[Deuce]

Your pov is damaged more than advanced by such vitriol as:

1. Madison and Jefferson were complete numbskulls when it came to economics and finance. That is why Hamilton could make mincemeat out of them.

2. Jackson was a great leader but a financial nincompoop.

3. Those who laud Jefferson and disdain Hamilton know little or nothing about either.

4. Hamilton's reputation was destroyed by the hired lackies….

5. Modern politicians are historically ignorant and believe the LIE that Hamilton was for the rich and against the little guy.

Since neither of us were there, we must rely on the writings of these men for an insight into their beliefs and we must rely on what others wrote about them for a glimpse at their character. With regard to the latter issue, it is virtually impossible to have a strong objective view (unless there is virtual unanimity among credible sources). Failing such unanimity, a strong pov such as yours can only be based on subjectively and selectively embracing that which confirms your predisposed bias and subjectively and selectively rejecting that which refutes your predisposed bias.

With regard to the former, there is, at least, an objective basis for a strong pov. As a populist librertarian, I find nothing attractive in the policies of Hamilton, no matter how nice a guy he may have been when you got to know him. The policies of Jefferson and Jackson are much more to my liking, no matter how much of a stinker each may have been.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Historians do not dispute that:
1) Republican newspapers of the day made their principle concern the destruction of Hamiltonianism and Hamilton. No lie was too great to use against him. Jefferson hired Freaneau at State ostensibly as a translator but no one denies it was to set up a newspaper specifically to attack Hamiltonianism;
2) J. and M. specifically formed the democratic-republican party to attack Hamilton. This in spite of M's warning of the dangers of factions in the Federalist;
3) J.'s economic views were reactionary and two schools of economic theory behind Hamilton's capitalist policies nor did J and M deny that no one could successfully debate his policies;
4) J. desire for an agricultural republic without a navy was a prescription for disaster as was his military policies which led to the burning of D.C. with a British force of 5,000 men when M was president;
5) J.'s policy was to protect slavery did you support that? or intervention on the side of the French against the Haitian rebels do you support that?
6) If you believe either J or M was Libertarian you don't know their beliefs or policies which were in no way Libertarian. Could a Libertarian be a slave owner?
7) Hamiltonianism represented the rationalization of capitalism and was pointed to the future. Jeffersonianism was pointed to the past and incapable of surviving in a modern world it had as many contradictions as its creator and would have produced a nation as financially insolvent as he. Jefferson's personal world was pre-feudal in nature and it limited his view.
8) It is not bias to point to irrationality and that is the only description of J. and M.'s financial views that would be accurate. This says nothing about the characters of the men only that their understanding of this aspect of the world was not great.

In addition, bias should not be equated with inability to perceive the truth. Nor should it be believed that having a bias makes one incapable of accepting the truth. My previous bias in favor of Jefferson which arose from biased protrayals of him by the University professors who have loved him for centuries has not prevented me from uncovering the truth about him and his beliefs. Nor will my great admiration of Hamilton prevent me from admitting negative things about him when presented.