The Portrayal of Hamilton in Soviet Literature

Background

In the Soviet Union, the methodology of any historical studies was strongly influenced by Marxist ideology. However, this ideology was not classically Marxist; rather, it was a Soviet version of Marxism which was developed under the impact of dogmatism and ideological dominance.

American studies were no exception. To avoid accusations of not respecting Marxist methodology, Soviet historians refrained from presenting any subjective factors as driving forces. Instead, they had to use “wide masses of farmers” or “monopolist circles” as actors in their narration. For instance, when a statesman was making any decision, he was doing it to fulfill the will of “Northern bourgeoisie” or “Southern planters.” The entire historical process had to be explained through class war, which lead to a dangerous substitution: the facts were selected not according to their value but to their ability to serve as evidence supporting the class war theory (Kubyshkin & Tsvetkov, 2010, par. 21-35).

Additionally, the conclusions made by Soviet historians about various processes in American history were shaped by the fact that the United States were the opponent of the USSR. Works on the history of capitalist countries had to form an image of an enemy. Historians involved in American studies were controlled, even spied by, and sometimes forced to collaborate with the KGB (Yakovlev, 2009). As contemporary Russian historians I. Tsvetkov and A. Kubyshkin put it, “American studies were among the most ideologized fields due to the status of the USA as a rival” (Kubyshkin & Tsvetkov, 2010, par. 9).

Therefore, among the notable features of American studies in the Soviet Union were ideological saturation, the domination of the class war theory, and concentration on masses as driving forces. Studies on the American Revolution and the Early Republic had its own specific features. The Revolution was considered some kind of a noble act undertaken by the American people who rebelled against greedy British capitalists. The main source of such a view was “A letter to American workers” written by Vladimir Lenin. In the letter, Lenin called the American Revolution “one of those great, truly liberative, truly revolutionary wars” (Lenin, n.d., par. 2). The results of the Revolution, Soviet historiography considered, were then shamelessly appropriated by American capitalists (bourgeoisie and planters) who were no better that the British ones, with a possible exception of such democratic thinkers as Thomas Jefferson.

It is necessary to mention that Soviet studies in American history were rarely based on an independent research in primary sources. Despite the Iron Curtain, American research literature reached through the barrier and influenced Soviet historiography. Of course, the selection of literature and its subsequent analysis were determined by the dominant ideology. The evidence suggests that the negative image of Alexander Hamilton, which existed in Soviet literature, was not a product of Soviet sciences. Soviet historians have absorbed this information from outside sources, and these sources are to be found in American literature. To find out which works by American historians have translated certain attitudes to the Soviet academic world is not a hard task: it requires checking historiographic chapters and the references to American works in Soviet books.

Among the American historians who had the greatest influence on the Soviet historiography of American history was Charles A. Beard. He has earned the respect of Soviet historians due to his approach based on the assessment of economic factors. Literally every Soviet work devoted to the period of the Early American Republic cites his “An economic interpretation of the Constitution of the United States,” in which Beard used the records of the Treasury Department, otherwise unavailable to Soviet historians. One more reason to revere Beard was that he criticized the juristic theory, despised by Soviet historiography, for its lack of analysis of the economic conditions. Beard considered that

Party doctrines and “principles” originate in the sentiments and views which the possession of various kinds of property creates in the minds of the possessors; class and group divisions based on property lie at the basis of modern government; and politics and constitutional laws are inevitably a reflex of these contending interests (1921, p. 15-16).

Such views were consistent with those of Soviet Marxists. However, Beard could hardly contribute to the unflattering image of Hamilton developed in Soviet historical works. With a surprising sincerity, he presents his personal belief that the United States as a country could not be secured if it was not for Hamilton and his economic policy (1921, p. 35). Unlike Soviet historians, Beard rejects the notion that the Constitution was created for the reason that the delegates wanted some personal benefit (1921, 73). In the part of Beard’s work where he analyses the personality and motivation of the delegates on the Constitutional Convention, each delegate receives about half a page; Hamilton gets fourteen. Beard thoroughly refutes each charge which exists against Hamilton and gives a positive assessment to his personality, mind, understanding of policy and economy, and his actions (1921, p. 100-114). This apology, however, had a zero influence on the majority of Soviet works. Therefore, Beard was not a source of negative information on Hamilton.

