{"id":15918,"date":"2023-05-14T16:31:34","date_gmt":"2023-05-14T20:31:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/?p=15918"},"modified":"2023-05-15T03:37:59","modified_gmt":"2023-05-15T07:37:59","slug":"why-did-alexander-hamilton-leave-the-constitutional-convention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/why-did-alexander-hamilton-leave-the-constitutional-convention\/","title":{"rendered":"Why did Alexander Hamilton leave the Constitutional Convention?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Why did Alexander Hamilton leave the Constitutional Convention?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Penman-Publius Axis\u201d \u2013 Part 1<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

It is generally understood that \u201c[t]he Constitutional Convention was Hamilton\u2019s child. No one had wanted it more than he did, or had fought for it so long.\u201d[1]<\/a> His biographers emphasize that when he arrived in Philadelphia nobody had a \u201cbetter right to be there\u201d than Hamilton.[2]<\/a> If so, why would he purportedly flee[3]<\/a> the Convention during the summer of 1787 ?<\/p>\n

During the Revolutionary War Alexander Hamilton was one of the first to publicly propose a Constitutional Convention. Years ahead of his time, Hamilton recognized and diagnosed the defects with the Articles of Confederation. He then played an instrumental role in calling for the Philadelphia Convention, which finally convened in May of 1787. Yet, Hamilton prematurely departed the Convention on June 30. Although he subsequently returned, why did he leave in the first place? Hamilton famously became the only New York delegate to sign the Constitution on September 17. But what would have motivated one of the most ardent champions of Constitutional reform to be absent from Philadelphia during critical debates in July and August?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Historians invariably explain that Hamilton was \u201cfrustrated\u201d[4]<\/a> when he left the Convention on June 30. Some focus on the fact that it was frustrating for Hamilton that he was consistently undermined by his co-delegates from New York who repeatedly voted against him. Other historians emphasize that Hamilton was frustrated by the lack of support for his five-hour speech on June 18. While the lack of support for Hamilton\u2019s proposals may have been disappointing, was mere frustration in fact the reason for Hamilton\u2019s departure? Hamilton admitted that he feared that a \u201cgolden opportunity of rescuing America\u201d was slipping away.[5]<\/a> So why did he leave?<\/p>\n

According to the traditional narrative Hamilton was in \u201ca hopeless position\u201d within his delegation.[6]<\/a> \u201cWhen it came to being impatient and impetuous, Hamilton had few peers.\u201d[7]<\/a> At the time he departed he \u201cno longer felt his presence useful, and the strains had become too great for him to bear.\u201d[8]<\/a> \u201cHis departure was prompted by a combination of hurt feelings over the cool reception to his June 18 speech\u201d along with \u201cthe realization that he was doomed to be outvoted on any important question by his two antinationalist New York colleagues.\u201d[9]<\/a> Hamilton was \u201cfrustrated and restless\u201d[10]<\/a> when he left, \u201cmore in sorrow than anger.\u201d[11]<\/a> Or was the reason for his departure that he \u201coverwhelmed with a sense of alienation\u201d?[12]<\/a> While the conventional wisdom may accurately describe Hamilton\u2019s dilemma at the Convention as a \u201cminority delegate from a dissenting state,\u201d[13]<\/a> the notion that he voluntarily decided to leave out of frustration is inconsistent with Hamilton\u2019s own explanation for his departure.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

During the New York Ratification Convention in 1788 Hamilton explained that \u201cprivate business\u201d called him back to New York.[14]<\/a> In a letter to George Washington shortly after his departure, Hamilton explained that \u201cI shall of necessity\u201d remain in New York \u201cten or twelve days.\u201d[15]<\/a> Nevertheless, historians have been unable to identify what pressing matters would have justified Hamilton\u2019s departure.[16]<\/a><\/p>\n

New evidence has come to light about the circumstances surrounding Hamilton\u2019s return to New York. As far as can be determined, no historian has advanced the explanation described below. This post is divided into two parts. Part I: The Hamilton-Morris Axis<\/strong><\/span> introduces the hypothesis that Hamilton departed Philadelphia in response to breaking news from London of a credit crisis implicating Robert Morris\u2019 financial empire. Who better than Alexander Hamilton to help address this financial crisis?<\/p>\n

Within a few months Hamilton would assume the pseudonym Publius<\/em> and Gouverneur Morris would be selected as the \u201cpenman of the Constitution.\u201d Hence, the label \u201cPenman-Publius Axis\u201d<\/strong><\/span> for Part 1 is appropriate to describe the growing evidence of collaboration between Hamilton and Morris, who were close friends and colleagues for decades. Of course, Hamilton had been appointed by Robert Morris as the Receiver of Continental Taxes for the State of New York<\/a><\/strong><\/span> in 1782. As one of the founders of the Bank of New York, Hamilton was well-versed in this subject.<\/p>\n

Hamilton was not the only delegate with underwhelming attendance at the Convention. For example, on May 30 Gouverneur Morris departed the Convention after only six days. Until recently, historians have incorrectly assumed that Morris returned to the Convention on July 2, after spending a month attending to his recently purchased Morrisania estate. Part 1 argues that this traditional explanation is flawed.<\/p>\n

A newly uncovered invoice changes our understanding of Gouverneur Morris’ Convention timeline. According to the invoice, Gouverneur Morris arrived in Philadelphia on June 30, the same day<\/em> that Hamilton departed for New York. In other words, the Penman-Publius Axis theorizes that Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris were closely collaborating to avert a bank run involving former Superintendent of Finance, Robert Morris.<\/p>\n

