Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Lesson of Alexander Hamilton
The American Thinker ^ | 5-28-12 | Jeremy Meister

Posted on 05/28/2012 3:36:36 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic

How many things are in a person's pocket that they don't even know about?

We take money for granted -- most people can't tell us which way George Washington is facing on the quarter. They can tell us that Ben Franklin is on the front of the hundred, but they can't tell us that Independence Hall (where he helped draft the Constitution) is on the back.

One might think that as denominations get smaller and more common, the pictures on them would become more famous and well-known. The ten-dollar bill features Alexander Hamilton on the front. Since he was never a president himself, one wonders how many Americans could explain how he got on the note. A hint is on the back, where there is a picture of the U.S. Treasury. In short, Alexander Hamilton was the first secretary of the Treasury.

But it was how he handled that position that garnered him immortality on our money.

A lot of people living in the United States in 1790 believed (as a lot of people do today) that the debts incurred during the American Revolution should just be ignored. What modern people would think of as the United States didn't begin until 1789. The debts run up before that time were under a different government, so why should the new government be responsible for that debt?

Alexander Hamilton argued against this.

He believed that the new nation needed a good reputation on the international scene. If the United States was known to honor its debts, it would find it easier to get loans. Hamilton pointed out that this would be especially useful in a national emergency. Moreover, Hamilton wanted the federal government to take up all the state debt as well.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: alexanderhamilton; credit; foundingfather; godsgravesglyphs; money; treasury
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-180 next last
To: Pharmboy

Wow! Thanks for the history lesson. Please add me to your ping list on American History. I love that stuff, and it doesn’t hurt to read it over and over again.


51 posted on 05/28/2012 1:23:56 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man
Turning your corn into whiskey insured a product that could travel long distances and would be well received and paid for

Now they turn it into ethanol. It travels a long distance and we pay a lot for it.

52 posted on 05/28/2012 1:28:12 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
The part of this article that scares me the most is the report that Hamilton advocated taking on States’ debt under some circumstances. Scares the bejezus out of me.

I'm sure in his time, most in government were on the plus side of honorable, unlike today. The scale of debt in blue states like California, et al is staggering - they are run nowhere near anyone with any sense would call honorable.

What you are referring to is called "the assumption." It was intended to promote union between the states so that they would all feel more strongly bound to each other. When I first learned of it, I thought it was an excellent idea. It was just another way of saying "We are all in this together."

However, it was a one shot deal, and it was not intended to justify or forgive irresponsibility on the part of states who are behaving idiotically. California, Michigan, and other states which are following the Democrat model, not only ought to suffer the ravages of their own foolishness, I believe that it is our civic duty to make them suffer it faster and as horribly as we can make it!

What these people have been flirting with NEEDS to leave a horrible memory burned onto their psyche. The voting public who tolerates the Socialist/Communistic mindset needs to be made fully aware of what is WRONG with socialist ideas. If they don't feel the burn, they will never learn.

53 posted on 05/28/2012 1:39:54 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
I have no condemnation of Hamilton; his ideals were of a different time, and that was the point of my post.

I have to say some unpleasant things about him. As the leader of the Federalists, he was one of the most important people working to form the US Constitutional government. He was an author of many of the Federalist Papers, and it is pretty obvious without his efforts, much of what did occur, would not have occurred.

However, Hamilton pooh poohed the concerns of the Anti-Federalists, and if you look at the Anti-Federalist papers, virtually everything they worried about came to pass exactly as they had expressed their concern, and completely contrary to Hamilton's dismissal of them.

All of the predictions of a draconian and out of control Federal Government turned out to be true. In many respects, Hamilton was dead wrong, and his opponents turned out to be dead right.

54 posted on 05/28/2012 1:48:00 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Washington, OTOH, did not make a great show of opposition to slavery, but did spend his retirement getting his affairs in order so that all his slaves could be freed on his death, with careful provision for their training in a trade or support for the elderly.

Washington's movement towards emancipation and opposition to slavery was not foreordained. He thought long and hard about the issue, and grudgingly and slowly moved from a position of pro-slavery to one of anti-slavery. I just ran across this link last week. Fascinating reading. It is basically the history of his transformation.

55 posted on 05/28/2012 1:54:48 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
With all this being said, big gummint back then was very different from the behemoth that we have now. Hamilton AND Jefferson would be aghast at what is going on now.

I agree.

