I’m confused because you said “no,sir” yet you didn’t refute a single claim I made in the post. I said Cleveland was the Jeffersonian. He was for low tariffs, sound money, and laissez-faire policies in general. Bryan was for inflation, prohibition, and an income tax. Which one was the Jeffersonian again?
You’re hung up on an agrarian/industrialist dichotomy. As evidenced by Cleveland and the Bourbon democrats, Jefferson’s policies were compatible with industrialization, they just don’t favor elite industrialists over everyone else like Hamilton did.
Bryan, because he supported policies that were (in his time) good for agriculture, as opposed to those policies that were (in his time) good for industry. And Jefferson was always about agriculture, not so much about laissez-faire as such.
Because Jefferson was, and so was Hamilton, and how did they glare at each other! That, sir, industry vs. agriculture, and not statism vs. libertarianism, nor elitism vs. democracy, is the Jeffersonian-Hamiltonian dichotomy.
The Smithsonian sugested 20 years ago that Hamilton was cheating at duels: that his dualing pistols were cheats, that using them he fired early, and that the secret hair-trigger probably caused him to misfire in his final dual, leading to his death.
Has this entered the American consciousness? Do people consider it significant? Has it been refuted?
I learned about the Hamilton/Burr dual in 4th grade, but that was long ago.
… Who had too much time on his hands. This strawman he foists onto Jefferson is silly. Of course he quotes from neither Jefferson, nor Jackson to support his claim.
Jefferson was influenced by classical economists in general but in particular the French “ideologues” such as Jean-Baptiste Say and Deshutt De Tracy (whose work he translated into English) who held a subjective theory of value. This Taylor you quote seems to hold a labor theory of value.
Yes, in his personal life he was “about” agriculture. Owning a plantation will do that to a man. As for his economic views, as I mentioned, he was influenced by the classical economists. Are you suggesting that the classical school in more favorable to agriculture than industry?
Cite? That’s a number of awfully complex and significant distinctions summarily dismissed, and dismissed solely because you have a political axe to grind. There was a world of difference between Jefferson and Hamilton; neither man was perfect*. Both had good point, and both were men of and ahead of their time.
Jefferson had the greater vision to see that America would be a diverse and expanding nation, one that should eagerly absorb the best of old-world learning as well as developing new insights. He was suspicious and loyal, vain and un-self-conscious, expansively perceptive and narrow-minded all at once. He was THE Man of Contradiction, and his virtues and faults shaped much of the good and bad of the Republic in the years to come. His class of men would provide some of the greatest leaders of the Republic; a class of men imitating their greateness would help start the Civil War. He was largely correct in noting that industrialization was not exactly a great investment in his time; small markets and weak transportation limited it. Only the Transportation Revolution which was only just beginning when he died could change that, and it was only then that industrialization took off. Up until that point, Jefferson was flat correct in believing that the future of the Republic lay in its agrarian base (for three generations past the Revolutionry War).
And we must give Hamilton his due as well. Jefferson was the anti-elitist among the elite. Hamilton was the elitist among the anti-elite, a man whose birth had in n way prepared him for greatness. He rose through society by raw intellect, hard work, and his capability for forming social networks. He was a proponent of proper fiscal body for the nascent United States; he was also a capable politician and able to build significant support for his programs. Hamilton was courageous and often generous as well as a bastard in every sense. He saw that industrial technology would grow and form the basis for vast economic growth, and that America would become the great leader in industry. He was also ahead of his time in most respects and too tied to a narrow section of society, one which wouldn’t bear fruit for the rest of us until many decades had passed. He made real mistakes because he wasn’t using hindsight, but trying to see what might be.
There is no question that these men disagreed and even disliked one another; but there is also no question that America owes both a massive debt. As men, they couldn’t magically divine the future and had to use their best judgement. But there is no question that a decent American can be glad we had both, because both had one critical aspect in common: they wanted to strengthen the greatness of America. That should be enough for any critic.
The question of tariffs versus free markets isn’t one we’re going to resolve now; suffice it to say most economists think that tariffs which form substantial barriers to trade are inefficient in the long run. America may be the exception which proves the rule (in every sense) as the vast internal free market grew to become a larger body than any other nation, all of which had many more internal barriers. Suffice it to say that economics was then in its infancy; it was only really studied as a separate field during the century of the Revolutionary War, and Adam Smith was still new in the day. Those lessons were not absorbed quickly, and even to this day are debated and argued over.
*Because John Adams already took the perfect option.
I’m a Hamilton man myself, but as it happens, both he and Jefferson are honored by statues in front of the old Cuyahoga County Courthouse in Cleveland, Ohio. It’s a nice acknowledgement of their important but very different roles in the early history of the republic:
Can I just point out how quaint it is that Democratic-Republicans and Federalists are still battling it out on the SDMB? I anxiously await contributions from the Whigs and No Nothings.
I’m not great with historical analysis, but it’s worth remembering that Hamilton’s main influence was through Washington.
