Print

I 7 Confederation. The American experience under British rule had created a general fear of strong central authority. Consequently, the Confeder- ation Congress was vested with inadequate and poorly arranged powers and soon proved unable to meet even its limited responsibilities. No political figure was more committed than Hamilton to promoting an energetic and perpet- ual union, which he believed would be necessary for the country’s security, happiness, and prosper- ity. As early as 1780, a year before the Battle of Yorktown, he began proposing a convention of the states to strengthen the powers of Congress and to write a new constitution. Hamilton, never- theless, understood that the creation of a stronger national government would require overcoming “mountains of prejudice.” Although the Revo- lution had created a bond of union among the former colonists, most people still viewed their particular state as their “country.” Local poli- ticians further fed the people’s trepidation of centralized authority—often out of concern for maintaining their own parochial power. Eventu- ally, however, the inadequacies of the confedera- tion became more apparent, and Hamilton’s belief that the people should fear the collapse of a weak government as much as an overly powerful one gained credibility. While the confederation experienced many dif- ficulties, particularly in the realm of raising rev- enue, foreign relations, and military oversight, it was the failures of commerce and interstate trade that finally generated the political will for reform. In the absence of a uniform foreign and interstate trade policy, the states began levying tariffs on the imports and exports of other states in an effort to combat their own internal economic distress. Hamilton’s home state of New York, one of the most egregious offenders, began imposing burden- some duties on goods headed for New Jersey and Connecticut through the port of New York. As conflicts between the states increased and the nation teetered on the brink of civil war, Ham- ilton left his full-time law practice to pursue a seat in the New York legislature, so he would be well positioned to lead the fight for a stronger union. Once elected to the New York Assembly, Hamil- ton sought out like-minded politicians who could direct the movement for reform either in their own state or in Congress. In so doing, he found a valu- able ally in Virginian congressional representative James Madison. Following a successful agreement in 1785 between Virginia and Maryland concern- ing trade on the Potomac River, Madison urged the Virginia legislature to sponsor a meeting of the states to recommend a federal plan for regulating commerce. The Virginia legislature complied and scheduled a convention for the following spring in Annapolis, Maryland, with the express purpose of considering “how far a uniform system [of the states] in their commercial intercourse and regu- lations may be necessary to their common interest and perfect harmony” (Knott and Williams 2015, 134). Because only five states sent commissioners to the Annapolis Convention, the delegates, which included Hamilton and Madison, agreed that they did not have a mandate to make decisions bind- ing on the whole. Nevertheless, Hamilton—not wanting to squander the historic opportunity to advance the cause of union—authored an offi- cial report, signed by each of the commissioners at Annapolis, calling for a convention of states in Philadelphia the following May to consider broad revision of the Articles of Confederation. In the months following the Annapolis Con- vention, the states descended even further into eco- nomic chaos, and it became clear that, unless the confederation was drastically reformed, the union would collapse and the states would be vulnerable to civil war or foreign exploitation and invasion. In early 1787, Congress finally authorized a conven- tion to amend the Articles of Confederation. Although Hamilton had played a decisive role in bringing about the Constitutional Convention, which convened in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787, his influence as one of New York’s three delegates was minimal. The other two state delegates, Robert Yates and John Lansing, were staunch opponents