Jefferson vs. Hamilton - Who is Right???

Re: Jefferson vs. Hamilton - Who is Right???
Brandon,

Great topic! Can you give us more background behind the corruption investigation you mentioned. You have a "typo" in that paragraph:

Re: Jefferson vs. Hamilton - Who is Right???

Sure. The Congressional Republicans were always trying to prove that Hamilton misused government funds or influence for his own personal gain, but every investigation showed the exact opposite. He did, however, hire an old acquaintance, William Duer, as his undersecretary, and Duer was completely corrupt and wound up in debtor's prison. No blame was attachable to Hamilton in that matter, though. In the case of the sex scandal, Hamilton was hoodwinked and blackmailed by a couple of con artists, a Mary (known as Maria) and James Reynolds.

Interesting topic that I'll be watching.

The simple answer to your question is both and neither. The political philosophy espoused by Jefferson was almost dimetrically opposite to that of the Federalists. During and after the Revolution the States exercised almost complete independence of the central government. This is pretty close to the sort of locally focused politics that Jefferson favored. Each locality decided what laws they wanted, and generally ignored the laws imposed from outside their area. Each State had its own currency and foreign policy. Local interests varied considerably between the agricultural South and the more trade oriented North. Boundaries were often ill-defined, and the laws in adjacent States might be contradictory. The costs of the Revolutionary War were the responsibility of each State, and the amount of indebtedness varied widely. In many States, there was considerable friction between the "wealthy", those with property< and those without. In some regions the demand for expropriation and redistribution of private property had considerable support. Many veterans of the Revolution had been promised rewards that after the fighting was concluded were never fully honored.

In the wake of the Revolutionary war the new country was beset by high unemployment, the ruination of trade, enormous personal and State debt, and political chaos as the various States asserted their independence. The Vega's odds were strongly weighted against the new nation surviving for more than an decade, or two. It was clear that the Articles of Confederation were not sufficient to salvage the Revolution, so the Continental Congress authorized State representatives to meet and try to find some solution to the problems. In the end it was decided, in secret sessions, to entirely scrap the Articles of Confederation and start from scratch. The driving force behind the Constitutional Convention were those who advocated a strong central government. Among the notable leaders of the Convention were Madison, Hamilton, Adams, and most of all, George Washington. While this was going on Jefferson was in France playing patty-cake with the leaders of the French Revolution.

The Constitution itself was the result of discussion, argument and compromise. There were compromises between the small and large States; between the agricultural South based on slave labor, and the Northern States whose economy was founded on trade. Compromises were struck between those whose sympathy was with the propertyless and those who represented the interests of the wealthy. Almost without exception the delegates were suspicious of anyone, or any group who might seize anything approaching absolute political power. Proponents of decentralized government forced compromise with those who favored a strong central government able to act quickly with clear and unified policy. Once the Constitution was hammered out, not everyone agreed that it should be adopted. Those who favored decentralization, like Jefferson, argued that it was a betrayal of the Revolution.

Federalists and Anti-Federalists waged a war of words in the press and in pamphletes. Madison and Hamilton were major spokesmen for the Federalist Constitution. In the end, the assent of the People for the new Constitution was obtained, and a new government was formed on its provisions.

The Federalists tended to believe that partisan politics would tend to undermine the Constitution. The Federalist Party under Washington and Adams were dedicated to actualizing in government the principles set forth in the Constitution. Federalists believed that the political philosophy in the Constitution was clearly for centralized government. To argue otherwise was almost tanamount to treason. Washington sought to form the Executive Branch of men with the highest qualifications and dedication to the good of the republic. Some of his cabinet, especially Jefferson, were disloyal to the President from the first. Jefferson used his cabinet post to favor the French, and obstruct every effort to correct the terrible situation that had came about under the Articles of Confederation. Jefferson used his post in Washington's cabinet to build precisely the sort of political opposition that Washington was trying to avoid. Partisan attacks on the character of Washington hurt him deeply, and the viciousness of the attacks on Adams drove him up the wall.