James Ferguson’s “The power of the purse: A history of American public finance 1776-1790” was not such a source either, despite its popularity among Soviet historians. The work contains a sober analysis of Hamilton’s financial policy without any direct judgment. Hamilton’s economic plan is portrayed in this work as a compromise (1961, p. 293).

Soviet historians were especially fond of the works of Herbert Aptheker, an American historian, due to his communist political views and Marxist approach to historical studies. Aptheker has missed his opportunity to join Hamilton’s critics for a simple chronologic reason: the second volume of his “A history of American people” finishes with the end of the American Revolution, which he considers to be 1783; Hamilton did not play a major political role in that period. However, a Soviet reader was offered an article by William Foster as a preface to the 1962 Russian edition of Aptheker’s second volume. In the article, Foster celebrates the publication of Aptheker’s work and speaks of its significance. He also adds, as if it was a proven fact, that “royal power was abolished in the United States despite Hamilton’s attempts to make Washington king” (1962, p. 17). Thus, Hamilton is presented as a well-known monarchist conspirator.

Perhaps the most important source of the “evil Hamilton” image was the prominent book of Vernon L. Parrington, “The main currents in the American thought.” The first volume of “The main currents” was published in 1927, but the Russian translation appeared only in 1962. In this work, Parrington portrays Hamilton as a talented statesman and administrator but a poor political thinker who lacked education: a view that was translated into the works of Soviet historians who often believed that Hamilton was inferior to Jefferson in philosophical and historical knowledge. Parrington recognizes that American industry owes a lot to Hamilton, but he refuses to acknowledge that Hamilton contributed to American liberalism in any way. Hamilton is also presented as a Hobbesian thinker and a monarchist (2003, par. 2-30). As Stephen Knott puts it, Parrington’s attitude can be summarized as “good Jefferson/bad Hamilton” (2002, 110-111).

Aside from that, Parrington throws the notorious “great beast” quote. To start from the very beginning, Henry Adams, the grandson of the Founding Father John Adams, has put a quote in his “History of the United States of America,” which he attributed to Hamilton: “Your people, sir, are a great beast.” The intention was to emphasize Hamilton’s contempt towards American people and his disapproval of democracy. This quote, being introduced many years after Hamilton’s death by a person who was not even his contemporary, can hardly be considered accurate (Knott, 2022, p. 74-75), but it managed to get into a great number of historical researches. It is possible that it was Parrington’s work that first presented “the great beast” to the Soviet public. In the 70-s and 80-s, the “beast,” with a very rare exception, would appear in every work that mentions Hamilton as a politician.

The Russian translation of the 1955-published first volume of “Literary history of the United States” appeared in 1977. The authors of the work intended to demonstrate the process of development of American literature from existing as a section of English literature to becoming one of the richest independent literatures in the world. The chapter written by Adrienne Koch was devoted to the politicians of the Early Republic and their philosophic views. Hamilton is not presented as a pleasant figure in this chapter. Even though he managed to understand the economic opportunities of the Union and the owners of major companies, Koch states, his distrust in people undermines his accomplishments. “Great beast,” the old friend of the historiographic Hamilton, is present here as well. Koch names Hamilton a vain, short-sighted Tory and a defender of the wealthy (Koch, 1977, p. 204-210).

Among other American historians that could influence the Soviet image of Hamilton is Saul K. Padover. The Russian translation of his “Jefferson” appeared only in 1991 under the name “Jefferson, the third President of the USA.” Nevertheless, the citation of the original book appears in Soviet works written in the earlier decades. Padover was clearly not a supporter of Hamilton’s policies. He spoke about Hamilton’s monarchical views (1991, p. 145-146) and claimed that Adams and Hamilton despised people while Jefferson was their hero (1991, p. 184). What is more, he managed to present the “great beast” case in such a way as if Hamilton had said it twice and on two different occasions (1991, p. 126, 198).

