Could Alexander Hamilton Be President?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The short answer is no. He’s dead. For more, read on:
I was having a constitutional battle of wits with my Dad at the dinner table (What, this doesn’t happen to you very often?) when the question came up: Based on the rules and constitution at the time, could Alexander Hamilton have been elected President of the United States? Now, this doesn’t ask “If he ran, would he have won?”. Rather, we’re just seeking to see if he met all the requirements for presidenting at the time. Or, at least, all the written ones.
An unwritten requirement of presidenting.
Many people have heard the tale that the Constitution was specifically crafted so that Alexander Hamilton could not be president. Alexander Hamilton was born on the British West Indian island of Nevis, which is a place I’ve never heard of. It’s probably an unimportant island, but it’s a different island than either Bermuda, where I thought he was born, or Jamaica, where my Dad thought he was born. Nevis is actually much closer to Jamaica, though, so I guess Dad was more right. Regardless, Nevis was not a part of the United States, making Alexander Hamilton not a natural born citizen.
Luckily for presidential canidates, there are loopholes. For some, like previous presidential hopeful John McCain, everyone may think you were born in America, but McCain was actually born in the Panama Canal Zone. However, his possible presidency was still constitutionally legitimate because, at the time, Panama was under US control. (It’s the reverse for Obama — his name may make it seem like he’s unAmerican, but he was really born in Hawaii. Really.)
Now, I’m not sure if the word “presidenting” existed back then (or even if it exists now) but if it does, the requirements (and potential loopholes) are probably in the United States Constitution. The last year Alexander Hamilton could have been president was in 1804, because that was the year of his death and zombies are currently not eligible to be president. Or so I hope.
At the end of 1803, which was Hamilton’s last full year alive there were only eleven amendments to the Constitution — the original Bill of Rights, plus the 11th Amendment limiting your ability to sue states. (Which is something I really wish I could do.) The Twelfth Amendment is actually a very big player in presidential elections, as it redefines how everything works and allows presidents to pick their own vice presidents on their ticket and such. Luckily for me, I don’t have to research into the Twelfth Amendment. It wasn’t ratified until three days after Alexander Hamilton had died and began a possible career in Resident Evil 4.
Therefore, we only have to find out his eligibility via the Articles of the Constitution and the eleven amendments that were on it at the time. And, again luckily for researchers, none of the first eleven amendments deal with presidenting. So we just have to go to the articles themselves.
So now time to fire up the research machine further and go to everyone’s favourite source — Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article on the Constitution makes it clear that we only have to worry about Article Two, and maybe Article Six. Let’s check out both.
A little gem in Article Two, Clause Five of the Constitution seems to lay out the requirements. “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
In a legible list, the checklist is as follows:
- Natural born citizen or citizen at the time of the Constitution’s adoption
- Thirty-five years old or older
- Must have lived in the US for fourteen years or more
Which is really good for Hamilton, because — according to Wikipedia — he moved to the thirteen colonies around 1770 and had been a resident ever since then. The third clause of eligibility would have been fulfilled by 1785.
In the year 1785, historians are fairly sure (but not positive), that Alexander Hamilton was 28 years old. In order to fufill the second clause, he would have had to wait another seven years, delaying his campaign until 1792.
The first clause is the big one. On face, he was not a natural born citizen. However, the loophole! George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were never natural born citizens either. In order to be a natural born citizen, you had to be born in the US. And the US didn’t exist until 1788. So either America goes presidentless until they can elect a 35 year old natural born citizen in 1823 or they add a loophole. And you know politicians, they love loopholes.
So, the writers of the constitution went to work and devised the often forgotten “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” part of the US Constitution. Alexander Hamilton was a citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution. Also, for several years in his life, Hamilton was also 35 or more years of age, and had lived in the US for more than 14 years.
Alexander Hamilton was able to be president of the United States. And no, I don’t actually have anything better to do at 11:57 in the morning.
Liked this Essay?
- You can get more Greatplay.net by looking at these categories: All, History.
- Or perhaps you'd be interested in a complete table of contents of all essays?
- You could also subscribing to the RSS feed, or use the sidebar to subscribe for email updates!
- Or you could follow me on Twitter or like me on Facebook
- If you feel particularly participatory, I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to leave a comment.
Very good analysis. Alexander Hamilton was one of the greatest politicians of the early American republic, he is often underestimated. He is the one who kickstarted the economy.
The kids have it wrong. It’s not all about the Benjamins; it’s all about the Hamiltons!
Many thanks for the thoughtful answer. I have no idea why I was thinking of this, but my original question to myself was whether any of the founding fathers were born outside of the US. Hamilton fit the bill… and was famous to boot!
Anyway, many thanks.
One is NOT an Article II U.S. natural born citizen simply by virtue of having been born on U.S. soil or within the territorial limits , if you like. You conveniently and alarmingly left out the OTHER even more important component of the equation and that is; “the blood” jus sanguinis
When identifiable the newborn must inherit its U.S. citizenship from U.S. citizen parents; both. For this is the only way, short of revolution, that you block all avenues to foreign attachment in the child–no foreign sovereignty can lay claim to this person. The Founders/Framers had no intentions , what-so-ever of permitting NON-immigrants to the nation to install their off-spring as Commander in Chief
GET IT FOLKS?!!!
Now stop the Obscurantist bullcrap and start educating others so that we may remove this contemptuous usurper before he sets precedent* at the end of this fraudulent and fake term
*No, the successful “pulling off” of this scam by Chester Arthur does not set precedent for B.O. Jr’s fraud
Compelling! On the phone a fraction rough to read, but advantage it!
Jefferson was born at Shadwell, Virginia. Washington was born in Westmoreland County, Virginia and Adams in Quincy, Massachusetts.
They were born in colonies that became states.