It's difficult to compare Hamilton and Jefferson. Hamilton was a very able Staff person with vaunting ambition. Jefferson was a lot of things, but never should be considered as staff to anyone. Jefferson embodied the Anti-Federalist cause, and the idea of decentralization of government. Jefferson's political philosophy was idealistic and often theoretical. Hamilton thought of himself as a practical man, and his efforts as Secretary of the Treasury was one of the great contributions made in the early years of our country to its success. Federal assumption of State War debts and the establishment of a single national currency were essential to establishing an effective government. However, Hamilton's efforts were only a part of the larger effort to centralize the Federal government.

Both Jefferson and Hamilton were very flawed men as individuals. Jefferson for all his reputation as a thinker, was mostly a tinkerer. He didn't invent much, and most of his innovations were flawed. He was a poor administrator of both the public interests and his personal affairs. His service during the Revolution is best characterized by avoidance of military service, and perhaps even cowardice. His political views were inconsistent. While he could be charming in company, his vindictiveness always lurked in the background. When Jefferson gained the Presidency, he was just as dedicated to a One Party government as the Federalists had been.

Hamilton was an illegitimate child on a British plantation whose mental brilliance made possible his climb to prominence. He served with distinction as Washington's Aid during the Revolution, and claimed honors for his exploits at Yorktown. Hamilton had a way with words, and was one of the most prolific pamphelteers of his day. His contributions to the Federalist Papers were important to the adoption of the Constitution. Hamilton was one of the primary supporters of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Hamilton craved wealth, social acceptance and position. His personal hatred and jealousy of Aaran Burr clouded his judgement time and again. He was an egotist and womanizer who was willing to put his own interests above the interests of the Federalist cause. Hamilton's inability to keep his mouth shut caused many of his greatest problems. He was disloyal to President Adams and made it possible for the Democratic-Republicans to win office in 1800. His constant efforts and slurs against Burr finally resulted in a justifiable bullet to the gut.

Both Hamilton and Jefferson, in spite of their many flaws, made solid contributions to the success of the nation. Neither favored the nation having an opposition party. The centralized government of the Federalists saved the new country from disaster, and resulted in the formation of an effective national government capable of surviving every challenge since. The effect of Jefferson's efforts was the institution of a two party system that provides our government with constraints against the permanent entrenchment of either centralist, or decentralized political philosophy.

Thank you, Asherman, for your usual informative and entertaining analysis.

Brandon,

Were you saying earlier that Madison joined Jefferson in attacking Hamilton? It seems that Madison and Hamilton were united on the idea of a strong central government. Was Madison's opposition to Hamilton only on the issue of a national bank?

No, Madison was for the Constitution, but against a strong central government and also against what we would call modern ideas finance such as banking. He was Jefferson's disciple. He switched from being Hamilton's friend to being his bitter, lifelong enemy soon after Washington's administration began.

Little James Madison was one of the most active and vocal of the representatives to the Constitutional Convention. He's rightfully been called Father of the Constitution. Madison's advocacy of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers was important to ratificaton of that document. Not surprisingly, Madison was one of the leading Federalists in 1787.

However, Madison's views increasingly questioned the direction of government taken by the Washington and Adam's administrations. Madison was one of those who opposed the Jay Treaty as being too friendly with Britain. Even more disturbing to Monroe were the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Sedition Act required that publications commenting on the Federal government and its officials speak only the truth. What spurred the passage of the Sedition Act was a truly vicious campaign by Jefferson supporters against both Washington and Adams. Sometimes we think that the criticisms of modern politicians is excessive, but compared to the shocking accusations and lies of the late 18th century our press is pretty tame. The Federalists, especially during the Adam's administration, used the Sedition Act in a heavy handed manner to stiffel the Democratic-Republican attack dogs. The campaign worked against the Federalists, and drove many right into the arms of the Jeffersonians.

One might also wonder if by 1797-98, Madison was beginning to want to rejoin the political fray. He, among many others, found John Adams a difficult man to deal with, and they certainly disagreed on most issues. On the other hand, Jefferson's criticisms of the Federalists must have struck a chord with Madison's dislike of the British government.

Madison was the author of the Virginia Resolution that was highly critical of the way the Federalists were running the country. The issue was the question of who determines whether the Federal government has overstepped its Constitutional authority. Jefferson (actual author of the Kentucky Resolution) held that it was for the States to decide which Federal Laws were valid. Madison was less willing to give that power to the States. Later when John C. Calhoun threatened Nullification over tariff laws, Madison denied that his Virginia Resolution should be interpreted that way.

