#lucius sirgius catiline

[stcantarella]

[yr-obedt-cicero]

After Mr. Harrison had spoken, the question which I have before spoken of was brought forward to prevent the decision of which Mr. Hamilton, the American Cicero, arose.

Source — David Schuyler Bogart to Samuel Blachley Webb, [June 14, 1788]

It was during the state convention in Poughkeepsie that Hamilton took part in the campaign to ratify the United States Constitution in New York. He opposed conditional ratification, believing that New York would not enter the Union, while the Clinton faction, which wanted to amend the Constitution while retaining the states' secession rights, should their attempts fail.

But what I love most about this quote is the comparison to Marcus Tullius Cicero and Alexander Hamilton. Before I started studying Hamilton, I had a large interest in Roman history, especially Cicero. And it's undeniable that there are striking parallels between the two statesmen. Both Cicero and Hamilton were self-reliant figures in history, Novus homo. They were born in obscurity, under difficult means, but rose efficiently and quickly to respect through the ranks of military and civil service, resilient work, and their inception into law. Nonetheless, they were both forever burdened and never could completely suit themselves among the aristocrats of the upper-class. They even shared many characteristics; both of them were influential supporters of national constitutional power and were skilled - but also renowned to be digressive and garrulous - orators, and political philosophers. Additionally, both were incredibly stubborn, a common fault being that their refusal to yield their politics. Which would eventually lead to both their notable rise, as well as their ultimate downfall.

Hamilton often made classical references, that were even closely related to the Roman Senator. In 1794, Hamilton even wrote several essays for the American Daily Advertiser under the pseudonym, Tully. Which was an anglicized form of Marcus Tullius Cicero. [x] Additionally, he also referred to Burr as, Catiline. Which was not meant as a flattering compliment. Catiline was known for being involved in a plot to overthrow the Roman Republic. So, referring to Burr as “Catiline”, was implying that Burr was power-hungry and a threat to the new Republican US government. Hamilton wrote to Wolcott saying;

These things are to be inferred with moral certainty from the character of the man. Every step in his career proves that he has formed himself upon the model of Catiline, and he is too coldblo[o]ded and too determined a conspirator ever to change his plan.

Source — Alexander Hamilton to Oliver Wolcott Jr., [December 1800]

The two men clashed, as Catiline and Cicero were infamous rivals. Matters worsened after Cicero uncovered a conspiracy hatched by Catiline that would conduct the assassination of several elected officials and the burning of the city itself. The purpose of this attack on the city, at least as it turned out later, was to wipe out the debts of both the poor and the rich—including Catiline. Some believe the resulting disruption will force Catiline to assume the leadership role he so desperately wanted. Which parallels with Burr's failed election due to Hamilton endorsing Jefferson over him.