field command and won laurels at Yorktown, where he led the American column that captured the first redoubt of the British works.
Meanwhile, in 1 780, he had married Elizabeth, daughter of Gen. Philip Schuyler, and thus became allied with one of the most distinguished families in New York. Also, he had begun the political efforts upon which his fame principally rests. In letters of 1779-8o he correctly diagnosed the ills of the Confederation, and suggested with admirable prescience the necessity of centrali zation in its governmental powers. Af ter a year's service in Congress in 1782-83, in which he experienced the futility of en deavouring to attain through that decrepit body the ends he sought, he settled down to legal practice in New York. The call for the Annapolis Convention (1786), however, presented an opportunity which he immediately improved. A delegate from New York, he supported Madison in inducing the Convention to exceed its dele gated powers and summon the Federal Convention of 1787 at Philadelphia (himself drafting the call) ; secured a place on the New York delegation thereto ; and, after his anti-Federal colleagues withdrew from the Convention, signed the constitution for his State. So long as his colleagues were present his own vote was useless, and he absented himself for some time from the debates after making one remarkable speech (June 18, 1787). In this he held up the British Government as the best model in the world. It is worth while noting that it was the monarchy of George III. that Hamilton defended and admired. Both parties, as Sir Henry Maine pointed out (Popular Government, 1886, pp. 212-13), had in mind "monarchy" as practised by George III. It is with this in mind that the quarrel of Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians is to be judged. Hamilton favoured an elective executive of life tenure, holding an absolute veto on national legislation, and with power to appoint the State governors who should hold a similar veto on State legislation ; an upper house chosen for life on a property basis; a lower house (this, doubtless, a sop to democrats!) chosen by manhood suffrage; and control by the Federal Government of all militia. Complete extinction of the States he deemed desirable but impracticable. (See Works, vol. i., P• 347; and cp. x., PP. Hamilton certainly realized that such proposals could serve no purpose except to focus conservative aims. Though fully conscious that monarchy in America was impossible, he wished to obtain the next best solution in an aristocratic, strongly cen tralized, coercive, but representative union, with devices to give weight to the influence of class and property. Aside from his one elaborate argument, and membership (undoubtedly, with his admirer Madison as chairman, no fruitless membership) of the committee on style that gave final form to the constitution, he played an inconspicuous part in the Convention. "No man's ideas," he wrote when the work was done, "are more remote from the plan than my own are known to be; but is it possible to deliberate between anarchy and convulsion on one side and the chance of good to be expected on the other?" Unable to secure all that he desired he used his talents and utmost endeavours to secure what was attainable.
To this struggle was due the greatest of his writings, and the greatest individual contribution to the adoption of the new Gov ernment, The Federalist, a series of essays that appeared in the New York journals between Oct. 1787 and April 1788. Its incep tion and much more than half its contents were Hamilton's; the rest, Madison's and Jay's (see Amer. Hist. Review, vol. ii., pp. 675-80). It remains a classic commentary, not merely on American constitutional law but on the principles of Govern ment generally. Guizot said of it that "in its application of elementary principles of government to practical administration" it was the greatest work he knew; and Chancellor Kent declared it—quite justly—to be "equally admirable in the depth of its wisdom, the comprehensiveness of its views, the sagacity of its reflections, and the fearlessness, patriotism, candour, simplicity and elegance with which its truths are uttered and recommended." Sheer will and reasoning could hardly be more brilliantly and effectively exhibited than they were by Hamilton in the New York convention of 1788, whose vote he won, against the greatest odds, for ratification.