Taking information about Hamilton from Jefferson’s writing and the works of his biographers was common for Soviet historians, a method of questionable relevance. The reason for it is most likely the influence of the Communist Party USA. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union which controlled the intellectual life in the country maintained close relationships with the other communist parties, especially those of “bourgeois” countries. The assessment of various facts of American history by Soviet historians depended on these interactions; since the CPUSA portrayed Jefferson as a democratic ideal and Hamilton as his capitalist nemesis, Soviet historians had to follow.

The Portrayal of Hamilton in Soviet Literature

The history of American studies in the Soviet Union starts in the 1940-s.

In 1941, I. Yuzefovich published his work “George Washington and the war for the independence of America.” Apparently, the readers from the young state (the Soviet Union had been existing for 20 years) had to be interested in the period of history of the United States when this country was on the initial stage of development.

As it can be understood from the title, the work was primarily devoted to the role of Washington in the events of American history. Hamilton is presented as a delegate on the Constitutional Convention who suggested that the system of constitutional monarchy similar to the English one be established in America, and who considered that power had to belong to the wealthy and noble (1941, p. 102-103). Proceeding to the work of Washington’s administration, Yuzefovich portrays Hamilton as a talented intriguant who managed to surround Washington with his loyal people, thus affecting President’s opinions on the internal and foreign affairs. Jefferson, not surprisingly, is depicted as an enemy of the monarchy and friend of liberties (1941, p. 109-110). Hamilton’s economic program does not receive a deep analysis; Yuzefovich briefly describes it and mentions that the program ensured the industrial development in the USA but was beneficial for speculators of various kinds (1941, p. 110-113). The policy of Hamilton, Yuzefovich claimed, was not intended to please the popular masses (1941, p. 114). Similar claims about Hamilton but accompanied by deeper and more detailed analysis would appear in subsequent works.

Apart from being a monarchist, a hater of the people, and a vicious spawn of American bourgeoisie, Alexander Hamilton, as some Soviet historians believed, was also a British spy. A. Fursenko suggested such an addition to the long list of Hamilton’s sins in his 1966 article “Alexander Hamilton and the British secret service.” According to Fursenko, Hamilton hated not only the French but also the American Revolution, and his views made him a supporter of the British government and a traitor to his own country (1966, p. 210-215). As N. Yakovlev, a Washington biographer, believed, Hamilton was little more than a mere British spy (1973, p. 525). It is unknown if Yakovlev’s position as a KGB agent influenced his assessment of Hamilton or he was affected by the work of Julian P. Boyd who produced the image of a mighty agent number 7 (Boyd, 1964). Additionally, Yakovlev portrayed Hamilton as a cynical politician who believed that power belonged to the wealthy and noble (indeed a familiar pattern) and was almost a royalist. Yakovlev’s claim that Hamilton considered people to be driven by vanity and interest was, of course, accurate, but the presence of the “great beast” quote undermines the accuracy (1973, p. 524). Aside from that, there is a slight but serious accusation related Hamilton’s plan of paying off the soldier certificates at their face value: “It is proven that at least some of them [speculators] knew of Hamilton’s plan before” (Yakovlev, 1973, p. 525). In general, criticizing Hamilton’s certificates plan and assumption plan was common for Soviet historians. These actions were explained through class struggle as if Hamilton was fulfilling the will of the young American bourgeoisie.

B. Shyriayev presents Hamilton as a reactionary politician, open monarchist, and militarist who pushed his reactionary agenda on the Constitutional Convention. According to Shyriayev, Hamilton’s blueprint of the Constitution is an attempt to establish constitutional monarchy in the USA (1981, p. 24, 35, 49-50). This work lacks a serious analysis of Hamilton’s theoretical base which seriously affects the quality of the assessment (Filimonova, 2001, p. 12).

A 1983 work of V. Ushakov devoted to the period of Washington’s administration contains serious criticism towards Hamilton’s economic policy. Ushakov claims that it had little economic effect and contradicted the interests of the majority of the population. The political program of Hamilton did not receive any analysis (Ushakov, 1983).

