Posted on 02/16/2006 6:44:35 AM PST by .cnI redruM
He did disagree and wrote a contrary opinion for Washington's consideration. The latter's quick rejection of the specious argument Jefferson attempted caused the already deteriorating relation between them to go past the point of no return. After future demonstrations of Jefferson's perfidity and hypocrisy Washington forbid mention of his name in his presence.
Fortunately Hamilton's victory on the Bank question provided the necessary strength to the new government, a Lamb among Wolves, to survive. Without it there would likely have been no ability to finance the Louisiana Purchase, no ability to pass through the economic disaster Jefferson provoked/could not avoid, and no ability to finance the War of 1812.
Fortunately the Washington-Hamilton program allowed the nation to survive the ideological idiocy and incompetence of the Democrat-Republicans. Had the latter party taken power first I have no doubt the nation would not have survived without incredible cost if at all.
Hamilton played as significant role in the calling for the convention, the writing of the document and its ratification and explanation as any man. Madison was not the "principal" author any more than Morris was. This "father" of the constitution title is dubious at best though his role during the 1780s working closely with Hamilton in driving the nation toward the CC was critical. That work was superlative in sharp contrast to his thought after falling under the sway of Jefferson which attacked what he had help create.
We have not been discussing what the Founders would have thought about our current government and what I have claimed about what they believed about their own times is entirely true.
While they certainly would have been shocked by the growth of government they did not have the ability to foresee the rise of totalitarian dictatorships bent on world domination or a world religion filled with suicidal lunatics bent on the destruction of western civilization. So I will not claim knowledge of what they would have thought about the current government. I will say they would not have advocated National Suicide because of ideological blinders. Jefferson (though not a "Founder" under a strict definition) might have but not the greatest and deepest of those thinkers.
Thats debatable (only an opinion).
The only reason I wrote that Jefferson would disagree earlier, was because you noted no one as a better source on the constitution them Hamilton.
Jefferson loathed and hated Hamilton, to the point where even after Hamilton died (shot by a Vice President, if you have a sense of humor, you have to find that funny now) he could not stop bad mouthing him.
My response was only about the fact you said anything postive about Hamilton, the joke being that Jefferson would disagree. It was not ideological.
Hamilton's achievements and deeds for this nation during the Founding were exceeded only by Washington and he has never been able to escape the punishment therefrom. Tearing down him while fraudulently building up Jefferson has been the intent of the Leftists in the universities and the media from that day forward. Washington admired no man more than Hamilton.
Jefferson is the most overrated president in our history and the more I learn about him the lower I rank him after starting out believing he was wonderful. Great cabinet maker, rhetoritician and demogogue but terrible statesman.
It wasn't the leftists that started tearing down Hamilton (if you want to get techincal, FDR was the first person to start ripping Hamilton, and he also bad mouthed Jefferson), but everyone else.
If you go back to the time frame, the men hated each other, Hamilton died young, Jefferson didn't, and his supporers didn't.
Jefferson and his friends spent years and years tearing down Hamilton after his death while building up Jefferson (who I actually am quite fond of, though I admire Hamilton more).
But not every liberal likes Jefferson just as not every conservative likes Hamilton.
A good example would be Robert Rubin whose role model was Hamilton and who went so far as to build a bust of him to admire every day while Senator George Allen is a huge fan of Jefferson and quotes him often (as did Reagan many times).
The destruction of Hamilton's reputation became long before FDR was even born. He was hated throughout the South during the entire 1800s mainly because of Jefferson and Jackson's insanity about the Bank. Newspapers during the 1790s went out of their way to lie about him, his program and his intentions.
Not praising Jefferson in Virginia would be political suicide. I see little to admire in Jefferson whom I consider to be a form of "limosine liberal". Though I used to believe the conventional propaganda about him.
I like Jefferson, but I am smart enough to sperate the myth from the man.
Acadamia loves Jefferson in a symbolic way, even if they hate many of his ideas or things he believed in.
Hamilton, however, will never ever be loved, as the author of a recent book noted "No one likes Hamiliton, not then, not now".
Sad, but true considering he was a great patriot, a founding father and a leader and hero to this great republic.
That will all change just as soon as my screenplay is optioned and filmed. :^)
I like that one a lot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.