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."
Yes, ideas lead civilizations, but without the backing of the gun, they remain just that, ideas. Idealism surely led many colonists to put down the plow and pick up the gun, drawn to the ideals of the Revolution, but that zeal alone would not hold them together. The colonies were blessed with a gathering of intellectuals unique in the history of world affairs, who led us with ideas, but ideas alone would not defeat the most powerful military in the world.
The Continental Congress could pass all the resolutions it wanted, call up all the volunteers it wanted, and appoint whoever they wanted as commander in chief. However, without a galvanizing, respected, temperate, visionary leader, the volunteer armies would have faded away in that cold dark December so long ago. Washington was by far the most respected man of his time, and was the focus of most attention and respect among the colonists. Without his example, the Revolution would likely have fizzled out before long. Who among the pantheon of the great American leaders could have done what he did, keeping in mind his unique combination of intellect, reasoning, vision, experience, boldness, and the ability to galvanize disparate factions?
When discussing the Congress, let's not forget the ineptness and outright corruption of some of its members, which led to unqualified men being named to command positions, and either no supplies or shoddy supplies being obtained for the troops. France did not get involved until our armies proved themselves in the field, which in large measure can be credited to the Master of Mount Vernon. Without the success of the army, sometimes with the help of and sometimes in spite of the Continental Congress, the Revolution would be a footnote in British history and the Declaration of Independence would have been merely evidence displayed before some hangings.
Ne'er the less it is still implicit.
False. Powers that derive from explicit text are NOT implicit.
J's argument that it falls under the necessary and proper clause contradicts his argument against the National Bank as well.
I don't think that's true---but even if so it's irrelevant to my argument.
As an admirer of Washington, I have to say that Flexner's "The Indispensable Man" is the most inclusive, balanced, and accurate single-volume history of the greatest American. Its not an uncritical gloss-over, either, it presents what few warts there were and all else.
Ditto that Henry. It gave me a remarkable insight into the most remarkable man in our history as well as a feel for the character of the men around him.
I don't especially care to speak ill of any of our founders -- I think in each there was a combination courage and high ideals. Jefferson was one of those heroes but in discussing Jefferson, one must always ask, "Which Jefferson?" Sad to say, the Thomas Jefferson of 1789-1800 was often not a very honest or trustworthy person. He was radicalized during that period. Thankfully, he matured later, (or finally realized that his French buddies really were brutal tyrants hiding behind democratic ideals as Hamilton and Washington saw early on) and did not do a disservice to himself or the country as president.
----- 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.
Booze was taxed under the power granted the feds to lay excise taxes on ANYTHING. What the hell does "...Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and EXCISES," mean in YOUR world?
A reasonable, constitutional taxation of booze would not have caused the whiskey rebellion..
Those who took up arms against the gov and assaulted federal officers are criminals just as the Crips and Bloods are when attacking law enforcement officers today.
The farmers took up arms for just cause, as they saw it. Crips/Bloods? Straw man..
I, like all true conservatives, happen to believe in the Rule of Law sorry that you don't.
Straw man again
While I would rather be able to go down the interstate at 100+ mph without penalty there is no doubt that the authorities have a right to impose speed limits or that my violation of said law makes me a violator of the Law.
Idiotic comparison to a prohibiitive booze taxing scheme.
"Due process" in legislation? Just how does one legislate without due process? LoL
Fiat prohibitive laws are enacted without due process. The state must show a compelling reason to infringe upon our rights.
There is NOTHING in the constitution which implies citizens can attack federal officers.
Officers attack citizens at their own risk.
I never claimed the power to decide which laws are constitutional that is YOUR claim.
Another fib.. -- You claim that prohibitive law is constitutional, and support fed/state power to enforce such law.
Those who attacked federal officers are no different that the armed gangs in the ghetto attacking law enforcement officers. Why don't you support them as you do the yahoos in Pennsylvania? Little difference.
Your inablity to see the difference is damning yourself, imo..
Hamilton and Washington's political beliefs were almost identical as their long collaboration of 20+ yrs amply illustrates. Thus, any political attack on H was an attack on W at least until 1799. Their alliance was so strong that Washington's last letter was to Hamilton.
An 'argument from authority' proving nothing much other than that George liked Alex.
"Necessary and proper" is explicit text---nothing needs to be read into it.
Another good read is David McCullough's John Adams. Jefferson drove their very close friendship into the ditch but before their lives ended, they managed to reestablish it.
Just absolutely fascinating people we were blessed with back then.
Technically speaking, the Jeffersonian republic ended when Lincoln decided to go Hamiltonian and won the argument in 1865.
I think it continued for nearly 50 more years, until the prohibitionary socialists gained control..
I see hamiltonian-socialism/statism on one side of this political gulf, and jeffersonian-republican/conservatism on the other, both defined by our view of the principles of our constitution.
Far too many citizens are willing to ignore our base principles for the political issues of the day.