A major collective work “The history of the USA,” edited by a prominent Soviet historian G. Sevostyanov, gives a reader one more image of the devilish Hamilton. In the very preface to the first volume that covered the period between 1606 and 1877, the authors established a task to find out why a country that won its independence two centuries ago struggles against the social progress in the 20th century. The source of this problem, the authors considered, could be found in the period of infancy of the American Republic. Alexander Hamilton had to be directly connected to this source. As it often happened, Hamilton is named a supporter of oligarchy. However, the historians reject the claim that he ever offered monarchic regime as a way of political organization of the young country, but the reason was that he understood the unpopularity of this idea among the American people, not some personal views (1983, p. 186). The authors correctly state that Hamilton did not believe in the ability of people to perform sober reasoning (1983, p. 188). They also present an accurate analysis of the reasons, for which Hamilton did not support the Bill of Rights, instead of attributing this to Hamilton’s hatred towards people and liberties (1983, p. 195). The historians emphasize the essential role, which Hamilton played in strengthening the industry of the young republic. His assumption plan is viewed as a way to consolidate the states which serves the task of ensuring further industrial development (1983, p. 236). Additionally, the authors consider that Hamilton advocated the development of capitalism in America on the industrial and agrarian basis, for which the conditions in the country were not favorable. Unfortunately, the overall accurate assessment of Hamilton’s actions is spoiled by an unfair notion that Hamilton received personal benefit (“strove to multiply his fortune”) from his operations as a Treasury Secretary (1983, p. 238), even though it is widely known that Hamilton has never had any fortune and left his family in poverty once he died.

G. Sevostyanov was by no means an admirer of Hamilton. Along with A. Utkin, he produced a biography of Thomas Jefferson which heavily depended on secondary sources, mainly American biographies of Jefferson. Since Alexander Hamilton was Jefferson’s most bitter rival, the authors had to devote considerable attention to his personality, political ideas, and actions. However, American works on Jefferson are clearly the worst kind of sources one can use for studying Hamilton. It is not hard to imagine what portrayal of Hamilton was produced as a result of such studies. The authors start the analysis of Hamilton’s financial policy with a remark that it was beneficial for speculators and add Jefferson’s quote where the latter claims that “Hamilton’s debt” was created artificially and supported by “a squadron of corruption.” Sevostyanov and Utkin do not give any commentary of this quote (1976, p. 181). No matter what Hamilton does, he receives bitter criticism, often inaccurate. For instance, despite the fact that the true nature of the Reynolds affair is known to literally every historian, including the Soviet ones, Sevostyanov and Utkin, for some reason, presented this case as if Hamilton was involved into speculation along with James Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds’s wife and her relationship with Hamilton were left unmentioned (1976, p. 245).

Special attention should be given to the works of such historians as V. Sogrin and V. Pechatnov who presented the deepest and most detailed analysis of Hamilton’s views and policies.

Vladimir Sogrin has developed a comprehensive approach to studying the American civilization. Having been working as an academician in the period of the Soviet Union, he still continues his work as a specialist in American studies. Sogrin is currently the chairman of the Council of Russian Association of Historians Specializing in American History and the director of the Center of North American Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Throughout his works, a struggle between a strictly Marxist approach and a more comprehensive one can be noticed. This phenomenon is especially interesting to observe regarded to his assessment of Alexander Hamilton. Sogrin has produced a great number of works on the topic of the Revolution and the early period of the American Republic. He has always been highly interested in studying Hamilton’s policies and attitudes, and his works deserve a very detailed analysis.

In 1976, Alexander Hamilton appears in Sogrin’s writings for the first time. In the article “Alexander Hamilton and the emergence of the USA,” the historian portrays Hamilton as the leader of the moderate wing among American politicians (Sogrin, 1976).