Part 2: Unanswered Research Questions <\/strong><\/span>acknowledges that we are working from an incomplete historic record. Hamilton\u2019s correspondence files \u2013 legal and personal \u2013 are admittedly and unfortunately sparse during this critical period. For this reason it is useful to sketch out further research questions to be pursued to help prove the merits of the Penman-Publius Axis as a tool to understand Hamilton\u2019s June 30th<\/sup> departure from the Convention.<\/p>\n

Gouverneur Morris\u2019 newly uncovered receipt from Miss Dalley<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier this year, a seemingly mundane receipt was uncovered in Philadelphia. This single slip of paper has the potential to reshape our understanding of key moments at the Constitutional Convention. Pictured below is Miss Dalley\u2019s receipt to Gouverneur Morris for \u201cboard and lodging\u201d during the Constitutional Convention. Click here<\/strong><\/span><\/a> for a discussion of other newly discovered evidence of Hamilton’ s arrival at the Convention earlier than previously understood.<\/p>\n

Importantly, the receipt is clear that Morris was charged by Miss Dalley for room and board through May 31. After he returned to Philadelphia from New York, charges began accruing again on June 30. This June 30 date is significant for several reasons.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

For decades, historians have assumed that Morris returned to Philadelphia on July 2, not June 30. Given incomplete information, this was a safe assumption as Morris\u2019 name reappears in Madison\u2019s Convention notes beginning on July 2. Indeed, Max Farrand concluded that Gouverneur Morris “was absent until July 2.”<\/p>\n

So why would two days on a timeline make a difference? The answer is that Gouverneur Morris\u2019 June 30 return to Philadelphia precisely aligns with evidence that Hamilton departed Philadelphia on June 30. The Penman-Publius Nexus argues that this is not a mere coincidence. In particular, stunning news had just recently arrived in Philadelphia that Robert Morris\u2019 financial operations were hanging in the balance, with dire implications for the already precarious credit of the United States.<\/p>\n

Protested Accounts in London<\/p>\n

For many years Robert Morris had been the nation\u2019s wealthiest and most influential merchant financier. Robert Morris played an indispensable role financing the Continental army during the Revolutionary War. For good reason he was selected as the first Superintendent of Finance under the Confederation Congress. After the Constitution was ratified, George Washington asked Morris to become the first Treasury Secretary, but Morris recommended Hamilton instead.<\/p>\n

Morris\u2019 far-flung global operations included shipping operations in China and affiliates in London and Paris. Morris\u2019 partner in New York was William Constable, who extended credit across the Atlantic through their colleague John Rucker in London.<\/p>\n

On May 7<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, John Adams, the American minister in London, learned that Robert Morris\u2019 bills were being protested (the equivalent of bouncing checks). According to Adams, \u201c[t]his catastrophe has shocked me, and will be a great disappointment to the Board of Treasury\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

A day later Adams wrote to the Board of Treasury in Congress explaining that \u201cthere is a great alarm in London and the consequences cannot be forseen\u2026\u201d Adams\u2019 May 8<\/a><\/strong> <\/span>letter explained that \u201cI was much hurt for Mr. Rucker and his Family, for the private Credit of American Merchants, and for the public Credit of the United States: but the Evil was without a Remedy.\u201d<\/p>\n

The alarming news of Morris\u2019 distressed credit reverberated across political and diplomatic circles. On May 10<\/a><\/strong><\/span> Abigail Adams described \u201can event which has spread an amazing alarm here within a few Days. I mean the protesting . . . of Mr. Morris & Co bills.\u201d As noted by Abigail, this was \u201ca terrible stab to what little remained of credit to America.\u201d Fully understanding the implications of a bank run, Abigail worried, \u201cas to his other Bills being protested, the whole city rings with it, and I suppose in consequence of it every House with which he is concerned will push him at once.\u201d<\/p>\n

The news of the pending \u201cdisaster\u201d reached Thomas Jefferson in Paris on May 21<\/a><\/strong><\/span>. As described to Jefferson, \u201ca late occurrence has very much alarmed every wellwisher.\u201d Namely, Morris\u2019 bills were being protested after Morris\u2019 agent in London, Mr. Rucker, was unable to make payments and had abruptly returned to New York.<\/p>\n

On May 23<\/span><\/a><\/strong>, Adams wrote to John Jay indicating that he was leaving for Holland to obtain alternate financing for American loan payments. Enclosing copies of the protested debts, Adams feared that Morris\u2019 default threatened the \u201cimmediate and total ruin to the credit of the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

Timing of Hamilton\u2019s departure and Gouverneur Morris\u2019 return from New York<\/em><\/p>\n

The fact that Morris\u2019 partner in London, John Rucker, had unexpectedly picked up and left for New York is not by itself proof of the reason why Alexander Hamilton departed the Convention on June 30. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence that Hamilton conferred with Morris or had any ability to assist. Yet, the timing of Hamilton\u2019s departure for New York is significant, coupled with the date of the arrival of this news in Philadelphia.<\/p>\n

During the Constitutional Convention, George Washington boarded with Robert Morris. He had planned on boarding with James Madison and other Virginian delegates at Miss Mary House’s boarding house, but Morris prevailed upon him to reside at the Morris mansion. On June 28<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, George Washington recorded in his diary that he was dining in a large company at Morris\u2019 house when \u201cthe news of his bills being protested\u201d became public. Washington also notes that the news arrived “last night” and apparently was \u201cmal-apropos\u201d for discussion during a dinner party.<\/p>\n

The following picture emerges as several data points come together:<\/p>\n