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."
Your post was excellent. Thanks.
The Premable to the Constitution begins: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, ..." Jackson's actions establish Justice in those previously wild territories and insure domestic tranquility for those living within them and nearby. Hamilton's action was both to form a more perfect union by establishing the authority of Federal excise revenue taxation in the States, and to insure domestic tranquility by putting down that rebellion and thus staving off others by example.
Jackson was right about hard money, Hamilton right about soft money. It is the Federal Sovereign and sole power to coin HARD money. And we desperately need a circulating hard money.
Fractional reserve money -- that is banks and paper supported by fractional values are a PRIVATE matter, and while may be regulated should also be liberated -- for they are overly regulated today.
My favorite example is the old "Bill of Lading" -- that is a form of soft money. A paper bill of goods that lists and values a full ship's cargo in transit to a far port. While that cargo is not landed at the market, its cargo converted to currency, the bill may be traded (at a discount) and shared out into smaller fractions.
It wasn't Hamilton's mistake that such fractional soft money analoges and alternate currencies became exclusively and overbearingly the sufferance of Federal authority. No -- that is a more modern invention. FDR's and Nixon's, and such cunning modern thieves in the halls and contact lists of power.
And that FDR-Nixon noveau grand John-Law-scheme of fully fiat currency ... that has NO relation whatsoever to either Jackson or Hamilton, and hardly at all to money, soft or hard.
If this correctly represents Hamilton's position, he is no conservative hero.
If they posed a clear and present danger of contagion, yes. Certainly urban life makes clear and present dangers of contagion more possible, but that does not blur the essential concepts of freedom and liberty.
and replace them with costly connections to a public utility?
No (although that may be the only practical alternative to a well and septic system).
For that matter, how does the whole concept of a "public utility" fit into what the original U.S. Constitution envisioned as individual liberties?
The Constitution permits no federal public utilities.
Hamilton was for limited, enumerated powers and yet the full POWER to see tham through. The Preample is CLEAR: "To form a more perfect Union". That means divorce -- secession -- is a impossibility, except by amendment to the Constitution itself.
Dude, you've gone way, way, way off the deep end.
If the founders had wanted the preamble to say that, they would have written something along the lines of to form a more perfect Union, which, as a requirement of Its perfection, is necessarily indissoluble for all eternity...
But, of course, they wrote no such thing.
[The quotes below in blue are all from Treasury Secretary Hamilton's 1791 Report on the Subject of Manufactures to the House of Representatives.]
Hamilton believed that the "general welfare" clause in Article I, Section 8 provided the Congress with authority that was not confined to the other, more specific grants of power itemized in that same section:
"A question has been made concerning the constitutional right of the government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The national legislature has express authority ``To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare'' with no other qualifications than that ``all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution,'' and that ``no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.'' 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."
And who did Hamilton believe was constitutionally empowered to decide what is meant by the term "general wefare"? The Congress:
"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. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce are within the sphere of the national councils as far as regards an application of money."
Hamilton felt that the only Constitutional limitation on the power to spend for the "general welfare" concerned the geographical requirement that the program be applicable throughout the entire country:
"The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be general and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot."
"No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."
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.