In 1980, Sogrin devoted an entire book to the ideology of the American Revolution (“Ideological currents in the American Revolution of the 18th century”). Hamilton is portrayed as a person possessing brilliant knowledge in economy and politics who is able to use his knowledge for the sake of the bourgeoisie (1980, p. 8-9). Sogrin analyzes the attitude of American historians to Hamilton and concludes that he, being moderate, was “sent to the conservative camp” because of the outrage of American Progressivist historians. Sogrin blames Parrington for giving such a negative characteristic of Hamilton, as well as for separating him from his teachers, Harrington and Locke, and presenting him as Hobbesian. Sogrin notes that American historians blame Hamilton for the emergence of monopolist capitalism, which determined the attitude to him in historical literature (1980, p. 26-34). These words may seem apologetic, but the entire work is definitely not a Hamiltonian apology; the “great beast” quote inevitably appears in the narrative (1980, p. 158).

In this work, Sogrin describes Federalist views as based on economic determinism and notes that a special attention to the economic side is a notable feature of any bourgeois revolution (1980, p. 245-246). The same opinion was presented in Sogrin’s article on the ideology of the Federalist Party which was published the next year (Sogrin, 1981). Returning to “Ideological currents in the American Revolution of the 18th century,” Sogrin describes Hamilton’s activity at New York Manumission Society, along with John Jay, and devotes considerable attention to his abolitionist views (1980, p. 250-251). Sogrin also mentions Hamilton’s efforts to abolish the property qualification; he presented this as an example of Hamilton being a “social architect” who tried to establish what amount of democracy is sufficient (1980, p. 262).

It is important that Sogrin explained the source of the claims about Hamilton being a monarchist. As he understood it, “monarchy” meant nothing more than having a lifelong President which was an appropriate solution for the circumstances of that time (1980, p. 268).

Sogrin starts his 1983 work “The Founders of the USA: Historic portraits” with strong criticism towards the cult of Founding Fathers (1983, p. 3). In the preface of this work, he emphasizes Hamilton and Jefferson as central figures of his work since their “names were given to the two ways of the development of capitalism in the USA” (1983, p. 4). The historian claims that “the dramatic outcome of Hamilton’s life, the death on a duel with a political adversary in 1804 symbolized a temporary defeat of the pretentions of the North-Eastern bourgeoisie on the domination in the control over the government” (1983, p. 5). Sogrin apparently felt some kind of an attachment to romantic symbolism. “Madison’s separation from Hamilton, this patron of North-Eastern bourgeoisie,” he writes, “and his entering into alliance with Jefferson, whom he considered an advocate of the agrarian way of the country’s development, reflected the increase of the contradictions between the two dominant social classes” (1983, p. 5).

In Washington’s portrait, Sogrin states that Washington appointed two ministers, one of whom struggled against the democratic achievements of the Revolution. The President, he writes, was more fond of Hamiltonianism but kept trying to reach a compromise. However, Sogrin rejects the idea that Washington accepted federalism because of Hamilton’s “demonic” influence; the President, Sogrin claims, considered federalism a suitable ideology to form a solid nation and independent state. The most contradictory issue in Hamilton’s program was his propositions on international policy, i.e. the suggestions to have an alliance with England, whereas Washington insisted on being neutral and praised isolationism. Sogrin even cites “Farewell Address,” which is known to be written by Hamilton (1983, p. 18-19).

The chapter containing Hamilton’s portrait is, not surprisingly, named “Alexander Hamilton: The prophet of capitalistic development.” “Among Hamilton’s biographers, both critics and apologists are present (the latter are the majority),” Sogrin believes. Following that, he mentions three apologists and five critics (1983, p. 52). The historian was also sure that Hamilton’s attempts to contact his father were caused by his desire to be a part of an ancient aristocratic clan, for the ancestry meant a lot to noble families of North America (1983, p. 60).

It is interesting that in this work, Sogrin takes Hamilton’s words in the letter about black soldiers to John Jay as pragmatism and cynicism rather than real abolitionism. In this work, no mentions of the New York Manumission society or Hamilton’s support of the Haitian Revolution are found.

Sogrin claims that Hamilton’s letter to John Dickinson (apparently that of 25-30 September 1783) marks the change in Hamilton’s attitude compared to his pamphlets of 1774–1775: in former times he spoke of the individual rights, and now he speaks of the danger to the government from individuals (1983, p. 71). That can hardly be considered accurate: Hamilton demonstrates the same views, for instance, in his letter to John Jay written on November 26, 1775 (Syrett, 1961, p. 176-178).

