We interviewed public historian and author Nancy Spannaus about her new book “From Subject to Citizen: What Americans Need to Know about Their Revolution.” In this work she argues that the Revolution was not a single moment but a profound transformation that transformed Americans from subjects of empire to citizens of a republic. The book is structured in three parts covering the revolt against Britain, the Declaration of Independence, and the fight for the Constitution. In the following interview Nancy Spannaus discusses why this history demands our attention today.
What does your book show about the early revolutionary mindset before independence?
While there were many areas of conflict between the colonies and Great Britain over the first 120 years or so, I emphasize that the turning point toward an outright break came with the Seven Years War. From 1760 to 1775, revolutionary fervor grew, as British-American colonists saw their “rights of Englishmen” trampled on. I review what they read and were thinking about in the press and pamphlets at the time – it’s fascinating. To understand the process, however, you have to understand that the War for Independence, and the American Revolution, were not the same thing.
How did Hamilton’s vision in 1774-1775 set him apart from his peers in imagining America’s economic future?
Alexander Hamilton was not the only American revolutionary who emphasized the economic reasons for declaring independence, but he was unique in promoting – in the pamphlets he wrote before the shooting war broke out – the vision of an economically independent nation. In his Vindication of the Continental Congress (1774) and The Farmer Refuted (1775), he described how Americans could utilize their own rich resources to be able to do so. My detailed discussion of these documents is a real eye-opener.
You quote his phrase “To the Future Grandeur and Glory of America.” How does this sentiment capture both the mood of the Revolution and Hamilton’s unique perspective?
When Hamilton put forward his first proposals for our industrialization and economic independence, the Revolutionary movement was embroiled in fierce debate over whether the colonies would be crushed by Great Britain if they implemented non-exportation and non-importation. Hamilton’s grasp of economics led him to confidence that America could not only survive, but thrive. It was a hard sell, which he continued to work on for the rest of his life.
Compared with Jefferson or Adams, how was Hamilton’s definition of independence more tied to economic power than political declarations?
The contrast between Jefferson and Hamilton on the concept of independence is stark, and full of irony. By opposing Hamilton’s manufacturing perspective, Jefferson was effectively maintaining our dependence on Great Britain, even as he attacked Hamilton for allegedly being “pro-British.” When people characterize Hamilton as “pro-British,” they ignore the fact that his economics aimed to undercut Britain’s aggressive demand that other countries leave manufacturing to them, thus making them less than free.
How do you situate Hamilton vis-à-vis the Declaration of Independence?
I think he believed in the basic tenets of that document – man’s God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and governments based on man’s consent. See his most poetic statement of 1775: “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchment, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” Hamilton did, however, believe that a declaration of rights was inadequate for forming a government: for that, you needed to situate those rights within the rights of society: it’s the difference between natural law and natural rights.
What role did Hamilton play in embedding economic strength into the Constitution?
One of the 22 articles which comprise my book is entitled “Our Constitutional Commitment to Economic Progress.” There, I emphasize the Constitution’s establishment of the “general welfare” as a major objective, as well as the specific measures of Article I, Section 8, which point us toward economic development. Hamilton was involved in the final crafting of the Constitution as a member of the Committee of Style, which shaped the final document. He then shaped our financial system as Treasury Secretary, in a manner which created a sound credit system, and the basis for supporting economic growth.
Could you explain how your book contrasts the Confederate Constitution with the framework Hamilton defended?
My husband, Edward Spannaus, did a study of the difference a long time ago. What he discovered is that the discrepancy didn’t simply lie with the stance on slavery (the Confederate constitution banned the banning of slavery). Along with that provision was a set of prohibitions against Federal government support for industry, infrastructure, and the general welfare. The Confederate Preamble also differed significantly by eliminating the aims of forming a “more perfect Union” (“a permanent federal government,” instead), and of “promoting the general Welfare.”
That’s the short answer; I refer people to the book for more.
How central was the phrase “General Welfare” to Hamilton’s constitutional thinking?
As you can tell by my last two answers, VERY CENTRAL. Hamilton, like Washington, was committed to building a nation which would hold together – which meant it had to prosper together, or it would fall apart. He was constantly aware of the danger of that, right up to the moment of his death. The concept of the “general welfare” can also be rendered as the “common good,” and I do have a favorite (and to many people, shocking) quote from Hamilton on that question. It comes from his Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank (February 1791), where he is arguing against Jefferson’s view that that institution was not “necessary,” because we might survive as a nation without it. Hamilton wrote: “This restrictive interpretation of the word necessary is also contrary to this sound maxim of construction – namely, that the powers contained in a constitution of government, especially those which concern the general administration of the affairs of a country, its finances, trade, defence &c ought to be construed liberally, in advancement of the public good.”
In your view, did Hamilton envision that Constitution as an engine of progress more than a safeguard of liberty?
I do not think he would have separated them. Neither one can be sustained for a long time without the other, in my view, and I think Hamilton would agree. This territory is what I covered in my first self-published book, Hamilton Versus Wall Street: The Core Principles of the American System of Economics, back in 2019. Interestingly, the Kirkus reviewer at the time wrote that the book was a “thoughtful, well-written argument for Alexander Hamilton’s financial system as a guard against tyranny.” That surprised me a bit at the time, but I think it’s true.
What do you describe as the “Challenge” after the Constitution, and where does Hamilton’s presence still loom?
This book on the Revolution begins and ends with the idea of challenging today’s citizens to get into the thinking of those who sacrificed their lives to build this nation. In my experience, far too few Americans take seriously enough what it means to go from being a “subject” to a “citizen” of a republic. Alexander Hamilton was a leading thinker in helping our nation make this transition, because political economy (the intersection of politics and economics) is so important in shaping public life, but you’ll find more than him in this book.
How might Hamilton’s vision help us think about the ongoing challenges of balancing liberty and economic progress today?
Let me answer this one by calling your attention to the article “Freedom, Not Libertarianism” in my new book. While that article is confined to the subject of the Declaration of Independence, I think that the concept here would apply well to Hamilton. If you understand that the welfare of the individual is not opposed to that of the society as a whole, but improves with it, then you have a guidepost for navigating conflicts which may come up between individual freedoms, and progress for the country as a whole. We have tilted so far toward empowering individual rights, rather than the welfare of society as a whole, that when you bring up the Constitution, many people think of it as a Bill of Rights. Those were additions, folks! They work in the context of the whole. I could say a lot more about that, and I wrote about it in the slavery context at some length (See Chapter 15, Slavery: America’s Economic Cancer, in Defeating Slavery: Hamilton’s American System Showed the Way).
Do you see Hamilton as a prophet whose ideas will continue to resonate?
I don’t see Hamilton as a prophet – although a visionary, yes. His ideas DID resonate and go into practice in some very important eras of our nation’s history, especially those of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, and they are not dead, although they are dormant, today. But, for many reasons, I think it is Lincoln who can speak most directly to the kinds of conflicts over the Constitution and individual rights which we face today, and that’s why I conclude this book with Lincoln’s advice for saving our institutions. Lincoln does not mention Hamilton in this piece, but he was a true Hamiltonian, applying his principles in economy, and I suspect in law as well (both were lawyers, you’ll recall).
