We Worship Jefferson, But We Have Become Hamilton's America [Wall Street Journal article]

Wall Street Journal | February 4, 2004 | Cynthia Crossen

[HenryLeeII]

Comments? Thoughts?

[HenryLeeII]

Founding Fathers bump!

[CobaltBlue]

The more I learn about Hamilton's tenure as Treasurer, the more I like him.

He will be hated and despised forever by those who dislike central banks, but I think our experience with the Federal Reserve system has proved them wrong.

This is, of course, controversial, but I happen to agree with McCain's sentiment that if Greenspan died, he'd still appoint him Fed chairman, a la "Weekend At Bernies."

Hamilton also advocated fractional reserve banking.

Economically, the opposite of Hamilton's ideas is Jackson, who shut down the second Bank of the United States. Jackson was a hard money man.

[Alberta's Child]

If Hamilton's vision of America "won" in the long run, "why do we love Jefferson?" . . . "Because," historian John Steele Gordon responded dryly, "most intellectuals love Jefferson and hate markets, and it's mostly intellectuals who write books."

There's more to it than just this. Most conservatives "love Jefferson" because it has become apparent that the America that Hamilton envisioned turned out to be thoroughly inconsistent with the ideals laid out in the U.S. Constitution. The concepts of "freedom" and "liberty" get very blurred once you have an urbanized industrial society in which people live in close proximity to each other and are practically forced to interact with each other on a daily basis.

[Deliberator]

The concepts of "freedom" and "liberty" get very blurred once you have an urbanized industrial society in which people live in close proximity to each other and are practically forced to interact with each other on a daily basis.

I don't think they become "blurred"---I think they just require a greater commitment to minding one's own business.

[Question_Assumptions]

He was dictatorial, imperious and never understood when to keep his mouth shut.

Well, you could say that, since he died in a duel because he didn't know when to keep is mouth shut.

[HenryLeeII]

In many ways Jefferson has become an ideal more than a blueprint, whereas Hamilton was strictly nuts-and-bolts practicality (whether you agree with his ends and means), which may help explain George Washington's favoring of him (along with Hamilton's wartime experience and Jefferson's lack thereof).

[cajungirl]

I loved Washington, Adams and yes, Hamilton. Jefferson was, well, Jefferson. He wanted Utopia and I think it is a good thing he didn't get what he wanted. The more I read of the federalists, the more I think I am one. I think Jefferson was naive. His plan to start over every generation and redo everything was whacky if you ask me. And for a person who didn't think the government or law should do most things, that the law should reside within ourselves, he didn't have much self control about debt. A smart man but not as able as the federalists if you ask me. I think Washington favored the federalists for good reason.

[Ohioan]

While I disagree with Hamilton's stronger tilt towards the Federal Government than many of his contemporaries, the essays that he wrote among those in the Federalist Papers are not that markedly different in thrust from those of James Madison.

It is a slander of Hamilton, to suggest that he would ever have endorsed the compulsively egalitarian bent in Washington today. That was not the type of strong Federal Government, that he advocated.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Scenic Sounds]

During George Washington's presidency, there arose the issue concerning the constitutionality of creating a national bank. Those opposed pointed out that the Constitution didn't provide any specific express authorization for the Federal government to create a national bank. Those in favor argued that, while there was no specific grant of express authority for a bank in the Constitution, there existed implied authority in the Constitution's "necessary and proper" clause.

Treasury Secretary Hamilton and Secretary of State Jefferson provided President Washington with the opposing arguments concerning the correct way to interpret the "necessary and proper" clause:

Hamilton’s argument

Jefferson’s argument

As can be seen, Jefferson argued that if the "necessary and proper" clause were to be construed in the liberal manner that Hamilton argued, there would be no real limit to the scope of the Federal government.

Washington sided with Hamilton's expansive view of Federal power and the Federal government was off to the races.

[Alberta's Child]

I think they do become blurred. If you and I live next door to each other, almost anything I do on my property can have some kind of impact on you (particularly with regard to things like water and air quality). Should I be permitted to play my stereo all night if it keeps you awake? Conversely, should you be able to force me never to play my stereo at all?