When the new Government was inaugurated he became secretary of the treasury in Washington's cabinet. Congress immediately referred to him a press of queries and problems, and there came from his pen a succession of papers that have left the strongest imprint on the administrative organization of the national Govern ment—two reports on public credit (179o), upholding an ideal of national honour higher than the prevalent popular principles; a report on manufactures (1791), advocating their encouragement (e.g., by bounties paid from surplus revenues amassed by tariff duties)—a famous report, one of the first notable revolts against the doctrines of Adam Smith, which has served ever since as a storehouse of arguments for American protective policy, and served also as an inspiration for Friedrich List ; a report favouring the establishment of a national bank (179o), the argument being based on the doctrine of "implied powers" in the Constitution, and on the application that Congress may do anything that can be made, through the medium of money, to subserve the "general welfare" of the United States—doctrines that, through judicial interpretation, have revolutionized the Constitution ; and, finally, a vast mass of detailed work by which order and efficiency were given to the national finances. In 1793 he put to confusion his opponents who had brought about a congressional investigation of his official accounts. The success of his financial measures was immediate and remarkable. They did not, as is often but loosely said, create economic prosperity; but they propped it, in an all important field, with order and confidence. His ultimate purpose was always the strengthening of the Union ; but before particular izing his political theories, and the political import of his financial measures, the remaining events of his life may be traced.
His activity in the cabinet was by no means confined to the finances. He apparently regarded himself as premier, and some times overstepped the limits of his office in interfering with other departments. The heterogeneous character of the duties placed upon his department by Congress seemed in fact to reflect the English idea of its primacy. It is often said that Hamilton's coun sels were predominant with Washington. In domestic affairs this is, on the whole, true; partly because their views were naturally sympathetic, and partly because Hamilton's advice was naturally accepted in the field of his special competence where Washington really needed guidance—finance. With regard to foreign relations, common sense and better judgment usually supported Jefferson's counsels—but where those qualities were involved Washington needed no counsel. Neutrality and isolation were American policies (to be found in the letters of every public man) before any occasion arose for their official promulgation. There was here no real difference between Hamilton and Jefferson : one sympa thized with England, the other with France, but both desired neutrality. On domestic policy their differences were vital and in their conflicts over Hamilton's financial measures they organ ized, on the basis of varying tenets and ideals which have never ceased to conflict in American politics, the parties of Federalists and Republicans. In Jan. 1795 Hamilton resigned and returned to the practice of law in New York, leaving it for public service only in 1798-1800, when he was the active head, under Washing ton (who insisted that Hamilton should be second only to him self), of the army organized for war against France. But though in private life he remained the continual and chief adviser of Washington, notably in the serious crisis of the Jay Treaty, of which Hamilton approved, Washington's "Farewell Address" can not fairly be said to have been "written" by Hamilton ; for Wash ington had worked upon it for years, and Madison had contributed to it. But though Washington supplied what he called the "body" to Hamilton, the latter apparently largely redressed it ; and in particular he added what he described as "such reflections and sentiments as will wear well, progress in approbation with time, and redound to future reputation"—which can hardly be other than the passages which, to-day, give to the address its life.
After Washington's death the Federalist leadership of John Adams, who had the prestige of a varied and great career and greater strength than any other Federalist with the people, was disputed by Hamilton, who controlled practically all the leaders of lesser rank. Hamilton's faults were glaringly displayed in this connection. He sacrificed his influence and his future in political intrigues. Twice, when Adams had been nominated for the presidency he sought to bar him from that office by manipulations of the electoral college; after Adams became president, and so the official head of the party, Hamilton directed the members of the cabinet, and colluded with Federalist senators, in an endeavour to control the president's policy ; and finally, on the eve of the crucial election of i800, he wrote a bitter personal attack on the president (containing much confidential cabinet information) which he only privately circulated, but which was secured and published by the Democrats.
