[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.

[Deuce]

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.

This explains it. Your fervor is like that of the reformed smoker/drinker/ etc. I would not characterize your initial acceptance of conventional wisdom as a bias, however. You had no emotional commitment to it (as you do to your current position) you just accepted it as true. Similarly, I used to buy into the conventional view about money and banking until I read Murray Rothbard. What he said made so much more sense to me than the conventional wisdom that I had previously accepted that I became fervent in my support for my new pov. I base my position on analysis, however, not ad hominem (e.g. saying that Rothbard is smart and Keynses is a nincompoop does not advance my argument one iota).

I, too, originally had a favorable impression of Jefferson and negative one of Hamilton. I am also aware of the current revisionist position that you now adopt. Being pro-democracy, anti elite, pro live and let live, anti banking interests, and anti special privileges for special interests, I view Jackson favorably and Hamilton unfavorably based on the mosaics we have of each from their own comments on issues.

BTW, I have been reading the relevant portions of Pieces of Eight, and while it is hard to summarize, the evidence appears overwhelming that the original intent was clearly to deny the national government the ability to emit bills of credit. AH, in his argument in favor of the Bank of the US, appears to acknowledge this, also. The entire argument is hard to summarize, briefly, but if I get motivated I will try to do so (It requires close comparisons, for example, between language in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution).