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."

[lentulusgracchus]

Yeah, poor grandma got screwed on 13% bonds. ;^)

They weren't 13%'ers........Savings Bonds issued in the 50's typically paid 4% or so. I don't remember what War Bonds paid. Suffice it to say that the principal, from 1942 to 1982, was savaged.

There were significant bouts of inflation in 1946, 1969-73, and 1977-83. Inflation was about tenfold over the 40 years, twentyfold since the beginning of the century. There were also dollops of inflation early in the century, when the dollar was adjusted from $16 to $20/oz, in 1933 when FDR debased it, and in 1940-41 when the economy began to heat up due to war-preparation spending.

Others more knowledgable might add to that sorry tale.

[lentulusgracchus]

Jefferson is filled with contradictions. My high regard for him has declined ....perhaps the most overrated president we have ever had. He should have stuck to cabinet making. [emphasis added]

If Jefferson had stuck to cabinet making, boyo, you'd be sticking to scrubbing the floors -- and with a British boot up your @rse.

Ingrate.

[GigaDittos]

Are you sure? I always thought John Wayne tamed the West.

[GigaDittos]

I agree, the comment about Jefferson is completely unfounded.

[Deliberator]

Hamilton's contention is indisputable

I disputed it back in post #122, and you had no response: "That this phrase was a broad grant of power in an otherwise restrictive clause, and in a section listing numerous specific powers that certainly fall within 'general welfare' and are thus redundant under Hamilton's reading, is simply ludicrous."

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

red herring. That a nation has an implicit power to prevent its destruction in no way supports a broad reading of explicit text.

No constitution can restrict the government it creates to doing less than providing for the general welfare.

Of course it can.

That is what governments are created for in the first place.

False. Our federal government was created to do only those things the signatory states could not do on their own---but providing for the general welfare is well within each state's abilities.

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"

It's clear to my that my content-based argument from post #122 trumps your punctuation-based argument.

[Ditto]

Nice logical argument there, bub. You sure convinced me. < /sarcasm >

[justshutupandtakeit]

A bunch of excellent points.

IMO there was no new republic created after 1860 rather the contradictions within the Constitution were removed on the battlefield: would there be two nations-one free, one in chains; would the nation be industrial and more centralized, one agricultural and de-centralized? The Union's victory removed the necessity to compromise freedom and the willingness to kowtow to those who profited by REAL tyranny.

Those who attempted the destruction of the Union through the DemocRAT Rebellion were the heirs, intellectually and economically of those who were most opposed to the Constitution's ratification and to only a lesser degree of Jefferson. While he would spew incendiary rhetoric he was shrewd enough not to take it too seriously and provoke unwanted difficulties. His intellectual descendents were not.

Hamilton accurately summed up Jefferson as a "temporizer." The thing that bothers me most about him is the willingness to indulge in the politics of personal destruction so happily used by newsmen and operatives such as Callender/Bache/Beckley/Freneau who had no regard for the truth. It cost him his friendship with Washington.

[sheltonmac]

...I imagine Hamilton would be quite pleased with what his vision, and those that so willingly followed it (Clay and the other guy), brought upon the citizens of the respective states.

I like to think that even Hamilton would blush if he could see the current condition of these United States.

[tpaine]

Replies
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1071513/replies?comment=219

Notice that most everyone on the tread has responded to the rationality of Billbears post, cept for justi..

Typical.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Actually the Congress is still supreme over the Court through the "Exceptions Clause," Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2, but it is too cowardly to use it.

I have no clue what you mean by "consenting legislative degrees" but there is nothing in the Constitution which gives the states any ability to pass laws counter to federal law.

Supplies of gold simply cannot grow fast enough to provide sufficient liquidity to allow the economy to have a sufficiently high growth rate to be acceptable to the modern electorate. Over the last 500 yrs (including the massive, one-time, never to be repeated influx from the New World) at barely over 1%. This would mean falling prices and permanent recession with high unemployment. No modern government will accept that condition.

Fiat is not the proper description for currency since it means "let it be." Faith is the significant aspect of currency. For example, Hamilton's debt funding scheme made it as good as gold not because he said "let it be" but because pledging the word of the US government (people) that it would redeem its pledge. This created faith in the debt/currency and thereby value the equivalent of gold.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Half of your responses are not germaine to what I wrote. I'll try again and give you some more comments to distort and misunderstand.

Those who took up arms and assault federal officials are criminals, bootleggers are criminals. Nothing was said about farmers (the bootleggers were 100+ yrs later) who did not fall into either of the above catagories. I defended nothing, romantically or otherwise, merely stated a fact. I didn't write the laws that make them criminal and may not even believe them to be right but that is not the issue.

In the eyes of the law they were criminals particularly since they feloniously assaulted individuals who were merely carrying out duly legislated laws. YOU might think, for some odd reason, that attacking someone performing their job is appropriate but I don't.

Do you side with the drug-runners who have shootouts with the police, too?

YOU are not We the People as much as you might think so.

When you slander Hamilton you are slandering Washington as well.

