# What if America had gone with Hamilton's plan for a unitary republic? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 18, 2004, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-america-had-gone-with-hamiltons-plan-for-a-unitary-republic/269747 "2004-10-18T01:50:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-america-had-gone-with-hamiltons-plan-for-a-unitary-republic/269747/1 "2004-10-18T01:50:15Z")
Alexander Hamilton is always counted as one of our Founding Fathers, but in fact, although he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he had little influence on the Constitution it produced. From [http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop\_ccon.html#hamilton:](http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.html#hamilton:) > [@](#): > > For New Yorker Alexander Hamilton, neither the Virginia Plan nor the New Jersey Plan were enough. Hamilton was well-known and well-liked in upper society in the 1780’s. He married into the aristocracy and was one of George Washington’s advisors during the Revolutionary War. In politics, he was of the general opinion that the masses could not be trusted to select the leaders of the United States. > > Hamilton proposed a new government based on a model he and the other delegates knew well, perhaps all too well: that of the British monarchy and parliament. > > Hamilton advocated virtually doing away with state sovereignty, noting that as long as there was power to be had in the states, people would aspire to acquire that power, to the detriment of the nation as a whole. His plan featured: > > A bicameral legislature > > The lower house, the Assembly, was elected by the people for three year terms > > The upper house, the Senate, elected by electors chosen by the people, and with a life-term of service > > An executive called the Governor, elected by electors and with a life-term of service > > The Governor had an absolute veto over bills > > A judiciary, with life-terms of service > > State governors appointed by the national legislature > > National veto power over any state legislation > > Hamilton reported his plan to the Convention on June 18, 1787. > > Hamilton’s plan was well-received, it seems, with general agreement that it was well thought out and complete. However, no one supported it as a model for a new form of government. The system was too similar to that of Britain, under which the Americans had long-suffered. His plan went no further. > > Soon after his speech, Hamilton left the Convention, only to return later. Outvoted by his fellow New Yorkers at every turn, he grew frustrated. But when he did return, he sat on the influential Committee of Style, which presented the Convention with the Constitution in nearly the form we know today. Aside from his work on this committee, for which Gouvernour Morris’s work is more renowned, Hamilton had had very little effect the outcome. However, in the struggle for ratification, Hamilton became a champion of the new Constitution, and was one of the main contributors to the Federalist Papers. I realize this is a very iffy “what if?” because it’s hard to see such a radical plan could have been sold to the country in the political environment of the time. But suppose it had been accepted? How would the history of the North American Republic (I guess that’s what they’d call it) differ from the history of the United States of America? Would the Civil War have happened if the very principle of state sovereignty had been rejected at the outset? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-america-had-gone-with-hamiltons-plan-for-a-unitary-republic/269747/2 "2004-10-18T02:16:06Z")
President Washington would be the first President-For-Life. Whether his skills as a general would transfer that well over a long period of time is unclear to me. Eventually, some Joker would take hold of power and the US would become a corrupt banana Republic. Part of the genius of the existing Constitution is its ability to withstand fools in office, or so I learned in high school civics. ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-america-had-gone-with-hamiltons-plan-for-a-unitary-republic/269747/3 "2004-10-18T02:38:15Z")
Quite a few of those features we have or did. We have two houses of Congress, a portion of the judiciary have life time tenure. We still have the electoral college and at one time the state legislatures appointed them without regard to the popular vote. In a sense, the national government does have veto powers over state laws. It seems to me quite a few of his ideas were accepted in one form or another. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-america-had-gone-with-hamiltons-plan-for-a-unitary-republic/269747/4 "2004-10-18T03:21:05Z")
> [@aahala](#): > > In a sense, the national government does have veto powers over state laws. Only in the sense that a federal law prevails over the state law to the extent of any conflict – **if** the federal law is a constitutional exercise of the enumerated powers delegated by Congress, and that rules out a lot. While Hamilton’s plan was not considered long enough for such details to be worked out, I’m sure it would have specified that the national government was not one of limited, enumerated powers, but that it would have the plenary police power the states enjoy under our present system. Also, Hamilton wanted Congress to appoint the state governors. That would have made a really big difference. > [@aahala](#): > > It seems to me quite a few of his ideas were accepted in one form or another. But for the most part, after the Civil War established the principle of national sovereignty as a permanent fact. If Hamilton had gotten his way – would the Civil War have happened at all? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-america-had-gone-with-hamiltons-plan-for-a-unitary-republic/269747/5 "2004-10-18T03:22:10Z")
Sorry, “enumerated powers delegated **to** Congress”. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-america-had-gone-with-hamiltons-plan-for-a-unitary-republic/269747/6 "2004-10-18T05:19:57Z")
Something I posted in another thread: > [@](#): > > This thread inspired a strange notion. What if Presidents, like Supreme Court Justices, served for life? I used stockton’s link and the assumption that whoever was actually President at the time a supposed President died would have been the new President. > > Ladies and gentlemen, the Presidents for Life of the United States: > > George Washington 1789-1799 > John Adams 1799-1826 > John Quincy Adams 1826-1848 > James K. Polk 1848-1849 > Zachary Taylor 1849-1850 > Millard Fillmore 1850-1874 > Ulysses S. Grant 1874-1885 > Grover Cleveland 1885-1908 > Theodore Roosevelt 1908-1919 > Woodrow Wilson 1919-1924 > Calvin Coolidge 1924-1933 > Herbert Hoover 1933-1964 > Lyndon Johnson 1964-1973 > Richard Nixon 1973-1994 > Bill Clinton 1994-present > > I don’t care what your political views are; this is a grim picture.