In the spirit of the Soviet Marxist tradition, Sogrin blames Hamilton for his disapproval of “popular revolts.” “Hamilton’s objection to the soldier rebellion in Pennsylvania apparently contradicts the right of the people to revolt which was proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence,” Sogrin wrote. Hamilton was clearly depicted as disloyal to the people: “The people, Hamilton kept saying, have to be tamed.” The author considers that Hamilton’s “class instinct” alone made him support the repressed loyalists of New York City (1983, p. 71-73).

Sogrin believes that Hamilton was not a monarchist but a supporter of a strong executive since it was corresponding with the interests of bourgeoisie in the unstable postwar situation. The historian also considers Hamilton’s Constitution project too radical and oligarchic (1983, p. 71-73).

According to Sogrin, Hamilton’s economic program aimed to strengthen the union of the government and major capitalists, enforce the leading role of the government in the progress of the national economy, and encourage the development of industry rather than that of the agriculture. Sogrin analyses Hamilton’s protectionism and claims that he supported only such a form of regulation that would ensure the highest rate of development for the industrial forces, but he notes that Hamilton was against the regulation of prices. It is worth noting that Sogrin mentions Hamilton as the only commander of the troops during Whiskey rebellion, leaving Washington’s role out of the narrative (1983, p. 78-82).

Surprisingly, Sogrin justifies Hamilton’s anti-French foreign policy propositions, unlike most Soviet historians, who were generally supportive of the French Revolution. He explains that the democratic tendencies of the French Revolution were not obvious yet, and France was merely regarded as an unstable ally (1983, p. 83-84).

Having employed dramatic undertones to describe the end of Hamilton’s life, Sogrin agrees with “the majority of historians” that Hamilton belongs more to the 19th than to the 18th century for being a progressive thinker (1983, p. 88).

However, Sogrin spoils all the positive impression by inviting the “great beast” into the narrative as he proceeds to Jefferson’s portrait. By contrast to the people-hater Hamilton, Jefferson, as the author thinks, “respected the will of the people” (1983, p. 99). Another inaccuracy in Sogrin’s work is the claim that Jefferson’s Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin “managed to prove Hamilton’s malversations with numerical data” and “successfully liquidated Hamilton’s financial system” (1983, p. 119). Gallatin’s writings present a completely different view on the subject. In particular, Gallatin explained to Jefferson that he did not find any proof that Hamilton used governmental funds for personal purposes.

In the end of this chapter, Sogrin states that characterizing Hamilton as a realist and Jefferson as an idealist is inaccurate since back then, in the late 18th century, it was Jefferson’s agrarian plan that looked more real (1983, p. 165).

Sogrin repeats the same misconceptions in his 2001 high school textbook on the political history of the USA, but he sounds unbiased in the 2003 textbook on US History (2001; 2003). In a 1995 work, “Ideology in American History,” Sogrin names Hamilton among the thinkers that “presented a monarchist idea”, which was already explained above (1995, p. 41).

It seems that Sogrin considered Hamilton a skilled statesman and one of the most significant architects of the American Republic, as well as a great personality, but the historian’s Marxist views would not allow him to maintain a positive attitude towards Hamilton. This caused a serious contradiction in Sogrin’s works, due to which his assessment of Hamilton flows from highly positive to aggressively negative.

Vladimir Pechatnov is another renowned Soviet and Russian historian. His works on American history were widely published abroad, and he presented his lectures at such schools as Yale, Harvard, and Cambridge. Pechatnov is a unique example of a Soviet historian who managed to produce a biography of Hamilton, in which he was portrayed with a high degree of accuracy and with positive rather than negative features. In the times of Perestroika, the governmental control over the academic sphere was much weaker than in the previous decades. Historians had some independence from the official structures but, however, not from the prejudices in their minds.