Had he been prosecuted for this under the Sedition Act passed by his Party, as was threatened by a political opponent, it would have been only a just rebuke to him and to his Party. The result of his efforts against Adams was that his agents were dismissed from the Cabinet, that the president turned to southern Federal ists, and that he made peace (in 1 Q99) with France; thereby ending such influence as Hamilton enjoyed, and such ambitions as he may have cherished, as head of the army. Similarly, when in Washington's cabinet, he had carried on for five years behind the back of the secretary of State confidential communications with the British minister, which—aside from the ill effects (dis cernible in the Jay Treaty) of the false ideas that they conveyed of American sentiment—in substance amounted to intrigue. Again, after Aaron Burr outgeneralled Hamilton in the New York campaign of 1799, carrying the State for the Democrats, Hamil ton proposed to Gov. John Jay to call together the out-going Federalist legislature in order to choose Federalist presidential electors, a suggestion which Jay simply endorsed . "Proposing a measure for party purposes which it would not become me to adopt" (Works, vol. x., p. 371). Indeed, his opposition to Burr for a decade was conducted very largely by indirection, innuendo and whisper, in letters and conversation.
In short, as a political manager Hamilton, though ready in intrigue, was unsuccessful in it. He was a fighter through and through, and his courage was superb ; but he was indiscreet in utterance, impolitic in management, opinionated, self-confident and uncompromising in nature and methods. To considerations of what was politic or practical he could not yield, and yet he could not leave politics alone and devote himself to law. With the establishment of democratic power in 18o1 he lost all influence upon national affairs. His courage, and his high ideal of public rectitude were displayed in publishing the details of his amour with Mrs. Reynolds, that the favours shown to her complacent husband might permit no suspicion of impropriety in his conduct of the Treasury.
To his antipathy against Adams he sacrificed much prestige; to that against Burr, his life. No matter what may be the final judgment on Burr's character and schemes, doubtless Hamilton judged it a patriotic duty to thwart him in his ambitions; de feating his hopes successively of a foreign mission, the presidency, and the governorship of New York. Unfortunately, personal rivalry was also clearly involved, and personal dislike, and his methods of attack certainly, under the customs of that day, gave abundant cause for the duel in which he died. If his unsparing denunciations were known to Burr they were ignored by him until his last defeat. After that he forced a quarrel on a trivial bit of hearsay (that Hamilton had said he had a "despicable" opinion of Burr) ; and Hamilton, believing as he explained in a letter he left before going to his death that a compliance with the duelling prejudices of the time was inseparable from the ability to be in the future useful in public affairs, accepted a challenge from him. The duel was fought at the same spot where his eldest son, a boy of 20, had fallen in a duel in 18o1. He was mortally wounded, and died on the following day, July 12, 1804. The tragic close of his career appeased for the moment the fierce hatreds of politics, and his death was very generally deplored as a national calamity.
No emphasis, however strong, upon the mere events of Hamil ton's life suffices to show his importance in American history. In his earliest pamphlets he started out with the ordinary pre-Revo lutionary Whig doctrines of natural rights and liberty; but the first experience of semi-anarchic States'-rights and individualism released by the Revolution ended his fervour for ideas so essen tially alien to his mind, and they have no place in his later writings. The loose and barren rule of the Confederation, its feeble inadequacy of conception, infirmity of power, disintegrating par ticularism, and vicious finance were realized by many; but none other saw so clearly the concrete nationalistic remedies for these concrete ills, or pursued remedial ends so constantly and so ably. An immigrant, Hamilton had no particularistic ties; he was by instinct a "continentalist" or Federalist. Liberty, he remarked in the New York convention in 1788, was too exclusively con sidered, but there was another thing equally important : "a prin ciple of strength and stability in the organization . . . and of vigour in its operation." He wanted a strong union and energetic Government that should "rest as much as possible on the shoulders of the people and as little as possible on those of the State legis latures" ; that should have the support of wealth and class ; that should curb the States to such an "entire subordination" as nowise to be hindered by those bodies ; that should overbear all local and sectional prejudices and influences, and control the people. At these ends he aimed with extraordinary skill in all his financial measures—though of course he also regarded them as merely justice to creditors. As early as 1776 he urged the direct collec tion of Federal taxes by Federal agents. From 1779 onward we trace the idea of supporting Government by the interest of the propertied classes ; from 1781 onward the idea that a not-excessive public debt would be a blessing in giving cohesiveness to the union : hence his device by which the Federal Government, assum ing the war debts of the States, secured greater resources, based itself on a high ideal of nationalism, strengthened its hold on the individual citizen, and gained the support of property. From 1784 onward he seems to have been clear in his desire for judicial re view of all legislation. In his report on manufactures his chief avowed motive was to strengthen the union. To the same end he conceived the constitutional doctrines of liberal construction, "implied powers," and the "general welfare," which were later embodied in the decisions of John Marshall. The idea of nation alism pervaded and quickened all his life and works.
