It wasn't Hamilton's plan

The argument

This argument answers the question by rejecting its premise: on this view, the financial plan commonly attributed to Alexander Hamilton was never really Hamilton's plan at all. Proponents begin from the observation that George Washington controlled the levers of government during the period in question. Where one figure holds ultimate authority, they reason, no major policy proceeds except by his judgment and consent. Whatever hands drafted the details, the plan could only exist because Washington willed it into being — and a plan that exists at another's pleasure belongs, in the sense that matters, to that other person. The mechanism connecting the two men reinforces the point. Hamilton was Washington's long-time ally, and advocates hold that he consistently ceded to Washington on policy. This was not, on this account, a partnership of equals in which Hamilton supplied the vision and Washington the signature; it was a relationship of deference in which Hamilton operated within boundaries Washington set. If Hamilton's role was to execute rather than to originate, then treating him as the plan's author confuses the instrument with the intent. Authorship of a policy, proponents argue, lies with the person whose motives shaped it and whose judgment determined whether it went forward. From this the conclusion follows directly. If one wants to understand the motives behind the financial plan — including whether it put America first — one is better served examining George Washington's opining than Hamilton's. The question as posed asks about the wrong man. Hence the position's pointed shrug, "Alexander who?": not a claim that Hamilton is unknown, but a claim that his name is beside the point. Any verdict on the plan's purposes, on this view, must be rendered on Washington's intentions, because it was never Hamilton's plan to begin with.

Context

Hamilton was merely the executor of George Washington’s policies. Therefore, Hamilton’s motives in his plan are irrelevant. Washington’s motives are far more important when considering whether the financial plan submitted to Congress in 1790 and 1791 were designed in the nation’s best interests.

Premises

Counter-arguments

This is not true. There is ample evidence that it was Alexander Hamilton who was the architect of the 1790 and 1791 economic reforms. Firstly, his three reports on public credit, a national bank, and the manufacturing sector were written by Hamilton and contained most of the economic and fiscal policy recommendations that were codified into law. Washington, as the President, would never had had the time to produce these reports. They are also strongly influenced by Hamilton's politics and thinking, particularly his interpretation of the Constitution to allow for the creation of a national bank. Nothing demonstrates Hamilton's central role in devising the financial reforms more than the events of February 1791. Due to Constitutional limitations, George Washington needed to sign the bill creating the first national bank by February 26, 1791. By February 22, the bill had passed through both houses of Congress and was ready to be signed. However, Hamilton's political opponents implored George Washington to veto the bill. They argued that the government had no right to create a national bank under the amendments laid out in the Constitution. Washington gave Hamilton time to respond to the arguments. Hamilton worked relentlessly to address his detractors, arguing that the bank was constitutional because "every power vested in a Government is in its nature sovereign, and includes by force of the term, a right to employ all means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power." This episode indicates that the financial plan was Hamilton's brainchild, not George Washington's. He alone was tasked with defending his proposals, even as Washington demurred. Therefore, the answer to whether the American nation was at the heart of the 1790-1791 financial plan lies in Hamilton's motives, not Washington's.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Washington was not the architect of the plans. Hamilton was.