Founding Fathers: Hamiltonian vs Jeffersonian and others

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Ok:

So Hamilton didn't want a much stronger constitution resembling more of an aristocracy or elected monarchy?

So Hamilton's Federalist party wasn't in favor of a much stronger presidency and government overall?

His party did not pass the Alien and Sedation acts in 1798?

Hamilton did not try to smear Jefferson and Madison under the name Pacificus?

Don't talk to me about naivety - we should be thankful government was not in the vision of Hamilton.

Yes he was one of the authors of the Federalist papers but he still wanted a much stronger government that went against the principles of the constitution he wrote about in the Federalist Papers. The only really great thing was establishing the credit of the new country

Pub - any response?

[Fed Up]

Thorgrim,

I don't have time to talk to you any longer.

Fed Up

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Thorgrim,

I don't have time to talk to you any longer.

Fed Up

fair enough

[Publius]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Ok:

So Hamilton didn't want a much stronger constitution resembling more of an aristocracy or elected monarchy?

No, actually. If you read his personal letters as well as accounts by other contemporaries, Hamilton did indeed fear that too much freedom would lead to mob rule (a feeling which has been borne out, considering the state of our country now with more "democracy") but saw no way to avoid it completely without destroying freedoms which he supported.

At the convention he offered a very monarchical plan as a counterpoint to the plan that eventually won out. This was a tactical effort on his part, as he supported the plan that won out, because he realized that the (ultimate) plan was so extreme for the time that if there wasn't an even more extreme one to compare it with, there would be little to no chance of it passing.

So Hamilton's Federalist party wasn't in favor of a much stronger presidency and government overall?

The Founders felt, and rightly so, that the Congress was the branch of government most likely to abuse power and run roughshod over the other branches. In the infancy of the union, Hamilton supported giving the presidency more power to act as a check on Congressional abuse.

You have to realize that the power dynamic was completely different at the outset. The Supreme Court was practically powerless and the Presidency had just been born, so all of the power lay in the hands of the Congress. Hamilton was admittedly not comfortable with all of that power lying with one branch of government, so yes he did take efforts to bring more power to the Presidency.

As for a stronger government overall, you again have to look at the circumstance. This was a new entity, this Federal government, and his goal was to unify the nation so that it didn't collapse before it even had a chance to start. The Articles of Confederation had created a neutered national government that made the country an international laughing stock, and Hamilton wanted more than anything to create a sense of unity within the nation to insure that the nation persisted over time rather than fall apart within a few years.

His party did not pass the Alien and Sedation acts in 1798?

The Alien & Sedition Act was the brainchild of John Adams, not Hamilton who at that point wasn't even involved in the Federal Government. Yes, he supported it and that is (in my opinion) one of the only major mistakes he made in his career.

Hamilton did not try to smear Jefferson and Madison under the name Pacificus?

Jefferson and Madison smeared Hamilton in the press as well. That was the way of the times: use a pseudonym to attack your opponents in the press. You can't indict Hamilton for this and ignore that Jefferson did it just as fervently, as did most other members of the Founding generation.

Don't talk to me about naivety - we should be thankful government was not in the vision of Hamilton.

Yes he was one of the authors of the Federalist papers but he still wanted a much stronger government that went against the principles of the constitution he wrote about in the Federalist Papers. The only really great thing was establishing the credit of the new country

You do realize, I hope, that the Union up to the 1850s actually was following rather closely Hamilton's vision for the nation, right? He envisioned a nation in which industry would expand to allow more production at home and less reliance on foreign finished goods, so that the American people could develop a strong economy and fend for themselves.

Jefferson's vision of an agrarian paradise which imported the vast bulk of its finished goods never materialized. And thank god for that, because economic strength and freedom is one of the chief underlying requirements for personal liberty. It's much easier to stand for freedom when you're not reliant on the whims of other nations to provide you the most basic goods beyond foodstuffs.

Jefferson had a few great ideas, but ultimately he was a radical racist that would have likely destroyed our infant nation if his vision had been realized. Hamilton on the other hand saw the need for an efficient Federal government to unify the people so that their freedom could be realized, not to mention the fact that he supported abolition and thus was a stronger friend of universal freedom that Jefferson EVER was.

