Posted on 02/04/2004 12:00:19 PM PST by 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."
First off, in the Constitution, the Courts are NOT given that mandate. The scope of judicial power is specified:
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.In the Constitution, itself, no one is named as the final arbitrator of Constitutionality. Why? because like the rest of the balance of powers innoculative princible, so too was the right and duty to interpret Constitutionality. As Jackson said -- "bring their army!" (Paraphrased.)
The maxim that the US Supreme Court is the master of the Constitution is, in a way, challenged by that exceptions clause you mention. In that it almost appears -- a suggestion -- that it is Congress who is supreme. Yet even that is not so, for the very first words are "We, the People" -- the People are in the first by initial charter, and in the last by the continuation of their sufferance for it, or parts of it -- the bottom line masters of the Constitution.
And we have the States and the Executive also, as claimants to that authority at the same masterly tier -- so they are! The Civil War showed both in their Master's Robe. Where were the Court's armies? None! The Court survived because the Executive, as Commander-in-Chief, and its forces bested some of the States in vicious, long combat. At any time -- as the length and blood of that War makes clear -- it could have gone for the States. The point being made resoundingly. The National Executive and the States are both at equal level in determining Constitutionality.
Today in our silly and amoral times, the Court is ascendant, by the insane actions and inactions of the Natonal Legislature and the States and the go-along-ism of the Executive. The People -- they are coddled, sheeple, shy. But in a few weeks -- that's all it would take -- they could rise up like lions asserting every masterly perogative like a Tidal Wave asserts its perogative over a city by the sea.
Such few weeks would be tumultuous -- full of terror and horror and calamity to cause the People to so rise up. Would that they be able to rise up sans the physical and emotional terrors and rather on the basis of refined spirituality, morality and intellect.
They would form a Convention -- by the Constitution or without it -- and either take it back into the Founder's ideals for it, or cast a new one.
We have seen when the State legislatures pass consenting proclamations -- that is how we have modified the Constitution to date. We have not yet experienced a Constitutional Convention besides the first, that of the initial charter. Yet without such a national meeting we will fall into tyranny, decay, and death as a nation.
"Those who took part in the Whiskey Rebellion were the most ignorant and uncivilized elements of our society."
--justshutupandtakeit"[followers of the Christian Right] are largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command."
--Washington Post reporter Michael Weisskopf
As I have already pointed out, Madison's Federalist #41 disagrees. And so does simple grammar: The clauses of Article I Section 8 are parallel in construction, whereas if the succeeding clauses were simply examples of the first the construction would not be parallel.
To me, a "gold standard" is one in which prices for commodities, products, and services are based not on an arbitrary (so to speak) dollar value, but on their value relative to the value of a valuable commodity.
Let's use gold and oil as an example. If you look at the price of oil in U.S. dollars from 1960 through the early 1970s, you'll see that for the most part it was relatively stable at around $3 per barrel. In 1973, the nation's economy was thrown into chaos when it rose to $10 per barrel -- more than a three-fold increase. But that wasn't really an accurate portrayal of what exactly happened in 1973.
Between 1960 and 1973, the price of gold rose from $35 per ounce to $97 per ounce -- nearly a three-fold increase itself. If you measure the price of oil relative to the price of gold from 1960 to 1973, you'll find that the price of oil rose from 0.0857 ounces of gold to 0.1031 ounces. This represented a 20% increase in the price of oil as measured in gold -- a substantial increase to be sure, but not nearly as dramatic as a three-fold increase. (Note: This is why the 1973 "oil crisis" was not a commodity issue at all -- it was a currency crisis. All that talk about an "Arab oil embargo" in 1973 is nothing more than misleading nonsense.)
I just checked the price of light crude oil today, and it has been hovering around the $33/barrel mark for most of the morning. "Good heavens!," you might say -- "That's a 1000% increase over the 1960 price of oil!" But when you measure the price of oil relative to the price of gold (around $400/ounce this morning), you'll see that oil is actually trading at 0.0825 ounces of gold -- which means it is about 4% cheaper today than it was in 1960.
----- 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..
Bootleggers entered the discussion from Alberta's Child who was talking about Junior Johnson and Tom Wolfe's essay about him and them. Keep up.
Keep spinning your silly excuses.. Please.
