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

Wall Street Journal | February 4, 2004 | Cynthia Crossen

[HenryLeeII]

We Worship Jefferson, But We Have Become Hamilton's America

EVERYBODY WHO IS anybody was there -- at least among those 750 or so Americans who adore Alexander Hamilton. Representatives of the Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr factions also turned out in force.

Two hundred years ago this summer, Hamilton died from a single bullet fired by Burr, then America's vice president, in a duel in Weehawken, N.J. Hamilton's early death, at the age of 47, denied him the opportunity -- or aggravation -- of watching America become a Hamiltonian nation while worshipping the gospel according to Thomas Jefferson.

Now, some Hamiltonians have decided to try to elevate their candidate to the pantheon of great early Americans. Last weekend, scholars, descendents and admirers of Hamilton gathered at the New-York Historical Society in Manhattan to kick off their campaign and sing the praises of America's first treasury secretary, who created the blueprint for America's future as a mighty commercial, political and military power.

The conference was sponsored by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History.

But the overflow crowd also had to grapple with the unfortunate fact that many Americans have negative impressions of Alexander Hamilton. Perhaps Ezra Pound expressed their feelings most poetically when he described Hamilton as "the Prime snot in ALL American history."

YET, AS ONE HAMILTON acolyte, Edward Hochman, a Paterson, N.J., lawyer, asked the assembled experts: 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."

Even Hamilton's detractors, including members of the Aaron Burr Association, concede that he was a brilliant administrator, who understood financial systems better than anyone else in the country. He laid the groundwork for the nation's banks, commerce and manufacturing, and was rewarded by being pictured on the $10 bill. "We can pay off his debts in 15 years," Thomas Jefferson lamented, "but we can never get rid of his financial system."

Jefferson's vision of America was the opposite of Hamilton's. Jefferson saw America as a loose confederation of agricultural states, while Hamilton envisioned a strong federal government guiding a transition to an urban, industrial nation. He is often called the "father of American capitalism" and the "patron saint of Wall Street."

The Hamiltonians have much historical prejudice to overcome. The real Hamilton was a difficult man, to put it mildly. He was dictatorial, imperious and never understood when to keep his mouth shut. "He set his foot contemptuously to work the treadles of slower minds," wrote an American historian, James Schouler, in 1880.

In the turbulent years of America's political birth, naked ambition for power was considered unseemly, except in the military. After the war, Hamilton, a courageous and skillful soldier, grabbed power aggressively and ruthlessly, indifferent to the trail of enemies he left behind. As a political theorist, he was regarded as a plutocrat and monarchist, partly because he favored a presidency with a life term.

JOHN ADAMS, America's second president, dismissed Hamilton as "the bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar" and "the Creole" (Hamilton was born in the West Indies, and his parents never married). George Mason, the Virginia statesman, said Hamilton and his machinations did "us more injury than Great Britain and all her fleets and armies."

"Sure, he made mistakes," concedes Doug Hamilton, a Columbus, Ohio, salesman for IBM, who calculates he is Hamilton's fifth great-grandson. "He was only human. But family is family."

Hamilton had at least one, and probably several, adulterous affairs (Martha Washington named her randy tomcat "Hamilton"). He was also a social snob and dandy. Hamilton, wrote Frederick Scott Oliver in his 1920 biography, "despised . . . people like Jefferson, who dressed ostentatiously in homespun." He "belonged to an age of silk stockings and handsome shoe buckles."

Historians find Hamilton something of a cipher. He didn't have the opportunity, as Adams and Jefferson did in their long retirements, to "spin, if not outright alter, the public record," noted Stephen Knott, author of "Alexander Hamilton and the Persistence of Myth."

Joanne Freeman, Yale history professor and editor of a collection of Hamilton's writings, agreed that "there are huge voids in our knowledge of him." Consequently, his legacy has been claimed by various political interests. Among his illustrious admirers are George Washington, Jefferson Davis, Theodore Roosevelt, Warren Harding and the French statesman Talleyrand.

At the 1932 Democratic convention, however, Franklin Roosevelt blamed "disciples of Alexander Hamilton" for the Great Depression.