I truly suggest you read the Alexander Hamilton biography by Ron Chernow (titled simply Alexander Hamilton). It's a very even-handed account of Hamilton's life and views. Chernow doesn't sugar coat Hamilton's failings, but he doesn't automatically vilify the man like Jefferson supporters do. He actually looks at Hamilton's letters, accounts of others around him, etc. to try and get a true picture of the man.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Publius

No, actually. If you read his personal letters as well as accounts by other contemporaries, Hamilton did indeed fear that too much freedom would lead to mob rule (a feeling which has been borne out, considering the state of our country now with more "democracy") but saw no way to avoid it completely without destroying freedoms which he supported.


At the convention he offered a very monarchical plan as a counterpoint to the plan that eventually won out. This was a tactical effort on his part, as he supported the plan that won out, because he realized that the (ultimate) plan was so extreme for the time that if there wasn't an even more extreme one to compare it with, there would be little to no chance of it passing.

Please let me know what contemporaries you are referring too, as for his "tactical effort" I call Bull Shit:

Political Battles

"Hamilton's role in the framing and ratification of the Constitution was a curious one. He did not prove to be a particularly distinguished or influential delegate at the Convention -- many members thought his proposals went too far in strengthening the central government. Indeed, the ideas Hamilton presented on June 18, 1787, after approximately a month of peripheral involvement, included some shockers: state governors would be appointed by the President; the President and Senators would hold office for life; and the Congress would retain exclusive authority to make all the laws of the country.


The five-hour speech had little effect. Many delegates were already nervous about a plan put forth by Virginia which, while less radical than Hamilton's vision, seemed to retain too little power for the states. Since convention proceedings were kept secret from the public, however, an atmosphere of free and open debate prevailed, and Hamilton felt obligated to at least raise his proposals in their undiluted form.


His philosophy rested, in true colonialist fashion, on the notion of "the public good" and the superiority of a government which derived its power from the consent of the governed: the essence of republicanism. Where Hamilton differed from his contemporaries was, first, in believing that only a "talented few" -- understood to mean men drawn from the wealthy and aristocratic strata of society -- had the wisdom and dispassionate foresight to implement the measures necessary for the public good. The great majority of people, in Hamilton's eyes, operated primarily out of self-interest and could not be trusted to think or act judiciously in matters of state power. Hence, a proposal such as seating the President for life, so that he would not be subject to the whims of a fickle electorate....

....The proposed Constitution that the convention produced in September -- and the one most Americans are familiar with -- did reflect much of the spirit of Hamilton's philosophy, particularly in clearly subordinating the states to the federal government. But it represented a much more moderate compromise of a number of competing interests. Still, Hamilton firmly supported the Constitution, even while admitting in his last speech to the convention that "no man's ideas were more remote from the plan than [mine] were known to be." "



A 5 hour speech that was so detailed and providing backing for his proposals is a tactical effort to get the delegates to accept a more moderate version? Bull shit, either he is the greatest persuader of all time or maybe he just really believed the government should be ruled by an aristocracy.

The Founders felt, and rightly so, that the Congress was the branch of government most likely to abuse power and run roughshod over the other branches. In the infancy of the union, Hamilton supported giving the presidency more power to act as a check on Congressional abuse.

You have to realize that the power dynamic was completely different at the outset. The Supreme Court was practically powerless and the Presidency had just been born, so all of the power lay in the hands of the Congress. Hamilton was admittedly not comfortable with all of that power lying with one branch of government, so yes he did take efforts to bring more power to the Presidency.

As for a stronger government overall, you again have to look at the circumstance. This was a new entity, this Federal government, and his goal was to unify the nation so that it didn't collapse before it even had a chance to start. The Articles of Confederation had created a neutered national government that made the country an international laughing stock, and Hamilton wanted more than anything to create a sense of unity within the nation to insure that the nation persisted over time rather than fall apart within a few years.