In fact, Pechatnov’s work is a joint biography of Hamilton and Jefferson: a thing well-known to the American historiography but not previously employed in the Soviet Union. In a romantically sounding preface, the author states that the American Revolution was a heroic time which gave the United States their heroes. Trying to reconcile his interest to the Founding Fathers with his Marxist views, Pechatnov writes that the struggle existed not only between the working class and the bourgeoisie but inside of the bourgeoisie itself, and Hamilton and Jefferson were the leaders of the rival fractions. Pechatnov fairly acknowledges that, while Jefferson is called “the father of the modern democracy,” Hamilton is being punished for breaking the laws of democratic rhetoric (1984, p. 5-6).

Pechatnov clearly sees the cornerstone of Hamilton’s policies: the necessity to link the interests of moneyed man to those of government; the historian does not give any negative judgment to that idea (1984, p. 30-31). Pechatnov explains the reasons for which Hamilton protected loyalists (1984, p. 51-54) and supported maintaining close ties with Great Britain (1984, p. 197) without naming him a British agent.

Pechatnov does not characterize Hamilton’s political views as meritocratic, stating that Hamilton entitled the power to the rich and noble (1984, p. 53). Nevertheless, the historian explains Hamilton’s support for the rich. “Being a realist and pragmatician,” Pechatnov writes, “he understood that in a society founded on private property, the final word will always belong to its owners” (1984, p. 67). Quoting Charles Beard, the historian agrees that Hamilton had no personal interest in any of his policies (1984, p. 73). Pechatnov also notes Hamilton’s good knowledge of an entrepreneur’s psychology which was embedded in his plans (1984, p. 177). Unfortunately, Pechatnov has not avoided the “great beast” spell (1984, p. 300), but his book is the most flattering Soviet work that ever mentioned Alexander Hamilton.

Conclusion

The entire academic sphere in the Soviet Union was heavily influenced by the dominant political ideology. Soviet historians had no other choice but to employ Marxist methodology and base their research on the class war approach. For American Studies, the situation was even worse since the USA were a major rival of the USSR, and historical writings had to demonstrate the image of an enemy. Even though American historical literature reached to the USSR, Soviet historians were selective of it and borrowed mostly such information that could support the idea of class struggle.

All these factors lead to the appearance of a negative image of Alexander Hamilton in Soviet historiography. Among the American historians who were primary contributors to the formation of this image in the Soviet Union were Vernon L. Parrington, William Foster, and Saul Padover. Additionally, Soviet historians used the writings of Thomas Jefferson as a source of judgments about Hamilton.

In Soviet historical works, Hamilton was most often presented as a supporter of the North American commercial and industrial bourgeoisie. The accusations of dishonesty in financial affairs, especially regarding his plan on paying off the soldier certificates, are often present as well. Every Soviet work which devotes considerable attention to Hamilton’s actions features the “great beast” quote; its accuracy is never questioned. Hamilton’s attitude to Great Britain receives mostly negative assessment as well; sometimes, he is considered a British spy. For Soviet historians, it was Hamilton who had to be blamed for the development of capitalism in the USA, and, hence, for the emergence of such a mighty enemy as this country was to the USSR. Thus, Hamilton was regarded as almost a personal enemy to Soviet citizens. The attempts to question this attitude and present a more sober analysis were made by such prominent historians as Vladimir Sogrin and Vladimir Pechatnov. However, these historians were influenced by Soviet Marxist prejudices, as well as the others.

References

Beard, C.A. (1921). An economic interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.

Boyd, J.P. (1964). Number 7: Alexander Hamilton's secret attempts to control American foreign policy, with supporting documents. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ferguson, J.E. (1961). The power of the purse: A history of American public finance 1776-1790. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Filimonova, M. (2001). Alexander Hamilton i sozdaniye constitucii SShA [Alexander Hamilton and the creation of the US Constitution] (PhD dissertation). The Institute of Universal History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia.

Foster, W.Z. (1962). “Istoriya Amerikanskogo naroda [The history of American people].” In H. Aptheker. Amerikanskaya revoluciya 1763-1783 [The American Revolution 1763-1783] (pp. 7-20). Trans. by I.Z. Romanova. Moscow, USSR: Izdatelstvo inostrannoy litetatury.

Fursenko, A.A. (1966). Alexander Hamilton i britanskaya sekretnaya slujba [Alexander Hamilton and British secret service]. Voprosy Istorii, 3(1), 210-215.