The adoption of the constitution was less the end than the beginning of the struggle between its supporters and its opponents. The issue was not merely one of political abstractions; the litera ture of the Confederation epoch is full of discussions of class rights and economic interests; The Federalist, as Beard says, is "the finest study in the economic interpretation of politics which exists in any language." The constitution's "champions as well as its opponents knew that its real character was to be determined by the measures of law and administration to be established under it. . . . It did not go into effect until the economic measures which its adoption implied were put upon the statute books and carried into execution" (Economic Interpretation of the Constitu tion, pp. 1 o, 1S3, 189 ; Economic Origins of Je ff ersonian Democ racy, pp. 3, 85-86). Here was Hamilton's contribution. He believed with Hume that men are moved only by force and by interest, and in The Federalist he remarked : "Every institution will grow and flourish in proportion to the quantity and extent of the means con centrated towards its formation and support." This explains all his financial measures. Madison and Hamilton reasoned alike, but they parted, as the former stated years later, "upon its plainly becoming his (Hamilton's) purpose to administration the govern ment into something totally different from that which he and I perfectly knew the convention when it framed that government intended, and from what the people intended in adopting that framework." With one great exception, the dictum of Guizot is hardly an exaggeration, that "there is not in the Constitution of the United States an element of order, of force, of duration, which he did not powerfully contribute to introduce into it and to cause to predominate." The exception, as history has shown—though Hamilton, of course, would have held it an element merely of disorder and dissolution—was American democracy. It is a commonplace to day that colonial experience shaped the Constitution. It was Hamilton's weakness—and misfortune—that he did not share that experience, and lacked feeling for its lessons. It is a weakness everywhere apparent in his calculations, but especially apparent in his total failure to understand the democracy created by two centuries of frontier life. It explains, also, his total lack of under standing of the West. When scores of thousands of settlers were yearly pouring over the Alleghanies, north and south of the Ohio, he was opposed to the wide distribution of public land ; and was so fatuous as to encourage the British minister to believe that his country would share with Great Britain the navigation of the Mississippi. Only a few lesser contemporaries were so lacking in judgment of their own time and place. This misunderstanding of American society, and exaltation of administration over the ends of government, condemned him to increasing isolation and impotence ; confidence in the integrity, the self-control, and the good judgment of the people, which was the content of Jefferson's political faith, had almost no place in his theories. "Men," said he, "are reasoning rather than reasonable animals"; "opinion is as much influenced by appearances as by realities"; "I have an indifferent opinion of the honesty of the country." It is easy to understand why he received but twice an office at the hands of the people, and none after 1788. The charge that he laboured to introduce monarchy by intrigue was a gross under estimate of his good sense. The idea, he wrote to Washington, was "one of those visionary things none but madmen could undertake, and that no wise man will believe" (1792) . We may accept as just, and applicable to his entire career, the statement made by himself in 1803 of his principles in 1787 : "(1) That the political powers of the people of this continent would endure nothing but a representative form of government. (2) That, in the actual situation of the country, it was itself right and proper that the representative system should have a full and fair trial. (3) That to such a trial it was essential that the government should be so constructed as to give it all the energy and the stability reconcil able with the principles of that theory." Throughout life, however, he held to his preference for such a government as he proposed in the convention of 1787; and though its inconsistency with American tendencies was yearly more appar ent, he never ceased to avow on all occasions his aristocratic monarchical partialities. Since Jefferson's assertions, alike as regards Hamilton's talk and the intent and tendency of his political measures, were, to the extent of the underlying basic fact —but discounting Jefferson's somewhat intemperate interpreta tions—unquestionably true,' it cannot be accounted strange that Hamilton's Democratic opponents mistook his theoretic predilec tions for positive designs. Nor would it be a strained inference 'Cf. Gouverneur Morris, Diary and Letters, vol. ii., pp. 455, 5z6, 531 and even Lodge's judgments, Life, pp. 9o-92, 115-116, 122, 130, 14o. When he says (p. 140) that "In Hamilton's successful policy there were certainly germs of an aristocratic republic, there were certainly limitations and possibly dangers to pure democracy," this is practically Jefferson's assertion (1792) that "His system flowed from principles adverse to liberty" ; but Jefferson went on to add: "and was calculated to undermine and demolish the republic." Jeffer son merely had exaggerated fears of a moneyed political engine, and seeing that Hamilton's measures of funding and assumption did make the national debt politically useful to the Federalists in the beginning he concluded that they would seek to fasten the debt on the country forever.