Well now, help me out here. Are you saying that the 18th Amendment was the demarcating line that marked the end of the Jeffersonian republic? You would put Prohibition above the Civil War?
And how do you see the 14th Amendment as a reaffirmation of Jeffersonian principles?
Our inalienable rights to 'life liberty, and property' were old Jeffs words, writ anew in the 14th..
In effect, we fought the civil war to make it absolutely clear that NO level of government, fed/state/local, had the power to infringe upon those individual rights.
The 18ths decree of prohibition on booze was arguably the most blatant such infringment in our history.
It flat out made an edict that one group of citizens could dictate what intoxicating substances their peers could possess..
Would you support an edict that one group of citizens could dictate what type of arms their peers could possess?
Lentulus:
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.
Yep.. -- The socialist/prohibitionist movement had been gaining strength for years with 'laws' like the Harrison Narcotic Act, Income tax, etc. --- Prohibition was their greatest triumph, and still applies to state abilities to regulate dry counties, etc.. --- States & localities still use that same type of regulatory power to ban guns, or most anything else they please..
It's an interesting argument --
I see it as THE argument here, -- where the Hamiltonians see an implicit state power to prohibit, -- and Jeffersonians do not..
He was more a progenitor of Dems, than of Conservatives and Republicans.
----- 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.
____________________________________________
Booze was taxed under the power granted the feds to lay excise taxes on ANYTHING. What the hell does "...Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and EXCISES," mean in YOUR world?
A reasonable, constitutional taxation of booze would not have caused the whiskey rebellion..
Those who took up arms against the gov and assaulted federal officers are criminals just as the Crips and Bloods are when attacking law enforcement officers today.
The farmers took up arms for just cause, as they saw it. Crips/Bloods? Straw man..
I, like all true conservatives, happen to believe in the Rule of Law sorry that you don't.
Straw man again
While I would rather be able to go down the interstate at 100+ mph without penalty there is no doubt that the authorities have a right to impose speed limits or that my violation of said law makes me a violator of the Law.
Idiotic comparison to a prohibiitive booze taxing scheme.
"Due process" in legislation? Just how does one legislate without due process? LoL
Fiat prohibitive laws are enacted without due process. The state must show a compelling reason to infringe upon our rights.
There is NOTHING in the constitution which implies citizens can attack federal officers.
Officers attack citizens at their own risk.
I never claimed the power to decide which laws are constitutional that is YOUR claim.
Another fib.. -- You claim that prohibitive law is constitutional, and support fed/state power to enforce such law.
Those who attacked federal officers are no different that the armed gangs in the ghetto attacking law enforcement officers. Why don't you support them as you do the yahoos in Pennsylvania? Little difference.
Your inablity to see the difference is damning yourself, imo..
Hamilton and Washington's political beliefs were almost identical as their long collaboration of 20+ yrs amply illustrates. Thus, any political attack on H was an attack on W at least until 1799. Their alliance was so strong that Washington's last letter was to Hamilton.
An 'argument from authority' proving nothing much other than that George liked Alex. <
________________________________________
So you have proven over and over that you know nothing about the Whiskey rebellion or its participants. Posting this ten times will no demonstrate any greater knowledge than the first time.
Not at all. The record of our dialog above proves you wrong. --- That's why I must repost it, every time you reply with your 'freestyle' remarks..
Rum was also taxed but the New Englanders didn't take the law into their own hands and attack federal officers. There was no attack on the protesters until AFTER federal officers were attacked so don't lie about it if you are ignorant of the subject. There was no "prohibitive taxes" merely reasonable ones to fund military expeditions intended to protect the very yahoos who decided to attack the federal officers. Those who rose up against their government were mainly the louts and layabouts not farmers. The same sorts of criminally inclined which riot in our cities and burn down parts of them. These louts and layabouts were early versions of the criminal gangs which believe they have the right to decide which laws they will follow. Little difference: crude, lazy, thieving, uneducated and immoral they would have made excellent Crips.
Mind boggling display of invective.. Thanks for once again showing your true stripe..
tpaine considers The Rule of Law to be a strawman.
Not in evidence above, or anywhere else. You're 'fibbing' again, Justi Mcgee..
Funding the military is not a "compelling reason" to tpaine,
Demented remark. Another 'fib', belied by our dialog above.
This is getting more ridiculous with each of your posts.
You're looking in a mirror, babbling to yourself.
An argument from authority is one which relies upon some third party for confirmation and I almost never do that but I couldn't expect YOU to understand such things given an inability to read express authority in the Constitution for excise taxes. My dear friend Who is John Galt attacks me for NOT arguing in such a manner.
You were using G. Washington as your authority to defend Hamilton. Its posted by you right above.
Please stop taking up so much room with your posts, there is no reason to repeatedly post the same comments Such proof is completely unnecessary and no one (of consequence) will dispute the overwhelming proof already submitted.
Proof is needed, as in your posting 'style' you consistently ignore what your opponents actually write..
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.