A real dilemma in this regard: If you live next door to me, should I be permitted to bring down the law against you if your refuse to have your children inoculated against lethal infectious diseases?

[Alberta's Child]

I think one of the fascinating points of American history is that Hamilton was from New York -- one of the places which the British maintained as their own throughout the American revolution (in fact, Washington's army pretty much gave up on the idea that they could ever oust the British from New York).

[Alberta's Child]

Washington sided with Hamilton's expansive view of Federal power and the Federal government was off to the races.

I agree with you. In fact, I would make the case that this nation as envisioned in the U.S. Constitution pretty much came to an end with the events that culminated with the Whiskey Rebellion in the early 1790s. It's pretty weird when you think about it -- this novel idea called "the United States of America" really only lasted about five years.

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

Comments? Thoughts?

We are not a Hamiltonian nation so much as our federal government is precisely the tyranny that Hamilton predicted it would be when he opposed the Bill of Rights.

Hamilton [alone, as far as I know, among the founders] understood that any explicit list of rights granted to citizens would quickly degenerate from a minimal list of their rights [the rights they possess at a bare minimum] to a maximal list of their rights [beyond which they possess no further rights].

So, for instance, when the slave states sought to exercise their clear and unequivocal tenth amendment right to secede from the union, the anti-constitutionalists [led by Lincoln] were able to argue that no such right existed in the constitution precisely because no such right had been explicitly listed among the rights possessed by the states and the people.

[Deliberator]

If you and I live next door to each other, almost anything I do on my property can have some kind of impact on you

"Freedom" and "liberty" are not properly understood as shields against any kind of impact.

(particularly with regard to things like water and air quality). Should I be permitted to play my stereo all night if it keeps you awake?

Introducing water, air, or noise pollution onto my property is a violation of my rights. While you would certainly have more elbow room to produce such pollutions and easily keep them on your own property if you lived in an agrarian society, lack of such elbow room does not blur the essential concepts of "freedom" and "liberty."

A real dilemma in this regard: If you live next door to me, should I be permitted to bring down the law against you if your refuse to have your children inoculated against lethal infectious diseases?

If inoculations are available and you have been inoculated, why would you care whether my kids have been?

[Deliberator]

Hamilton [alone, as far as I know, among the founders] understood that any explicit list of rights granted to citizens would quickly degenerate from a minimal list of their rights [the rights they possess at a bare minimum] to a maximal list of their rights [beyond which they possess no further rights].

I thought this point had been most forcefully advanced by Madison.

[Scenic Sounds]

It's pretty weird when you think about it -- this novel idea called "the United States of America" really only lasted about five years.

That's one way of looking at it, if you agree with Jefferson's interpretation of the Constitution. Of course, Washington and Hamilton (and a lot of other folks) didn't agree.

It's interesting, though, how many people think that this liberal view of Federal power under our Constitution all began with Lyndon Johnson, or FDR, or Wilson, or Teddy Roosevelt, or Lincoln when, in fact, it was President Washington and Alexander Hamilton who consciously (particularly in view of Jefferson's comments) decided in favor of the broad implied Federal powers that now concern many conservatives.

[Texas Federalist]

bump for later

[what's up]

Why can't freedom exist in an industrialized society?

It was the agrarian society in which slavery thrived in the South, don't forget.

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

I thought this point had been most forcefully advanced by Madison.

Hamilton held that the Constitution gave the Federal government only the power to provide for the common defense and encourage national greatness. It did not have the power to infringe upon citizens’ rights. Therefore, he objected to attaching a bill of rights to the Constitution. “[T]he Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a Bill of Rights,” Hamilton wrote in Federalist 84. “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” asked Hamilton. “Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” He also argued that the Constitution already protected trial by jury in criminal cases and provided for habeas corpus “in the most ample manner.”

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/article.php?sid=263

More here:

http://www.google.com/search?q=hamilton+bill+of+rights&safe=off

Hamilton could not possibly have been more correct in his predictions in this regard; in that sense, [history has proven that] he obliterated his opponents in this debate.

Our current condition of serfdom to the federal tyranny owes much to the fact that he did not prevail in this matter.