By the time of Hamilton's death, he had dropped out of public life and returned to his law practice. Even so, wrote Frederick Oliver, "the world mourned him with a fervor that is remarkable, considering the speed with which it proceeded to forget him."

[justshutupandtakeit]

I branded bootleggers criminals not farmers unless they took up arms and assaulted federal officials. Get your slanders straight.

Bootleggers were selling booze which was illegal without a license and were criminal just as crack sellers are criminals today. We don't get to pick and choose which laws are acceptable to us much as you and Mr. Galt might like to.

[petitfour]

Dr. McDonald's next book will be coming out in April/May, and it is a memoir. The book on confronting economic crises will be a while. He writes everything by hand on a yellow note pad. Then his wife types it. With an old IBM typewriter. Then they edit edit edit. It is a lengthy process for them, but it is well worth their effort. What makes Dr. McDonald so valuable is the careful thought that he puts into every word. That is why his books are readable and understandable to more than just pointy-headed intellectuals.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't see that is what he says at all.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Yet, the Founders explicitly rejected a prohibition on paper money within the Constitution.

Gold is a dead issue as far as money goes. It has rarely worked well for long and there is no doubt that it would ever do so again. Gold is just another pretty metal with no intrinsic worth. Why did its price collapse if it is so useful as money?

[Deliberator]

It's quite clear: "These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defense and `general welfare.' The terms `general welfare' were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the `general welfare' and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition. [...] It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the national legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper."

[Who is John Galt?]

Keep on with the distortions they really become you.

“Distortions?” Not at all:

1) have you informed these folks that you consider James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to have been "treasonous?"

”The silence which enveloped the treasonous [Kentucky & Virginia] Resolutions [authored by Thomas Jefferson & James Madison, respectively] after there cowardly anonymous proclamation amply shows the lack of agreement with their destructive tendency.”
167 posted on 02/05/2004 7:51:13 AM MST by justshutupandtakeit

2) that you consider Mr. Jefferson "scum?"

”[Hamilton] had no tendencies toward monarchism or aristocracy those were rank lies spread by the Jefferson/Callender/Bache/Beckley stream of protoRAT scum.”
112 posted on 01/25/2004 12:24:55 AM MST by justshutupandtakeit

3) and that you believe it would be 'constitutional' for a D@mocrat Congress to appoint Hillary Clinton 'Queen of the United States?'

”So, if the Democrats capture both houses of Congress, pass a law (by a veto-proof margin ;>) declaring Hillary ‘Queen for Life,’ and the high court refuses to consider the case, you would insist that the law (and the Clinton monarchy it established ;>) was constitutional?”
1,885 posted on 12/12/2003 3:21:21 PM MST by Who is John Galt?

”Until the Court has ruled on a law it is constitutional by default whether you or I like it or not.”
1,898 posted on 12/12/2003 11:23:53 PM MST by justshutupandtakeit

(Now it may be news to you, sport, but the United States Constitution makes no provision for the establishment of a Clinton monarchy – with or without ‘high court approval’... ;>)

The way you shoot off your mouth, you really should be prepared to deal with the consequences...

;>)

[justshutupandtakeit]

Lol but I think he was Irish. His brother was named Hugh.

Hercules stayed in NYC during the War and was a spy providing valuable info to Washington.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I do believe the Resolutions were directed against the constitution and tended to disrupt the Union. And I believe the actions of J while Washington's SecState to have been little short of treasonous.

And the actions of Jefferson/Beckley/Callender/Bache against the Washington administration were the actions of scum. Freneau too. If you lie down with dogs don't be surprised when someone points to your fleas.

Only the Supreme Court can declare something unconstitutional not justshutupandtakeit nor Who is John Galt. Like it or not.

Do you have anything to add to this discussion or are you just limiting yourself to violating the forum rules?

I am always ready to deal with consequences of my actions though I do prefer dealing with honest men.

[SkyRat]

Gold is a dead issue as far as money goes. It has rarely worked well for long and there is no doubt that it would ever do so again.