In 1808, Madison ran for President as Jefferson's hand-picked candidate. Jefferson had already destroyed Burr, and Clinton was not popular outside of New York and New England. Madison, as a fellow Virginian, whose reputation in framing the Constitution and getting it adopted was a perfect choice to keep the Federalists from winning the election.

Madison is an interesting guy, and following his political development is very useful in understanding how our political system evolved during its infancy.

Hamilton was a man of unique charactor and intelluctual brilliance, so many of Hamiltons ideas and initiatives are the granite underpinnings on which the military and federal govt are resting today.

Jefferson by comparison was an intellectual dwarf...........IMHO

Not to mention the Coast Guard, which Hamilton also invented. Of course, Jefferson wrote the Declaration if Independence, initiated the Lewis and Clark expidition, founded the University of Virginia, and helped to defeat the abhorrent Alien and Sedition Acts.

Asherman mentioned James Madison's interesting political development. Perhaps Madison is a good way to approach the issue of strong versus weak central government. Madison and Hamilton obviously supported the importance of a strong central government during the constitutional convention and the writing of "The Federalist" essays. Apparently, Madison joined Jefferson in seeking reform of federal government during the administration of John Adams. My impression is that Madison was the intellectual equal of Hamilton and Jefferson. I am unclear on whether Madison ever completely abandoned advocating a strong central government.

Madison became Jefferson's disciple during the early stages of Washington's first term. His allegiance to Jefferson was due both to the strong vs. weak issue and also the distrust of modern financial methods, which we would consider standard, which he and Jefferson shared. Perhaps it was also relevant that they were both Virginians. Madison did seem to repudiate the strong central government idea, and other things he had argued in favor of at the Constitutional Convention. They were all very brilliant men, but after Jefferson quit his job as Secretary of State, Madison functioned as Jefferson's apostle and as his proxy in the legislature.

It seems that even Jefferson supported the idea of a strong central government in foreign policy. (Madison also seems to have relied on federalist principles in his conduct of the War of 1812.)

Is the strong versus weak central government debate only concerned with domestic issues?

There is an argument that even domestic programs are more efficiently handled at the federal level. (The bureaucracies involved would not need to be duplicated fifty times.)

Jefferson was much less squeamish about a strong central government when he was the president. I believe he even allowed a Sedition Law prosecution against one of his critics before the law expired.

Generally the strong vs. weak issue is domestic. I am not sure if Republicans tried to repudiate the Jay Treaty at the state level, which would be an example of states trying to pursue their own foreign policy.

I don't think that efficiency is really the main issue of concern in strong vs. weak discussions, but rather the tendency of a strong central government to drift towards tyranny. Dictatorships can be efficient after all.

Madison had little choice. By 1812 British ships had captured almost 400 American vessels, some within sight of the U.S. coast, and were impressing American sailors into the British Navy. I believe that Madison got a healthy dose of reality when he became president, and that it tempered his ideology.

One thing that anyone approaching the Founding Fathers must consider is that the total package of any one man's political philosophy, whether it was Madison or Hamilton or Jefferson, does not neatly fit into our current packages of political philosophy. Some things that we might consider liberal today mix in the mind and actions of a man who largely espoused what we would call conservative philosophy. Furthermore, their actions and the thoughts behind them were more complex and 'philosophical' than our own.

When I was in high school, my family took a trip to DC and Virginia, visiting the homes of Washington, Jefferson and Madison. The then current owner of Madison's house took us on a tour of the first floor, the only part open to the public as the family lived in the house, after the school bus took her kids to their classes. She said Jefferson and Madison would signal each other with lanterns across the valley that separated their homes.

I generally take on a reading project during the summer. I am debating whether to read DeGaulle's and Churchill's memoirs or to reread the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers.

This is very true. This was an era in which many people truly thought of their state as their country, many very intelligent poeple such as Jefferson and Madison considered banks to be unethical, and people were still making arguments to try to justify slavery morally. In all three of those particular areas, Hamilton's views were more in line with what we believe today.