During the war, he was Washington’s aide-de-camp where he could demonstrate his intelligence and competence in a strictly non-ideological position. He showed Washington he had what it takes, apparently just doing his job and not making a fuss about his other non-military skills. One of the stories from Washington’s grandson is that the General had no idea during the war how capable Hamilton was with finance. He first went to Robert Morris, financier of the Revolution, as his first pick for Treasury. From Chernow’s biography of Hamilton:
There’s another version of the story, very similar, where Washington goes to Morris for advice on the debt, and Morris just plain tells him that Hamilton is the best guy to sort it out. Washington’s previous experience with Hamilton sealed the deal. Their long fruitful relationship is how Hamilton had so much influence in the first administration.
But after that, he’d be in power so long that he wasn’t truly well-liked by any other large group. Even if he’d lived, I don’t think I see him returning to a major office. I think his main strength would have been his personal commentary on the country, not any more public service. He was a great prolific writer, and his perspective could have been compelling and incisive for many years to come, if Burr hadn’t shot him.
A lot of truth to this and the rest of what you said. Hamilton had a big ego that annoyed a lot of people who otherwise might have agreed with his views. A big part of Hamilton’s success was due to Washington’s willingness to overlook the egotism and let Hamilton get to work. And Hamilton’s normal egotism was tempered by his genuine respect for Washington.
This crashed to a halt when Washington retired. Adams and Hamilton were both Federalists but they couldn’t work together. Adams had ego issues of his own and wasn’t willing to tolerate Hamilton’s claims to superiority. Hamilton, for his part, wasn’t willing to show President Adams the deference he had shown President Washington. The fight between these two Federalist leaders created an opening for Jefferson and the Democrats to take over.
Potentially, with Washington dead and Adams retired, Hamilton could have become the undisputed leaders of the Federalists if he had lived. Not having to work with a President over his head might have reduced Hamilton’s need to argue. With Jefferson, Madison, and the Democrats in power, a living Hamilton could have served as a focal point for opposition to gather around. And his worst enemies would have conceded Hamilton was a smart man; he might have learned his lesson about the problems of internal divisiveness and worked on his people skills.
Adams could be abrasive himself, but he’s almost the dead opposite of an egotist; the problem was that Adams had wide-ranging respect - probably second in national affection after Washington, but unlike Jefferson and Hamilton felt no particular urge to build it into a political movement. Nor did he apparently feel he had any talent for it. Many of the common dirty elements to politics were simply inconceivable to Adams. He was rather unpleasantly shocked as he came to realize the skewed perspectives in newspaper editorials were coming from people he greatly respected; Adams didn’t have such minions and never really had that much interest in either popularity or politics.
Hence a lot of the post-Washington quarrel came down to the fact that three men couldn’t work together. Adams wanted to stay above it all, even to the point of emulating Washington. He was a Federalist but only marginally. This meant he ended being the giant neon-lit target of both Hamilton and Jefferson, who were aleady constructing nascent political machines, but he had no way to counter their arguments in public. He could make speeches, but they could editorialize.
I think the Adams-Hamilton feud goes much deeper than simple ego on either side. Hamilton was the energetic man of action, always racing ahead; Adams was the relatively sedate man of letters. Hamilton got ahead by constant excitement, raw intellect, and unshakeable will to get anything he needed (money, power, women) for his advancement. Adams got where he did by committed morality, hard work, and carefuly applicaiton of political theory. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Adams and Hamilton were complete and utter opposites.
Most likely. It wouldn’t have been per se a bad thing, and likely would have meant that instead of the Federalists dying out and the Democrats exploding into the Whig/Democrat parties later on (with the Whigs taking up the banner of the Federalists with only a thin coat of paint), you’d have the same people under the Federalist label indefinitely. Perhaps even today.
Adams was a very principled man and he often suffered for it. Jefferson and Hamilton often expressed some principle but, as a practical matter, would violate their espoused principle if they felt the situation justified it. Adams, on the other hand, stuck to his principles even when it made his life difficult.
As you not, Adams was a hard working man and he didn’t call for public acclaim. But his private papers show that he was bitter over the fact that the public hadn’t recognized all his hard work and were giving their acclaim to people that Adams felt had done less than he had.
A point I’ve seen made is that the United States didn’t really evolve a two-party system until the Jackson era. In the early years, there were political movements but a faction that fell out of power (like the Federalists) would essentially fade away. So you had a political system that effectively functioned as a one-party system.
It wasn’t until the Whigs rose up as a party to challenge Jackson’s Democrats that an out-of-power party would maintain its existence in opposition to the party in power and an ongoing two-party system emerged.
Jefferson characterizes the conflict, not as between the elites and the masses, nor as between centralization and decentralization/states’-rights, nor as between state/community power and individual liberty – but as between the executive and legislative branches of the federal governement and their respective supporters; and he ascribes an ideological character to that conflict. Even if that was true at the time, nowadays executive-legislative tension has no ideological character, and has not had for well more than a century – that is, neither party has even in theory any principled commitment to a strong executive or a strong legislature, but simply and always demands more power for whichever branch it happens to control at the moment.
Keep in mind Jefferson wrote that when Adams was President.
A few years later when Jefferson was President, he sent the navy to the Barbary Coast without Congressional authorization, bought the Louisiana territory despite admitting he had no Constitutional authority to do so, and citing executive privilege in saying that no authority, including Congress or the Supreme Court, could order the President to surrender state papers he felt were confidential.
In other words, Jefferson became a convert to executive power once his party had it.
