Was Alexander Hamilton Eligible for the Presidency?

[Free Palestine]

Or rather, was it an accepted fact at the time that he was eligible?  Because, it seems like there's some serious contention on the issue.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

He was a citizen at the time of ratification, so I'd assume he was eligible.  Not that he would have wanted it, of course.

[The Mikado]

Or rather, was it an accepted fact at the time that he was eligible?  Because, it seems like there's some serious contention on the issue.

It absolutely was.  It's just that there was no chance in hell that he could've won even if he wanted the office.

[Fritz]

Why would he not be?

[Stranger in a strange land]

Why would he not be?

He was born in the British West Indies, not in the territories that became the United States.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There was no contention on whether Hamilton was eligible.  The relevant clause is:

"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"

The restriction was there to keep the possibility that some foreign-born royal might be naturalized and made President.  That may seem laughable now, but considering that foreign-born royal houses were later put in place in a number of the Balkan countries when they gained independence from the Ottomans, or that Maximillian was imported to become Emperor of Mexico, it hardly was a concern without merit at the time.

[J. J.]

There was no contention on whether Hamilton was eligible.  The relevant clause is:

"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"

I think the clause was put in almost specifically to accommodate Hamilton. 

The was also the problem, arguably, that no one would be eligible until 1822.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've never heard that before. 

That actually did become common in the Napoleonic period, but I never heard of it in 1787.

[Хahar 🤔]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've never heard that before. 

That actually did become common in the Napoleonic period, but I never heard of it in 1787.

Personal unions have been common enough in the past. I think Napoleon was the first (and perhaps only) person to be ruler of a monarchy and a republic at the same time (between May 18, 1804 and March 17, 1805), but states had taken control of other states via personal union on many occasions.

[Free Palestine]

Alexander Hamilton was ineligible for the presidency, says my history professor.

[??????????]

Alexander Hamilton was ineligible for the presidency, says my history professor.

I would suggest only believing about 50% of what any so called "history professor" says.

[minionofmidas]

Ernest is right.

Though Hamilton was, in fact, ineligible in the first presidential election - he was not yet 35 years old.

[Bo]

Yes, after he turned 35. He was a U.S. citizen when the Constitution was adopted.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What about George Washington? When he was sworn in, the Declaration of Independence was less than 14 years old, so had he really lived in the US for 14 years?

[minionofmidas]

What about George Washington? When he was sworn in, the Declaration of Independence was less than 14 years old, so had he really lived in the US for 14 years?

Of course. America was America before it Declared its Independence.

However, Presidents Adams, Jefferson, Buchanan - probably others - had not been US residents continously for the last fourteen years when elected. The provision has essentially been ignored since day one.

[J. J.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've never heard that before. 

That actually did become common in the Napoleonic period, but I never heard of it in 1787.

Personal unions have been common enough in the past. I think Napoleon was the first (and perhaps only) person to be ruler of a monarchy and a republic at the same time (between May 18, 1804 and March 17, 1805), but states had taken control of other states via personal union on many occasions.

Personal unions like GB and Hanover, yes, but not placing someone on the thrown.

[The Mikado]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've never heard that before.  

That actually did become common in the Napoleonic period, but I never heard of it in 1787.

Personal unions have been common enough in the past. I think Napoleon was the first (and perhaps only) person to be ruler of a monarchy and a republic at the same time (between May 18, 1804 and March 17, 1805), but states had taken control of other states via personal union on many occasions.

Personal unions like GB and Hanover, yes, but not placing someone on the thrown.

If you don't mind going way back, look at the (Crusader) Kingdom of Jerusalem.

[Free Palestine]

Alexander Hamilton was ineligible for the presidency, says my history professor.

I would suggest only believing about 50% of what any so called "history professor" says.

Especially the communist ones.

[minionofmidas]

Actually... there is another angle to it.

The Founding Fathers expecteded mass immigration from Britain to have ended with Independence, so the rule wasn't expected to rule out lots of common folks. Meanwhile, a lot of then-living common Americans were born abroad.

Makes for an interesting what-if... no mass immigration during the 19th century, no Northwest Ordinance, and a history of the trans-appalachian interior more like that of the Brazilian or Venezuelan interior.

[??????????]

Makes for an interesting what-if... no mass immigration during the 19th century, no Northwest Ordinance, and a history of the trans-appalachian interior more like that of the Brazilian or Venezuelan interior.

Sounds like a recipe for dying on the vine or conquest by a stronger power. I still think Russia would have gone after North America if the US never became anything.

[Dr. Cynic]

Contrary to what any professor seems to say, Hamilton WAS eligible as he was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the consititution.

Hamilton did not really believe in electoral politics though. He wanted a military dictatorship, and he would've played the role himself if he were offered.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Personal unions like GB and Hanover, yes, but not placing someone on the throne.

For a 17th/18th century example, consider William III of Orange.  The Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th century were fought in part because Charles II was trying to place him in charge of the Netherlands as the Stadtholder, and then he ends up deposing Charles's son James II to become William III of England.  While technically the Stadtholder was elected, (just as in theory the Holy Roman Emperor was) the post became a de facto hereditary monarch and after the Napoleonic Era, the title was changed to King of the Netherlands.

The experience of the Dutch Republic clearly showed the possibility for external meddling with a post that was effectively an elected monarch.