Can't you say the same about paper money? Hasn't every attempt to use paper money eventually ended in an inflation? I'm not against a paper based money per se. But it should be backed by something, gold, land, whatever. And the amount banks can fractionate their savings should be restricted. I also don't like the idea of a central bank. What's wrong with competition between banks?

That's just my understanding of the issue. I have never been good at economic theory. So, what do you say?

[Publius]

I think the Jeffersonian republic we began to lose around 1900 was a much better system than the one we find ourselves in now.

We lost it quite a bit before then.

Several years ago I read an essay stating that we really weren’t all that different from the French because we had experienced 4 republics. This was a bit different from Yale historian Bruce Ackerman’s 3 republics based on constitutional interpretation, and different again from Jude Wanniski’s 4 republics. (I’m still trying to find that essay.) I’ll try to sum the essay quickly and forego my usual pedantic writing style.

The First Republic functioned under the Articles of Confederation but failed after only a decade, killed off by trade wars between the states. There was no common currency. Things fell apart.

The Second Republic was founded by Hamilton and Madison and functioned under the Constitution. During the ratification debates, anti-Federalists (adherents of the First Republic) saw the Constitutional Convention as treason and a betrayal of 1776. Read the “Anti-Federalist Papers” to get the gist of the argument.

The Federalist impulses of Washington and Hamilton were derailed by Jackson who went to a full states’ right regimen. Jackson’s impact was so great that to restore Hamiltonian governance required cracking the Union and fighting a war. Things fell apart.

The Third Republic was founded by Lincoln and functioned under a greatly amended version of the Constitution. It was a purely Hamiltonian construct, created when Lincoln refused the states what they felt was the ultimate state’s right: To leave peacefully. Big Business ran the country.

During the Second Republic, the Jeffersonian impulse was exercised via states’ rights and a weak federal government, but the Civil War and the amended Constitution had killed that off. As a result, during the Third Republic the Jeffersonian impulse (via the Progressive Movement) favored Big Government protecting the people from Big Business, i.e. Jeffersonian ends achieved through Hamiltonian means. Theodore Roosevelt made the first strides in this direction. Today we call it “compassionate conservatism.”

A business panic related to easy credit from the Federal Reserve led to a depression blamed on Big Business. Things fell apart.

The Fourth Republic was created by Franklin Roosevelt and functioned under Executive Orders. The Constitution meant what hired judges said it meant, and Earl Warren had as much power as the president. This republic was not so much Democratic Socialism as Government Capitalism with a large bureaucracy running the country and the people insulated from ruling themselves. Presidents and Congresses came and went, but the courts and bureaucracy continued on.

Technically speaking, the Jeffersonian republic ended when Lincoln decided to go Hamiltonian and won the argument in 1865. FDR created a semi-socialist version of the Jeffersonian republic, but it’s getting to expensive to maintain. Eventually things will fall apart – but when?

[american spirit]

Believe what you wish but I'll take my chances on something that has been a medium of exchange since biblical times and it's pretty obvious that inflation and the debt at the fedgov, corporate and personal levels is off the charts since we were taken off the gold standard. Also, we'll probably see in the not too distant future which has more value....gold or the federal reserve NOTE....when the various currencies in this hemisphere are harmonized under coming American Union.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hamilton's contention is indisputable and linked to his conception of the powers of sovereignty itself. No nation nor government will allow itself to face destruction if faced with such because there is a claim by some that its constitution would not allow action. The founders believed that there were implicit powers and there was little doubt about that, even Jefferson during the 1780s admitted as much.

A constitution is a fundamental law but the Nation is from a higher source since it creates that law. No constitution can restrict the government it creates to doing less than providing for the general welfare. That is what governments are created for in the first place.

Modern construction would have had "...throughout the United States:..." rather than "...;" had the list following meant that only the points enumerated were what was considered the "general welfare" Punctuation may have been different during those days but I have seen no convincing arguments that that was the case.

[american spirit]

That's pretty fascinating info and when you mentioned Lincoln working under an "amended" version of the Constitution, wasn't that due to the fact that essentially Congress was in effect told to go home "sine die" which I think means "without the day" and was never properly adjourned. At this time, didn't Lincoln exert some sort of executive privilege and thus became the first President to bypass the Constitution and issue "executive orders" because of the turmoil between the states that lead to the CW?