from much that he said, to believe that he hoped and expected that in the "crisis" he f oresaw—and in which he evidently hoped to play a military role—when democracy should have caused the ruin of the country, a new government might be formed that should approximate to his own ideals. No Jeffersonian obsession regarding "monocrats" is more fantastic than this counter obses sion of his great opponent.
After the Democratic victory of 180o, his letters are but rarely relieved in their sombre pessimism by flashes of hope and courage. "Every day," he wrote, "proves to me more and more that this American world was not made for me." His last letter on politics, written two days before his death, illustrates the two sides of his thinking already emphasized : in this letter he warns his New England friends against dismemberment of the Union as "a clear sacrifice of great positive advantages, without any counterbalanc ing good; administering no relief to our real disease, which is democracy, the poison of which, by a subdivision, will only be more concentrated in each part, and consequently the more viru lent." To the end he never appreciated the value of his own labours, never lost his fear of the States, nor gained faith in the future of the country. He laboured still, in mingled hope and apprehension, "to prop the frail and worthless fabric," but for its spiritual content of democracy he had no understanding, and even in its nationalism he had little hope. (See his Works, vol. x., pp. 434, 445.) Yet to no other men, except to Wash ington and Marshall, does American nationalism owe so much.
In the development of the United States the influence of Hamil tonian nationalism and Jeffersonian democracy has been a reactive union; but changed conditions since Hamilton's time, and particu larly since the Civil War, have created misconceptions as to Hamil ton's position in his own day. Great constructive statesman as he was, he was also in that day essentially a reactionary. He was in sympathy with the dominant forces of public life only while they took, during the war, the predominant impress of an imperfect nationalism. Jeffersonian democracy came into power in 1800 in direct line with colonial development ; Hamiltonian Federalism had been a break in that development ; and this alone can explain the ouster of the Federalists despite their brilliant success in con structing the Government. Hamilton stigmatized his great oppo nent as a political fanatic ; but actualist as he claimed to be, him self, he could not see, or would not concede, the predominating forces in American life, and would uncompromisingly have mini mized the two great political conquests of the colonial period—local self-government and democracy.