56 posted on 05/28/2012 2:05:30 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks Pharmboy.
It's worth remembering that in 1801, when Jefferson became president, the US national debt was around $100 million, about 10 times annual federal revenues. This was literally "the cost of freedom," and would correspond today to a national debt around $30 trillion. Since our actual national debt is $13+ trillion, the government is in better financial shape today than it was in Jefferson's time. And at the time, Jefferson's number one priority was paying down the national debt. So, how did he do it? How does ANY wise government ever increase its revenues? Yes, that's right! JEFFERSON REDUCED GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND CUT TAXES.-- BroJoeK
Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.


57 posted on 05/28/2012 2:08:11 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
I just ran across this link last week. I thought you might like to know about it. It was authored by Philip D. Morgan, (Johns Hopkins University)and it is in regarding to Washington's slow transformation from a slave holder to being opposed to slavery.
58 posted on 05/28/2012 2:08:50 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

And I neglected to say, well said!


59 posted on 05/28/2012 2:12:08 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Actually, I thought you were already on the list, but I checked, and indeed you were not. I have added you, and please note, it is my distinct pleasure to do this.

I rarely add my editorial comments when posting to this list, yet I have stepped out a bit on this thread. Further, I hate pedants, and try not to be pedantic, but alas, I do not always succeed.

Your Humble and Obdt. Svt.
P____y

60 posted on 05/28/2012 2:14:09 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
You said:

“Actually, I believe this ordinance applied only to the new territories north of the Ohio, and of course the Northwest Ordinance a few years later did abolish slavery in this area. So I fail to see how the failure of this provision made a bit of difference.”

Your point about failure was irrelevant. The point was that the “parasite” Jefferson was attempting to abolish that which you insinuate he was consuming. It was proof of the misdirection (and canard) of your assertion.

How were the middle and northern state gentlemen you reference parasites?

If you read back, I did not reference any “middle state” people as parasites. That was your accusation of Jefferson.

In what way were they living at ease by the forcible exploitation of others?

Well, let's see. Over 200 distilleries in those states converting molasses to rum. Dozens of shipbuilders, riggers, docks, Captains and sailors....all involved in the triangle trade....you remember that, don't you?

Oh, and don't forget the insurance agents necessary for the business, as well as the bankers, lawyers, and their politicians.

They sailed to Africa to trade their rum and guns for slaves, slaves for molasses in the Caribbean, and back to Rhode Island, Newport, New York, and Philadelphia to drop off the booty from their trade in humans.

John Adams was an attorney. Benjamin Franklin was a wealthy retired printer and businessman. Livingston and Sherman were lawyers and politicians.”

Yes, and they voted against making the trade in slaves illegal.

Ever wonder why? (Back up 4 paragraphs and see).

61 posted on 05/28/2012 2:17:33 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Poser

Sometimes it is best not to second guess someone.


62 posted on 05/28/2012 2:25:54 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Sir, you are too kind.


63 posted on 05/28/2012 2:43:12 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
“Hamilton's vision for this country was a forward-looking one of dynamic trade and economic growth; Jefferson's was backward-looking and agrarian.”

Actually Jefferson's interest was in liberty and freedom to pursue one’s own avenue to life and happiness. Hamilton's was to use the government, central banking, debt, and trade restrictions to aid some at the expense of others.

Who would think this? None other than the most well recognized economist of the time.

In 1776, Adam Smith, writing in his work ‘Wealth of Nations’ discussed comparative costs of production of various social systems. Smith insisted that,

“The mercantile system's (that system proposed by Hamilton and his party) ultimate object, however, it pretends, is always the same, to enrich the country by an advantageous balance of trade.

“It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to.”

“And among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects.”

“In the mercantile regulations,...the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to; and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it.”

Northern manufacturing benefited from the system at the expense of the exporting South.

And Hamilton supported the loss of liberty of the producers of raw materials as well as the consumers to the benefit of the manufacturing owners.

64 posted on 05/28/2012 2:55:23 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

thanks for posting this


65 posted on 05/28/2012 3:09:41 PM PDT by silverleaf (Funny how all the people who are for abortion are already born)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
From the American Thinker column:

"Alexander Hamilton knew that the key to a strong nation is the management and handling of debt. His work not only allowed the United States to pay off the Revolutionary War, but it set the nation on the course to prosperity never seen anywhere else on Earth at any point in history."

Pretty impressive, eh?

66 posted on 05/28/2012 3:27:46 PM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Yes, and they voted against making the trade in slaves illegal.

Nonsense. The relevant section of the DOI had nothing at all to do with outlawing the slave trade. It merely (less than entirely truthfully) attempted to blame the King for the existence of the slave trade, as if it had been forced on Americans.

