Abstract
Alexander Hamilton is frequently labeled an Enlightenment figure influenced primarily by David Hume and Charles de Montesquieu. This paper contends that his political thought remained firmly rooted in the Aristotelian-Ciceronian-Christian tradition. Hamilton rejected the modern “new political science” that sought to secure liberty and welfare through institutional mechanisms alone, without virtuous rulers. Though engaging Montesquieu’s separation of powers, he and Madison advocated only a flexible, partial blending consistent with the classical mixed regime. Against Hume’s view of men as knaves whose passions must be mechanically balanced in a self-regulating system, Hamilton insisted reason must govern passions, virtue is indispensable, and government exists to constrain passions toward reason and justice. The end of politics, for Hamilton, was the common good—the safety and non-hedonistic happiness of the people—with justice and virtue as central aims. Law was an ordinance of reason, not will; judges applied objective natural law, and the Constitution itself was fundamental law binding even majorities. Hamilton’s framework thus reveals profound continuity with classical and Christian sources rather than the modern philosophic innovations of Hume and Montesquieu.