Few Americans have received higher tributes from foreign authorities. Talleyrand, personally impressed when in America with Hamilton's brilliant qualities, declared him greater than Fox and Napoleon. Of the judgments rendered by his countrymen, Washington's confidence in his ability and integrity is perhaps the most significant. Chancellor James Kent, and others only less competent, paid remarkable testimony to his legal abilities. Chief justice Marshall ranked him second to Washington alone. No appraisal is more justly measured than Madison's (1831) : "That he possessed intellectual powers of the first order, and the moral qualities of integrity and honour in a captivating degree, has been awarded him by a suffrage now universal. If his theory of gov ernment deviated from the republican standard he had the candour to avow it, and the greater merit of co-operating faithfully in maturing and supporting a system which was not his choice." In person Hamilton was rather short (5 ft. 7 in.) and slender; in carriage, erect, dignified and graceful. Deep-set dark eyes vivified his features, and set off his light hair and very fair and rosy complexion. His head in the famous Trumbull portrait is boldly poised and striking. The charm of his manners and con versation is attested by all who knew him, and in familiar life he was artlessly simple. Friends he won readily, and held in devoted attachment by a frank, ardent, generous, warm-hearted and high minded character. As Lodge says, "the roll of his followers is enough of itself to establish his position in American history." It is therefore the more notable that reciprocal confidence and respect took the place, between Washington and Hamilton, of personal attachment—at least as regards Hamilton. This may be under stood, considering their extremely different temperaments. It is more difficult to understand why Hamilton—although on the score of personal and Federalist indebtedness he left explicit recognition —never really appreciated Washington's great qualities : Jefferson differed equally from him in temperament and vastly more in opinions, yet fully recognized his greatness. A firm will, tireless energy, courage and bold self-confidence were other leading qualities of Hamilton's nature. Amiability and enthusiastic aggres siveness seem to have been equally characteristic. In his mind, clarity and penetration were matched with logical solidity. Its remarkable quality lay in a combination of acute analysis and grasp of detail with great comprehensiveness of thought. So far as his writings show he was almost wholly lacking in humour, and in imagination little less so. In public speaking, however, he often combined a rhetorical effectiveness and emotional intensity that might take the place of imagination, and enabled him, on the coldest theme, to move the feelings of his auditors.
He died insolvent, leaving a widow and seven children, none of whom revealed the brilliance of their father.
BIBLIOGRAPHY —Hamilton's Works have been edited by H. C. Bibliography—Hamilton's Works have been edited by H. C. Lodge (New York, 9 vols., 1885-86, and 12 vols., 1904) ; all refer ences above are to the latter edition. There are various editions of The Federalist, notably those of H. B. Dawson (1863), H. C. Lodge (1888) , and—the most scholarly—P. L. Ford (1898) ; cf. American Historical Review, vol. ii., pp. 413, 675. Among modern biographies see A. M. Hamilton, The Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton (191o), very valuable for its materials but both biased and naïve in judgments; H. J. Ford, Alexander Hamilton (192o), carefully reasoned; James Schouler, Alexander Hamilton (1901) , a slender but very judicious study ; J. T. Morse, Life of Alexander Hamilton (1876), and H. C. Lodge, Alexander Hamilton (1882), both partisan; and G. Shea's two books, his Historical Study (1877) and Life and Epoch (1879). W. G. Sumner's Alexander Hamilton (189o) is important for its criticism from the point of view of an American free-trader; see also, on Hamilton's finance and economic views, C. F. Dunbar, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. iii. (1889) , p. 32; E. G. Bourne in ibid., vol. x. , p. 328 ; E. C. Lunt in Journal of Political Economy, vol. iii. (1895) , p. 289 ; W. C. Culbertson, Alexander Hamilton: an Essay (New Haven, 1911) ; and the two indispensable books by C. Beard cited in the text. F. S. Oliver's Alexander Hamilton: An Essay on American Union (1906), an English 'study, which uses its subject to illustrate the necessity of British imperial federation, has been criticized as being too partisan. See also James Bryce, "Predictions of Hamilton and de Tocqueville," in Johns Hopkins University Studies, vol. v. (Baltimore, 1887) ; and the capital essay of Anson D. Morse in the Political Science Quarterly, vol. v. (189o) , pp. 1-23. The unfinished Life of Alexander Hamilton, by his son, J. C. Hamilton, going only to 1787 (New was superseded by the same author's valuable, but partisan and uncritical History of the Republic . . . as traced in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton (New York, 1857-64 ; Boston, 1879) . New materials and viewpoints have rendered somewhat antiquated the earlier biographies mentioned. (F. S. P.)