What baloney. Felonious assaults against federal officers may be acceptable in the ghettos but not among decent folks.
'Decent folk' uphold our constitution. Far to many feds violate it.
The agents are well aware that Congress passed laws and that their role is to implement them.
No one forces agents into their 'roles'.. And justi does not get to decide which laws are constitutional and which are not, boo hoo.
So you do support the drug gangs which attack law enforcement officers?
No... I support ending the 'war' that supports the gangs.
You have some evidence that attacks on Hamilton were not attacks upon his friend/boss/mentor/aegis? Please lets hear it.
Evidence to prove your demented negative? How dumb, - none can exist.
Unfortunately the Executive has access to a large standing army that would follow its orders without question. It has access to nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry. It can take over the broadcast media at the flick of a switch, place soporific and hallucinogenic drugs in the water supply of a rebellious area and turn off its power.
Such few weeks would be tumultuous -- full of terror and horror and calamity to cause the People to so rise up.
And the Executive would put it down in the name of the People, as it did in Waco, with the Establishment Media cheering every bombing run.
Back in 1999 I wrote a cautionary satirical tale about the chaos that would result upon President Hillary Rodham’s move against the last vestiges of the Constitution. It was Transcript of ABC’s “This Week” for February 4, 2007. Most of it out of date, but it will give you an idea of how it would happen.
We have not yet experienced a Constitutional Convention besides the first, that of the initial charter.
Check out ”A Convention for Proposing Amendments…as Part of This Constitution”.
So you are saying that the 18th Amendment in itself wasn't the agon in which the Hamiltonian statists prevailed over the idea of liberty, but should be considered a miner's canary that Jeffersonian values had been eclipsed, because Prohibition was something that would never have transpired at all in a Jeffersonian republic because it was ideologically alien and perverse to his principles.
It's an interesting argument, and it invites us to look for the root of the problem in the rise of progressivism (Sinclair Lewis, one of the progressive writers, really despised middle-class Americans he knew for the most part, as I noted above, out of personal frustration). Progressivism's rise, in turn was rooted in capitalism's failure to resist monopolists like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and J. Pierpont Morgan, all of whom were economic tyrants who ventilated tyrannical sentiments which they embodied in their employment and business practices. It was the supposedly benevolent Carnegie who turned Henry Clay Frick loose on his steelworkers.
The old-line Mexican has learned to keep his head down while carrying on acts of insurrection. Effective acts.
That is not our national character, however. What I am saying -- suggesting it becomes every day a closer and closer possibly is something diferent. Not the old war vets marches -- with arms -- on Washington, nor the civil rights acts.
Something much more like the grand Temperance movement in mass effect, but much quicker -- like that one Convention (which I did forget) which ratified the repeal. Abut, join, those two types of forces together and speed them up. And not with guns at the fore -- with widespread, broad, yet synchronous moral massed-impulse.
I hold not hope for the Beltway to have any sense of it, they will scoff and naysay before the Distirct is overwhelmed. They are too desensitized in indulgency to see what comes.
I see you've promoted him. Oh, and that's "rhetorician".
But you still aren't anywhere near as grateful as you ought to be, and your posting style shows that you admire Hamilton precisely because he held the rest of the human race in contempt, as your honorific account of his misleading, cheating, and treating dishonestly with the convention delegates who wanted to discuss the New Jersey plan shows.
Get it through your head: People who deal dishonestly with other people are not honest people, and they are not honorable. You keep talking about Washington's admiration of Hamilton: that was a fault in Washington, no doubt cultivated by devil Hamilton as assiduously as he cultivated weaknesses in others, his own purposes to achieve. You insist on honoring a brilliant but dishonest man -- the worm in the American apple whose prescriptions have brought us statism and governmental giantism. That says something about you that I wouldn't want whispered about me in a locked closet.
Not that your posting style is germane; but in your own arrogance, you've disclosed to everyone the essential reason why Hamilton's works should be treated as radioactive. That you should do so, confident that the point would be seen as a positive for Hamilton, doesn't detract from the basic point, which is that your argument condemns him just as thoroughly.
And that, in the end, is why Hamilton has never received full recognition as a founding father of America: he didn't deserve it, and his contemporaries knew he didn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.