I don't get your point - it was Madison's vision (among others of course) that created a much more powerful government than what it was under the Articles, Hamilton wanted it to be stronger than it needed to be at the time.

Jefferson and Madison smeared Hamilton in the press as well. That was the way of the times: use a pseudonym to attack your opponents in the press. You can't indict Hamilton for this and ignore that Jefferson did it just as fervently, as did most other members of the Founding generation.

Your right, they did

You do realize, I hope, that the Union up to the 1850s actually was following rather closely Hamilton's vision for the nation, right? He envisioned a nation in which industry would expand to allow more production at home and less reliance on foreign finished goods, so that the American people could develop a strong economy and fend for themselves.

What I am telling you is that Hamilton did do some great things - establishing our credit and pushing for more industry. I think however our move into industry would of happend regardless, we are too big and have too many resources not too so I am not going to give him too much credit on that one.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Publius

At the convention he offered a very monarchical plan as a counterpoint to the plan that eventually won out. This was a tactical effort on his part, as he supported the plan that won out, because he realized that the (ultimate) plan was so extreme for the time that if there wasn't an even more extreme one to compare it with, there would be little to no chance of it passing.

The Hamilton apologist view is that he used a tactic that was copyrighted by marxists?

Do you defend the Bank of the United States?

Aaron Burr was a great man.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

The Hamilton apologist view is that he used a tactic that was copyrighted by marxists?

Do you defend the Bank of the United States?

Aaron Burr was a great man.

Your ignorance and blind hatred is so large that I don't see any point in discussing it with you further. It would be awesome if you actually wanted to educate yourself in an unbiased fashion, but obviously you only want to believe Jefferson's attacks on Hamilton. Attacks he made only after Hamilton's death because he KNEW Hamilton wasn't what he was trying to paint him as and that if he did it at a time Hamilton could defend himself, his arguments would be utterly and completely discredited.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Publius

Your ignorance and blind hatred is so large that I don't see any point in discussing it with you further. It would be awesome if you actually wanted to educate yourself in an unbiased fashion, but obviously you only want to believe Jefferson's attacks on Hamilton. Attacks he made only after Hamilton's death because he KNEW Hamilton wasn't what he was trying to paint him as and that if he did it at a time Hamilton could defend himself, his arguments would be utterly and completely discredited.

YOU talk to ME about BIAS!???!

Wow.....



FYI, Jefferson was not alone in being critical of that banker's shill. That you would jump to that conclusion is evidence of your own ignorance.

I am not a fan of the federalists. When I first read the Federalist Papers, I thought that I was reading the discourse of liberty. Years later when I re-read them, I realized that it was the discourse of authoritarianism. The anti-federalist papers reflect my views more closely. (They were NOT written by Jefferson)

MY BIGGEST objection to Hamilton was his God Damned bank.

Andrew Jackson understood.

I like the Jacksonian/Bentonian vision of America. Anti capitalist - pro-yoemanry - pro liberty - property held by a free people.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Publius

..if he did it at a time Hamilton could defend himself, his arguments would be utterly and completely discredited.

You mean like Hamilton's slander of Burr was completely discredited?

The Hamiltonian vision is close to being realized. How do you like it now?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

You mean like Hamilton's slander of Burr was completely discredited?

The Hamiltonian vision is close to being realized. How do you like it now?

If you actually read any of Hamilton's own writings instead of just people with a vested interest in trying to discredit him (Jefferson, et.al.) you'd see that his vision is FAR from what this country has become and is more in line with what this country could be if the nation were more libertarian.

But I'm done with you, you're simply ignorant on the subject.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Publius

If you actually read any of Hamilton's own writings instead of just people with a vested interest in trying to discredit him (Jefferson, et.al.) you'd see that his vision is FAR from what this country has become and is more in line with what this country could be if the nation were more libertarian.

But I'm done with you, you're simply ignorant on the subject.

Dude, your screen name is Publius and your avatar is A.H. with anti T.J. symbolism. You are not exactly placing yourself in an objective position for judgment.

Although I have read extensively on the subject, because I disagree with you, you call me ignorant.... I swear, this forum has a definite theme going here.