[nopardons]

Gold is just something, whose value fluctuates and has been used as currency, here and there. Some nations have based their monetary systems on salt; yes, SALT! For millennia, salt was more precious than gold.

You can call our money " fiat ", till the cows come home and pine for the days when gold and silver was used, but what you ignore, is that metal coinage has been debased and tampered with, from ancient Roman times on ward.

Do you know WHY the slang term " two bits " came about ? It's because gold doubloons were hacked at, and " two bits " of it, were used, when a smaller price/coinage was needed. They didn't use scale, it wasn't accurate at all, and so much for your idea that gold or silver is better than paper money.

Crooks used to " shave " the edges of coins. Coins are farm easier to damage than paper money.

Money, whatever form it take, from gold to silver, to salt, to pepper, to cowrie shells, to beads, is only worth what others agree it is!

[american spirit]

That's pretty fascinating info and when you mentioned Lincoln working under an "amended" version of the Constitution, wasn't that due to the fact that essentially Congress was in effect told to go home "sine die" which I think means "without the day" and was never properly adjourned. At this time, didn't Lincoln exert some sort of executive privilege and thus became the first President to bypass the Constitution and issue "executive orders" because of the turmoil between the states that lead to the CW?

[Publius]

It was Lincoln's successors who ruled under a version of the Constitution heavily amended by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, but the 14th was the key. I wasn't actually referring to Lincoln in that sentence.

Remember, I'm only summarizing an essay I read that I can't find anymore.

[american spirit]

You've hardly covered any new ground here but more than anything else you can think of, gold has endured longer with more widespread acceptance than anything else out there...whether it's beads, pepper or FRN's. The point is we had a much more stable inflation rate and debt levels before being taken off the gold standard.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Actually we have moved beyond paper money and are now in the realm of electronic money. Far more of our transactions today are handled through that realm and the use of checks.
This will only increase in the future.

Review American banking history between 1812 and 1850 and you will get a good idea of what is wrong with banking without a central bank. It is not a matter of competitition since that is not incompatible with central banking. Why do you believe every country has such an institution? In actual fact there is LESS inflation when there are strong central banks. Germany had little inflation after 1922 because its authorities did not allow it. Nor does a gold standard prevent inflation as examination of European monetary history after the gold from the New World was introduced into its financial system shows. Spain ruined itself through such importation.

Banks are restricted by the reserve ratio in the amount of money they can create.

Deflation is as destructive as inflation as the 1930s showed and a gold standard is inherently deflationary since its supplies cannot expand sufficiently to meet the need for money. This is why there was a persistent clamour throughout our history to establish a new monetary standard.

[Who is John Galt?]

I do believe...

Sorry, but I’m interested in documented, historical facts – not your ignorant ‘beliefs’...

And the actions of Jefferson/Beckley/Callender/Bache against the Washington administration were the actions of scum.

Congratulations! You ‘believe’ that the author of the Declaration of Independence was “scum.” How nice! (And thanks for proving my point... ;>)

Only the Supreme Court can declare something unconstitutional not justshutupandtakeit nor Who is John Galt. Like it or not.

Sorry, sport, but by your standard, a D@mocrat Congress could pass a law requiring the execution of every Republican in the country, and you would claim it was “constitutional by default.” No offense intended, but you’re a complete idiot...

Do you have anything to add to this discussion or are you just limiting yourself to violating the forum rules?

Ouch! Which rule do you believe I violated? The ‘mysterious & invisible rule against quoting posts?’ (I can provide links if you need them - or is that 'against the rules,' too? ;>)

I am always ready to deal with consequences of my actions though I do prefer dealing with honest men.

ROTFLMAO! Actually, it would appear that you prefer "dealing with" anyone you can intimidate with your ignorant, obnoxious bluster.

Better luck next time...

;>)

[american spirit]

Had you heard of the "sine die" issue and Lincoln's EO's? It's not info that's easily found...requires a lot of digging. Also, what's your take on the 14th Amendment...lots of discussion out there that it helped to undermine our citizenship rights.