Here's the text of his rough draft.

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. [determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold,] he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold]: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

It is perhaps relevant that VA, even at this time, was a net exporter of slaves to the deeper south, thus had a financial incentive in restricting the competition of the Atlantic trade. The slave states further south had an entirely different perspective on the trade, which is why the Constitution protected it for 20 years.

67 posted on 05/28/2012 3:35:50 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
You are quoting Adam Smith, so I know you are not arguing against capitalism, although it appears so. Further, you seem to imply that Hamilton--the man who directly risked his life several times in support of liberty--was less dedicated to that concept than Jefferson. Nonsense.

Hamilton--a man who argued against slavery, while Jefferson paid lip service to abolition, though supported slavery in fact and in deed. Jefferson always impressed me as the first American limousine liberal.

Hamilton was a self-made man, and believed that helping to create a dynamic economy allowed others to move up. I never got the feeling that TJ felt the same...I could be wrong.

Arguing against 'mercantilism' seems to me to be arguing against capitalism. I think that today's analogous remark would be that not taxing the rich more would 'favor' them over the rest. Bah.

68 posted on 05/28/2012 5:34:48 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

My distinct pleasure.


69 posted on 05/28/2012 5:36:21 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Thank you very much. I'm tickled by your comment: Further, I hate pedants, and try not to be pedantic,

I went back to college in the '90s to finish my business degree, left dormant 40 years. I was stuck in a class of young things for orientation discussing "style" as it referred to papers, footnotes, end notes, etc. I asked a question, using the word "pedantic" and stopped the class cold. None of those sweet young things knew the meaning, or the usage of the word. LOL.

70 posted on 05/28/2012 9:12:07 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

bmfl


71 posted on 05/29/2012 4:48:40 AM PDT by Moltke (Always retaliate first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

Thanks for that ping Pharmboy!!


72 posted on 05/29/2012 7:58:00 AM PDT by ZULU (Non Nobis Domine Non Nobis Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
It would be impressive, if there were any truth to it.

Hamilton's primary effort was to establish a bank of the United States. He temporarily succeeded in 1791.

This national bank was a disaster for the general public, which was everyone in all of the United States.

By its end in 1796, excessive printing and therefore money creation by the Hamilton bank caused an inflation rate of 72 percent .

It became so unpopular that its twenty year charter was not renewed by Congress, which puts the lie to the author's assumption.

Hamilton's bank was fought by many in the government who knew that despite prosperity for a few, allowing him to continue would result in limiting public liberty with debt.

Jefferson was a prime opponent. Eventually it was permanently de-funded by President Andrew Jackson,

73 posted on 05/29/2012 8:24:46 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
As I read your post, I was reminded of things from a book I am reading:

“Truth is sincerity; and in all we say and do, we must be sincere. We must not make false impressions, directly or indirectly.

“There are many ways by which we may mislead and deceive others by what we say. Some of the ways are:

1. Saying a thing when we know it is not true.
2. Saying a thing when we do not know whether it is true or not.
3. Prevaricating.
4. Misrepresenting.
5. Exaggerating.

“All these are different forms of untruth.”

I think most here would appreciate you being more forthright in your postings.

74 posted on 05/29/2012 8:52:07 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

Madison, who like most southerners who opposed the bank, started the Second Bank during his term, a point you omitted. He did it to stabilize the currency. So, even those against the creation of a central bank eventually saw some good in it.


75 posted on 05/29/2012 9:56:51 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

My pleasure! Always nice to hear from you...


76 posted on 05/29/2012 10:41:57 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
They had no idea as to the role Alexander Hamilton played in our country's history. Yep, the teachers are doing a bang-up job in teaching the children about the Founding Fathers.

A few years ago I read somewhere that teachers of American history were given curricula that focused on the post Civil War era to The Vietnam era and excluded the Rev. War and the founding.

This was because it was deemed more importent to teach "change" rather than foundation.

It scared me then; it angers me now that i see the result.

77 posted on 05/29/2012 11:07:21 AM PDT by Gordon Pym (2+2=4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

The problem during the Articles of Confederation period was Continental Army vets and others that supported that effort were being stiffed. The unanimous actions for paying debts was a big problem. Some states gambled and bought up the worthless debt in exchange for state notes and then the states started stalling.

Shay’s rebellion was largely brought about by debt issues most modern analysis has shown. Hamilton was trying to instill national confidence within as well as outside the nation.

His contribution was tremendous, but his personality as he grew older left him without enough defenders when the Jefferson tactics started.