BTW... nice dodge on the banking question.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

You mean like Hamilton's slander of Burr was completely discredited?

The Hamiltonian vision is close to being realized. How do you like it now?

You think this is the government that Hamilton envisioned?

Hamilton realized the need for a stronger national government after sitting at Valley Forge and viewing men without shoes, wearing rags, starving, and going months without pay because the individual states could not be counted upon. The Continental Army was falling apart at the seams and the soon-to-be Federalists (Washington, Hamilton, John Marshall) were there to witness it firsthand. It is this kind of situation that makes men, revolutionaries fighting for individual and collective liberty, realize the unfortunate necessity of a government capable of handling foreign policy, the coinage of money, a credit system, and the making of war.

This does not mean, however, that the Jeffersonian smears of monarchist etc were anywhere near the truth. Jefferson had some great quotes but his vision was really naive and utopian. I attribute his great quotes to the fact that he said basically everything at one time or another. (I say that somewhat in jest, and somewhat not - because it's true)

Burr was also a traitor, not exactly someone I would call a "great man".

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by lew

I wouldn't really call Rothbard "fringe."


Rothbard is usually admired by most libertarians - those within the LP, the paleos led by Rockwell, and even the "Beltway libertarians" in D.C.

I'm not really a fan of Rothbardian economics as most are probably aware. I don't really feel that a government with some authority over the economy has to lead to totalitarianism and view a mixed economy as one that is much healthier than an anarcho-capitalist society. I wouldn't like leaving the country's security up to competing private businesses or even depending on charity to overcome free rider problems in the production of vital public goods or even in the prevention of other market failures (such as the underprodution of education).

I have mostly studied Rothbard from an economic perspective so I apologize for the shift from pure politics to economics, but I find Rothbard to be too idealistic in his economic thinking. What he has to say may sound good in theory, but I don't feel as if it would really work well in practical application.

As for the "fringe" status. He is pretty far out there. I don't meet many anarcho-capitalists and even most who like Rothbard still profess to a much more Minarchist economic structure.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by thomez

You think this is the government that Hamilton envisioned?

Hamilton realized the need for a stronger national government after sitting at Valley Forge and viewing men without shoes, wearing rags, starving, and going months without pay because the individual states could not be counted upon. The Continental Army was falling apart at the seams and the soon-to-be Federalists (Washington, Hamilton, John Marshall) were there to witness it firsthand. It is this kind of situation that makes men, revolutionaries fighting for individual and collective liberty, realize the unfortunate necessity of a government capable of handling foreign policy, the coinage of money, a credit system, and the making of war.

Yea and also his support for President for life and Governors chosen by legislature, oh and his belief that only an "aristocracy" was enlightened and fit enough to rule. Don't forget those great things.

And moreover, he was hardly the only person or the originator who supported coinage of money and the capacity to make war, get real . Those things would of happened regardless. His establishment of credit however was a very important contribution.

[thomez]

I'm not sure why it is so hard to grasp that he took a purposefully extreme position so as only to pull the median opinion more towards his favor - if the man did not support the Constitution as written he would not have so eloquently presented a case for support to the public in the Federalist Papers.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by thomez

I'm not sure why it is so hard to grasp that he took a purposefully extreme position so as only to pull the median opinion more towards his favor - if the man did not support the Constitution as written he would not have so eloquently presented a case for support to the public in the Federalist Papers.

Once again

Sure he purposefully made a 5 hour speech with reasons for his support of his measures as tactical ploy. Really? If he was such a great persuader then why did he make so many dumb decisions that undermined his power later like overtly attacking Madison and Jefferson? Surely a person with such great skill would of done better? Oh yea and he supported the Alien and Sedation acts.

His writings in the federalist papers are great but how can you not get a political move? It was either the constitution or the Articles, it was an easy decision for him even though he liked neither - plus he knew he would have a role in the new government to pursue his beliefs.

Moreover if his speech was just a ploy then why say this in the end:

"no man's ideas were more remote from the plan than [mine] were known to be."

It was unnecessary - he said it cause he wanted it

[motivez]