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

Wall Street Journal | February 4, 2004 | Cynthia Crossen

[lentulusgracchus]

[x] For Jefferson personally, though, you might take a look at Conor Cruise O'Brien's article at TheAtlantic.com. O'Brien goes too far and few would follow him all the way to his own radical conclusion, but he has picked up on an ideological recklessness and extremism in Jefferson that was long ignored. Jefferson was long a hero to both right and left, but lately both sides can find things to reproach in him, and that's bound to affect his reputation.

I did look at it, and also at another article Conor Cruise O'Brien wrote, this time in The National Review, here:

O'Brien Bashes Jefferson in National Review.

Both the Atlantic article and the NR article were mined from the material he assembled for his book about Jefferson and the French Revolution, The Long Affair. In both articles, O'Brien uses an icepick on Jefferson, by linking him to Timothy McVeigh. He argues hard and ruthlessly for the benefit of Clintonoids in the Atlantic article that Jefferson was a racist (like Lincoln and everyone else was not??) and tries to tie him to the Ku Klux Klan as well as McVeigh. He concludes that Jefferson ought therefore, for liberal moral hygiene, to be denied authorship of the Declaration of Independence by the operation of historical revisionism, in order also to rescue that document from that particular dead white man's embrace in an America that must inevitably (he says) become majority-minority and (by interpolation) white-intolerant, and violently so toward non-PC whites like Jefferson. O'Brien, in the Atlantic article, is nurturing the idea, for the benefit of Clintonoids, that a multiracial society can be "managed" by white liberals manipulating symbols and ideas, and that it won't turn on them just because they're white -- if only we throw some of the inconvenient whites overboard.

In the National Review article -- in both articles, actually -- O'Brien ties Jefferson to the Constitutionalist movement, which he blithely identifies with Michigan militias and other militia-type groups, which he numbers at 30,000 to 40,000, and then pretends to tremble at the awfulness of what they're going to do to America when they finally, like the French Terror, begin to realize their full potential for, well, awfulness.

O'Brien also considers, in NR, the inability of liberalism to crack down hard on terrorism (i.e. the militias), a task he recommends to conservative readers of NR whom he expects to remain dry-eyed in the face of vacuous appeals by militia and NRA types (whom he also yokes to McVeigh) to wicked Jeffersonian concepts of "liberty", which he despises, even as he encourages, in the Atlantic article, the Left to believe that Jefferson and Rush Limbaugh drove Tim McVeigh's truck to Oklahoma City.

Somehow I'm not inclined to trust Conor Cruise O'Brien with Thomas Jefferson's reputation, or with the definition of liberty. That boyo is telling just too many people too many different things -- which seem to add up, mainly, to crushing the South, the NRA, and anyone to the right of the RiNO wing of the GOP.

He sounds like a really, really nasty liberal who's out to screw the Right very hard -- all the way to prison, if he can. And he thinks he can talk RiNO's who read NR into helping him.

[lentulusgracchus]

So you are saying that George Washington was a big government troll.

He was a Federalist. And he admired Hamilton. The Federalists were big-government trolls. If he wasn't a big-government troll himself (he toyed with the idea that citizens should address him as "your majesty"), he had what we may delicately term bad friends.

[Ditto]

So you don't admire Washington. It's good that we understand that.

I think you are nuts and have a hard time distingushing the challenges faced by 18th century patriots searching for a way to save their revolution from the division of petty factions versus the lust for coersive power among 21st century cleptocrats, but this is America and you have every right to be a nut.

[Ditto]

How in the hell can you say that Jeffersonian philosophy is based on the principles of the Constitution when the Jeffersonians completely opposed the the Constitution? You make no sense. The Constitution, by definition, is Federalism. You have stated over and over again here that you oppose the Federalist vision for this nation. You can't logically both oppose Federalism and support the Constitution. Or maybe logic has nothing to do with it.

[Deliberator]

On the contrary, even under a restrictive reading, border control is provided for by Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The Constitution also grants Congress the power to repel "Invasions" in Article I Section 8, and the States likewise under Article I Section 10.

Well done! Indeed, those most in favor of broad federal power are least familiar with the Constitution.

[tpaine]

We are defending the jeffersonian political philosophy which is based on the priniciples of our constitution. The hamiltonian philosophy ignores many of those same principles.
Why do you defend them?

Jefferson opposed ratification of the Constitution. Hamilton argued in favor of it. I am not attacking Jefferson. I am talking to people in the here and now who treat Jefferson as some sort of biblical profit while treating Hamilton as some sort of biblical Satan.

No one here is doing either.. You're hyping the issue.

How in the hell can you say that Jeffersonian philosophy is based on the principles of the Constitution when the Jeffersonians completely opposed the the Constitution?

Because they didn't oppose the constitution. You're uncontrolled ranting doesn't make that comment true..

You make no sense. The Constitution, by definition, is Federalism.

Simply untrue. The constitution, if followed, would control federalism. - Hamiltonians are now in control, and are violating our constitution to remain in control.

You have stated over and over again here that you oppose the Federalist vision for this nation. You can't logically both oppose Federalism and support the Constitution. Or maybe logic has nothing to do with it.

You need help in reading & understanding our constitution. A course in logic might also be in order.

[tpaine]

You need help in reading & understanding our constitution. A course in logic might also be in order.
Here's a good source for beginning your home schooling:


Constitution Society Home Page
Address:http://www.constitution.org/index.shtml Changed:6:06 AM on Monday, February 9, 2004

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hardly. The vague phrase has led to endless debate and always will. Even J and H couldn't agree on the meaning of "necessary." Much of the debate on threads about constitutionality of various acts of the fedgov centered on their propriaty.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Paine's life went downhill after the revolution and he alienated almost everyone so tpaine seems to be following that script. We won't threaten to behead him, though, unlike the Jacobins.

[Deliberator]

The vague phrase ["necessary and proper"] has led to endless debate and always will.

That doesn't make the powers it grants "implicit." And none of this has anything to do with Hamilton's distortion of the "general welfare" clause (as Madison showed it to be in Federalist #41).

[tpaine]

You're a pitiful little creep, jsuati.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Even amidst the bilge within that article the truth comes out. Attacks on federal officials were confined to W. Pennsylvania. This is what provoked federal response. While it is true that local terrorism prevented courts from acting against tax resisters, that was done without armed mobs attacking people. Resisters in other states managed to keep the drunken louts from taking control of the anti-tax movement.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-tax or even refusals to pay but attacking officials of government should provoke
effective fedgov responses as it did.

Rothbard's sophistic slight of hand will not pass even minimal scrutiny. Obviously the ARMED RESISTANCE and attacks on Fedgov officers WERE confined to W. Pennsylvania.
THAT was the Whiskey REBELLION. There is no discussion of a Whiskey Tax Resistence so he is discussing an ENTIRELY different issue NOT the Whiskey Rebellion.

Fortunately we had REAL leaders at that time not a bunch of Clintonites.

It is also false that no other "internal taxes" were passed since there was the Carriage Tax but one does not expect accuracy on LewRockhead.com.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is nothing remotely "Hamiltonian" about a military seizure of power.

Your following comment to me is of no interest so I will let it die a natural and unlamented death.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Sure it does, all you have to do is change the meaning of the word "invasion." But for you that isn't a problem.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Gee, how did such an astute observer as you miss the OBVIOUS point that had NY not ratified it would NOT have been a STATE within the Union? Thus, there would have been no violation of said Article. Nice try though it might have slipped by a Third Grader.

Hamilton was honest to a fault. You, however, revel in petty dishonesties such as the above comment illustrates and the throw aside comment that he claimed we could trust the government. He never said anything of the sort and his opinion on the BoR was shared by Madison.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Just when one thinks they have seen you at your most ludicrous you top yourself.

There was NO federalist party when J was appointed to go to France. Where did that absurdity come from? Who could have foreseen the necessity to get him out of the country? Or even that there would be a Constitutional Convention that would write a new constitution? That was not the charge of the Congress. Hamilton and Madison forced that result and neither had the power or the inclination to send J out of the country. H didn't even know him and M was his friend. So that nice little paranoic claim is easily refuted.

It was just another example of God looking out for America.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It boils down to whether you prefer one who TALKED about liberty to one who actually put his life on the line for it and FOUGHT for it. Clearly I prefer the latter.

Jefferson reminds me of many rich dilettantes throughout history who had a pencant to take the most extreme positions rather than practical ones. Today they gravitate to the most leftist causes available as did he.

Obviously there was FAR more oppression from state governments during that era than from a pitifully weak fedgov. Petty tyrants made up the gov officers from the Southern states since they were slavers and by definition true tyrants.

[tpaine]

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..
-- Here's an article that shows the truth about the rebellion:

The Whiskey Rebellion: A Model for Our Time [Free Republic]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3961d4ec1617.htm
-321-

Even amidst the bilge within that article the truth comes out. Attacks on federal officials were confined to W. Pennsylvania. This is what provoked federal response.

The unconstitutional tax provoked the citizens response.

While it is true that local terrorism prevented courts from acting against tax resisters, that was done without armed mobs attacking people. Resisters in other states managed to keep the drunken louts from taking control of the anti-tax movement.

Your 'loutish' spin is belied by historical fact.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-tax or even refusals to pay but attacking officials of government should provoke effective fedgov responses as it did. Rothbard's sophistic slight of hand will not pass even minimal scrutiny. Obviously the ARMED RESISTANCE and attacks on Fedgov officers WERE confined to W. Pennsylvania.

So what? Rothbard explained why, in that the feds didn't have a constitutional leg to stand on.. -- They gave up when their bluff was called..

THAT was the Whiskey REBELLION. There is no discussion of a Whiskey Tax Resistence so he is discussing an ENTIRELY different issue NOT the Whiskey Rebellion.

Using caps & nitpicking doesn't make your case.. - Give it up.

Fortunately we had REAL leaders at that time not a bunch of Clintonites. It is also false that no other "internal taxes" were passed since there was the Carriage Tax but one does not expect accuracy on LewRockhead.com.

How pathetic.. Babble on.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No name you can call me will affect anything since your moronic comments are beneath contempt. But keep it up since the only ones who take you seriously have trouble chewing gum and walking at the same time.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Rothbard in no way showed the whiskey tax to be unconstitutional or that the Whiskey Rebellion existed anywhere but among the anarchic louts in W. Pa. Just because you say he did doesn't make it so.

"Gave up when their bluff was called." Uh, seems as though the ones giving up were the drunken louts attacking fedgov officers who fled with their tails between their legs or were reduced to begging for mercy from that ole meanie the "tyrant" Washington.

Excise taxes are clearly identified within the Constitution as appropriate. Is your eyesight failing along with your mental facilities?

Making proper distinction is "nitpicking" only to the nitwitted.

The Carriage Tax was an internal tax imposed contrary to Rothbard's false claim. No semi-rational response to that truth, I see.