Hamilton was born in the West Indies. Not a U.S. colony or state.
No where in the Constitution was being a natural citizen of a colony a requirement for becoming president. Hamilton fufilled the requirement of being “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” as stated in Article Two, Clause Five. Did you actually *read* the article?
If the founding fathers won a revolutionary war and establishes a new nation and alexander Hamilton is one of the founding fathers why could he not become president. The founding fathers made the rules for the new nation. They should have included Alexander Hamilton as one of the revolutionest who could run for president.
Yes I actually read the article. I teach government and I have a law degree. You are simply an idiot. If you can’t see that Washington and Jefferson and Adams were born in states and Hamilton was born in the West Indes–what the hell was he a citizen of? There was no Constitution until 1787. It is a natural citizen of a state in these United States. A goddamn state. No one said colony. Hamilton could not be president because he wasn’t a natural citizen of the United States as he was born in the West Indies. The founders didn’t say, and the West Indies for poor Hamilton.
Jaye – law degree or not, you’re incorrect.
Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were not born in states. They were all born in British colonies, which were, legally, the personal property of the British monarch. Nor, for that matter, were they citizens, as there was no “citizenship” in Britain – rather, the people of the British Empire were “subjects.”
Ergo, Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, like Hamilton, were not natural born citizens – quite simply, they were not born in the United States. Yes, they were born on land that would become the United States, but under such an understanding (yours), any person who had been born in the colonies, and then subsequently left (for anywhere) was an American citizen upon adoption of the Constitution, simply because they were born in a place that would later become territory of a state.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, not a single person was a natural born citizen of the United States; hence, the need for the “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution.”
I doubt that any competent lawyer would not understand the meaning of “or”.
I would also like to add that…
Hamilton SIGNED the Constitution. Not only was he in the country when the Constitution was being signed, he was one of the legendary men who signed it(as a delegate of NY.)
GREATPLAY.Net, Peter, allow me to teach and your father a valuable lesson in life, don’t answer any questions if you don’t know the answer, especially over topics that both you and your father, aka, have no knowledge or education in. Preface your answer as an opinion, or question, not as the truth, it makes you lose all credibility, and makes you look like a fool.
THIS IS THE ANSWER . . .
Alexander Hamilton was not eligible to be President of the US, based on both the plain language, intent, and interpretation of the Constitution in 1788, or today in 2011. For the following reason, he was not born within the colonies that would become the entity that is the US. If Nevis had adopted the constitution in 1788 and become part of US, all would be fine. However, the framers, Hamilton included, were so protective over their independence from Britain, fearful of the fledging nations vulnerability to failure, and disdainful toward all that was British. All those seen as born outside of the colonies, were seen as potentially sympathetic to Britain and the Monarch, ingrained with an “English” upbringing, and still interwoven within the social, political, or economy of Britain.
Just as Democracy was born from the American colonies, so its President had to be born from the same nation. Of course there was no Nation, nor was there a constitution, or presidency until ratification, however, once each colony swore allegiance, ratified it and joined the US.
Citizen of US at time of adoption along with 14 year residency requirement was imposed to prevent british loyalist, born in US from returning to US to influence new nation, or incite or facilitate a return to British control. Quite simply, paranoia, uncertainty, and fear was rampant.
Also, only a moron would raise the issue or question of McCain’s citizenship, seeing how he was born on a US Naval Base while his Father was an Admiral in the US Navy.
Any dissent, or insight, email me.
FYI, Benjamin Franklin was born outside the US too, thats why he wasn’t President.
Our Nation originated from religious persecution, the ability to worship freely. A freedom of religion AND from religion.
Our money says in GOD we trust not because we are a religious, christian nation that believes in GOD, it was chosen to snub, chastise, show our disdain for monarchy, specifically The British Crown.
It was a response to Britain’s motto, pledge, “GOD SAVE THE KING” that represents an individual, the monarch, possessing value that is paramount to not only any other person, but the collective world as well.
representative of historical power struggle between church and monarchs, and their competition for everyone’s hearts and minds, and money
This is a really silly position to take on how information should be communicated. What do you mean I have no knowledge or education in this subject? I did research for this article, as you can clearly see. I made arguments. What more do you want?
Also, it’s silly to preface ignorance as “Oh, this is just my opinion”, like stating an opinion is any different from stating a fact. It sounds like you expecting someone to say “Yes, I know it’s a fact that the Earth is round, but it’s my opinion that it’s flat”?
~
Let me stop you right here, because that’s the exact position I acknowledged and argued against. Specifically, I said Article Two, Clause Five of the Constitution says you can be President if you are a citizen of the US at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. Alexander Hamilton was a citizen of the US at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. Therefore Hamilton could be president.
Now you could make an argument that I applied A2C5 incorrectly, or that Alexander Hamilton was not actually a citizen of the US at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. But you can’t merely just restate the argument I argued against as if I never said anything about it.
~
No part of A2C5 indicated that they needed to be born in a US colony, only that they specifically be a citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of the US.
~
Good thing I didn’t question McCain’s citizenship then.
~
I had no idea that Boston was outside the US.
~
It must have been a really long grudge against the British Crown then, since it wasn’t seen on any money until 1864 and didn’t achieve widespread usage as our country’s motto until 1956.
It’s much worse than our previous motto e pluribus unum which truly showed the power of the collective citizenship to make a country superior to that ruled by a king, not just the power of the collective appeal to a divisive notion of a deity that not everyone believes.
I have to say, I love the breakdown of the argument, Peter.
I’m fairly sure Boston is foreign… Massachusetts is in Asia somewhere… I think.
Brilliant prose and argument, mate.
Cheers.
i think he should have benn president if he ever had the chance to but he probably had other more important things to be involved i don’t know lol let’s leave it at that