Knott, S. (2002). Alexander Hamilton and the persistence of myth. Lawrence, Kansas: Kansas University Press.

Koch, A. (1977). Gosudarstvennyye deyateli-filosify Respubliki [Philosopher-statesmen of the Republic]. In M. Tugusheva (Ed.). Literaturnaya istoriya Soedinennykh Shtatov [Literary history of the United States] (pp. 195-211). Moscow, USSR: Progress.

Kubyshkin, A.I., & Tsvetkov, I.A. (2010). Universitetskiye uchebniki po “Istorii SShA” kak indicator sostoyaniya rossiyskoy amerikanistiki [University textbooks on “US History” as an indicator of the condition of American Studies in Russia]. Rossiya i SShA na stranicakh uchebnikov: Opyt vzaimnykh representaciy. Volgograd, Russia: The Institute of Kennan. Retrieved from http://ushistory.ru/stati/186-textbooks.html

Lenin, V.I. (n.d.) Pis’mo k amerikanskim rabochim [A letter to American workers]. Retrieved from http://libelli.ru/works/37-6.htm

Padover, S.K. (1991). Jefferson, tretiy president SShA [Jefferson, the third president of the USA]. New York, NY: Telex.

Parrington, V.L. (2003). The English group. In V.L. Parrington. Main currents in the American thought. Retrieved from http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/Parrington/vol1/bk03_01_ch03.html

Pechatnov, V.O. (1984). Hamilton and Jefferson. Moscow, USSR: Mejdunarodnyye othosheniya.

Sevostyanov, G.N. (1983). Istoriya SShA 1606-1877 [The history of the USA 1606-1877]. Moscow, USSR: Nauka.

Sevostyanov, G.N., & Utkin, A.I. (1976). Thomas Jefferson. Moscow, USSR: Mysl’.

Shyriayev, B. (1981). Politicheskaya bor’ba v SShA v 1783-1801 gg. [The political struggle in the USA in 1783-1801]. Leningrad, USSR: Nauka.

Sogrin, V.V. (1976). Alexander Hamilton i obrazovaniye SShA [Alexander Hamilton and the emergence of the USA]. Novaya i noveyshaya istoriya, 1(1), 25-38.

Sogrin, V.V. (1980). Ideynyye techeniya v Amerikanskoy revolucii 18 veka [Ideological currents in the American Revolution of the 18th century]. Moscow, USSR: Nauka.

Sogrin, V.V. (1981). Ideologiya federalistskoy partii [The ideology of the Federalist party]. Amerikanskiy ezhegodnik, 12(2), 34-56.

Sogrin, V.V. (1983). Osnovateli SShA: Istoricheskiye portrety [The Founders of the USA: Historic portraits]. Moscow, USSR: Nauka.

Sogrin, V.V. (1995). Ideologiya v amerikanskoy istorii [Ideology in American history]. Moscow, Russia: Nauka.

Sogrin, V.V. (2001). Politicheskaya istoriya SShA 17-20 v. [The history of the USA 17th-20st century]. Moscow, Russia: Ves myr.

Sogrin, V.V. (2003). Istoriya SShA [The history of the USA]. Moscow, Russia: Piter.

Syrett, H.C. (1961). The papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 1, 1768–1778. New York City, NY: Columbia University Press.

Ushakov, V.A. (1983). America pri Washingtone [America under Washington]. Leningrad, USSR: Nauka.

Yakovlev, N.N. (1973). Washington. Moscow, USSR: Molodaya gvardia.

Yakovlev, N.N. (2009). O “1 avgusta 1914,” istoricheskoy nauke, Y.V. Andropove i drugikh [About “August 1, 1914,” historical science, Y. V. Andropov, and others]. Retrieved from http://delostalina.ru/?p=421

Yuzefovich, I.S. (1941). George Washington i voyna za nezavisimost’ Ameriki [George Washington and the war for the independence of America]. Moscow, USSR: Gosudarstvenno-pedagogichesloe izdatelstvo narkomprossa RSFSR.

Date: 2016-01-14; view: 693