[Deliberator]

Hamilton's contention is indisputable

I disputed it back in post #122

And, as I've pointed out, so did Madison in Federalist #41.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Our word for salary comes from the use of salt as money.

My favorite money though is the big stone disks of Yap. No worries about scoundrels absconding with your money there.

Those who bought gold at $800 in 1980 have had 20+ yrs of declining value. It will have to go up over 100% from here just to break even. What a great store of value and investment, eh?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Rather than some "researchers" I think you might mean "some quacks on the fringe believe...."

We have been federal citizens since the Constitution was ratified. It was designed to operate upon individuals not merely states. One does not become a citizen of a state unless one is an American. Citizenship is granted immigrants ONLY by the federal government not states.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Anti-Hamiltonians keep mistaking description for prescription. Hamilton's speech at the convention was NOT a "plan" he described it as a "sketch of a plan" and its intent was to stake out ground to the right of either the Virginia plan and the NJ plan. This made it appear to be a compromise when the delegates voted for the Virginia plan.

He, like many there, were brainstorming and ideas expressed were not necessarily proposed. Hamilton and Washington were also meeting out of doors to devise strategy and their strategy was to have him take time away from those wishing to discuss the NJ plan, that was why he took the entire last day before the vote between VA/NJ plans. Why do you think Washington let him do that?

Much like any good negoitator would have done H made proposals more extreme than could be accepted knowing that by doing so he could move the convention towards the Va plan which was acceptable (if not enthusiastically so) to him.

In addition some of the ideas that he had seriously entertained were changed in the course of discussion with the other delegates. Madison made similiarly radical proposals which he modified through discussion.

The clearest proof that this was not a "plan" or even serious proposal was the FACT that no vote was taken on it. Even so many of his proposals were incorporated into the actual final document.

[tpaine]

----- "Residents of Appalachia don't just distrust the fedgov they distrust all outsiders and all governments. Criminals, by nature, hate all authority. And that is what bootleggers were romantic as you might like to consider them." 152 posted on 02/05/2004 12:48:11 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit

----- Justi boyo, that takes todays cake for biizarro reasoning..
The feds created a 'crime'; -- of making untaxed booze.. -- And you come rushing romantically in, defending the cause of what you see as 'justice'..
- When all rational folk see an unconstitutional taxation scheme which was a bald infringement of personal liberty.
-208-

Those who took up arms and assault federal officials are criminals, bootleggers are criminals. Nothing was said about farmers

You made your remarks above in refering to the Whiskey rebellion.

(the bootleggers were 100+ yrs later) who did not fall into either of the above catagories. I defended nothing, romantically or otherwise, merely stated a fact. I didn't write the laws that make them criminal and may not even believe them to be right but that is not the issue.

The old 'we MUST obey' defense. Do you never get tired of using these pitiful excuses?

In the eyes of the law they were criminals particularly since they feloniously assaulted individuals who were merely carrying out duly legislated laws.

Umconstitutional laws, 'legislated' without due process.. And being enforced by agents violating sworn oaths to uphold those principles of liberty.

YOU might think, for some odd reason, that attacking someone performing their job is appropriate but I don't.

The agents are fully aware of the simple principles of our constitution. They ignore them at their peril..

Do you side with the drug-runners who have shootouts with the police, too? YOU are not We the People as much as you might think so.

I'm proudly aware of being in the minority on this issue.

When you slander Hamilton you are slandering Washington as well.

Keep up your silly hyping my boyo. Laughter is good..

[justshutupandtakeit]

Price stability means that the money supply grows at the same rate as production. So if you want zero inflation and the economy grows at 3% (which is about the long-term average) then the money supply must grow at 3% as well. Gold supplies have increased at the average of 1.15%/yr over the last 500 yrs.

Thus, the price level must fall. This all comes out of the Fischer equation, PxQ=MxV where P is price, Q is quantity, M is money supply and V is velocity of circulation. I am assuming V equals one but other analyses can change that assumption.

At any rate the low growth rate of gold supplies is the source of the persistent demand for more liquidity which dominated American politics for a century. During most of the 19th century prices fell with resulting hardship for farmers in debt who had to repay in ever more expensive money. It was a crushing burden from which many could not escape.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Please keep your homo-erotic fantasies out of it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Sorry to puncture such a nice delusion but while Hamilton, Washington and other TRUE fighters for our freedom were freezing at Valley Forge, Jefferson was living large (as he always did.) His contributions to our freedom were largely with his pen which always wrote a check his ass (or heart) couldn't cash.

His actual physical contact with British fighting forces was limited to fleeing from them and screwing up the Virginia militia so much that he was almost impeached as governor of Virginia.

I am just as grateful to Jefferson as I should be. He was our greatest rhetoritician and little else.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is nothing redundent about a list of specific concerns. Some are more important than others and some are left for Congress to argue about.

States cannot provide for the general welfare of the nation only a national government can do so.

Actually I am not arguing anything wrt the punctuation question. That was an attempt to help me understand if my grammatical analysis was correct or if you read it another way. It has been decades since any proper study of grammar by me so I was asking a question rather than making an explicit argument.