78 posted on 05/29/2012 11:46:20 AM PDT by KC Burke (Plain Conservative opinions and common sense correction for thirteen years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
“Madison, who like most southerners who opposed the bank, started the Second Bank during his term, a point you omitted. He did it to stabilize the currency. So, even those against the creation of a central bank eventually saw some good in it.

That is right. But let's get some more facts stated, and then more clear conclusions can be drawn.

President Madison did not “start” the second bank. It was primarily six men who were working diligently on establishing the second Bank of the United States.

These six were financiers John Jacob Astor, David Parish, Stephen Girard, and Jacob Barker. Also there was Alexander Dallas, who would become Secretary of the Treasury in 1814, and Representative John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. These men helped author the bill for the bank that was passed by the Congress.

President Madison did not agree with the initiative and vetoed the bill in 1815.

This combination of businessmen and politicians would not take no for an answer. When Congress reconvened in December 1815, they used a Presidential initiative to bring the bank back up for a vote.

In this next term, President Madison urged Congress to address the question of a uniform currency. State banks had ceased redemption of their notes, mostly because of a lack of gold and silver. Madison felt that the time had come for Congress to introduce the country to a more uniform paper currency. The secretary of the Treasury agreed and in his annual report noted that “a national bank would be the best and perhaps the only adequate resource to relieve the country and the government from the present embarrassments.”

But when a vote on the bank arose at the end of January 1816, Madison vetoed the bank legislation again.

Taking up the question once again in February, the House of Representatives considered still another bill to create a national bank. Finally, after more debate, the measure passed the House and Senate, with Madison signing the bill this time.

By this time, Madison and the government were no longer faced with war financing, but still had to deal with the issue of establishing a stable currency.

Madison was not a proponent of repaying state debt, but was concerned with currency stabilization.

79 posted on 05/29/2012 12:06:49 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

Absolutely. The depths of the ocean are now known, the depths of human ignorance knows no bounds.


80 posted on 05/29/2012 12:11:13 PM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Thank you for filling in names, dates and other facts about the Second Bank. We certainly both agree that Madison did it to stabilize the currency (since we both said that), and as I understand it, runaway inflation was the problem.

But getting back to TJ and Alex for a moment, the former clearly disliked the northern finance-types, hated NYC when he had to live there (and, for those interested, if you go to Google Maps, plug in "59 Maiden Lane, NYC" and then click and drag on the little yellow guy in the satellite view, then put him in front of that address, it will give you a street view. As you look at the big "59" on the building, pan left and you will see a guy sitting on a bench and a plaque on the building wall in front of him: that plaque commemorates Jefferson's apartment).

At any rate, TJ did not like these city-types and really hated the speculators (interesting how BHO attacks the 'oil speculators' today, don't you think?). How much of the First and/or Second Bank were bad examples of crony capitalism I cannot say (although I'm sure there was some of that), but I also believe that just like Madison (an anti-Federalist cum Democrat-Republican), Hamilton's primary motive was to stabilize the currency and form a foundation for a solid economic footing for the early Republic.

81 posted on 05/29/2012 12:27:27 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

Those are all good points. And I try to implement them in my life. Nothing I have said here has intentionally flouted any of these precepts.


82 posted on 05/29/2012 1:51:38 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Nonsense? Of course not.

Jefferson was making two major statements: the first was to condemn the King and his associates for underwriting and coercing the colonies to import slaves. The second was an effort to condemn the trade and gain support for the cessation of the trade.

Before their separation from England, many of the colonies wanted a cessation of the slave trade due to the fact that there was no adequate employment at that time for the Negro population. The British Crown refused.

When the separation took place, from that moment the New England States assumed the position, in regard to slavery, which Great Britain had previously occupied.

The evil of this traffic had become apparent to many of the people of the South, and when the DOI was being outlined, some in the South openly spoke for ways that would inhibit this traffic of importing human beings from Africa.

The New England slave-traders resisted the South. The New England States owned the shipping and distilleries, and were profiting greatly from the slave trade. They accumulated much capital in both.

As seen, Thomas Jefferson had developed his anti-slavery clause in the first draft of the Declaration. The clause was removed by John Adams (MA), Benjamin Franklin (MA), Robert R. Livingston (NY), and Roger Sherman (CT).

Thomas Jefferson had thus, as a Southern legislator and later President, introduced a scathing denunciation of, and protest against, the slave trade in the Declaration of Independence, but had no choice but to withdraw it upon the insistence of Adams and other New Englanders, and two southern states.

His personal notes from the debates included the following commentary:

"Congress proceeded the same day to consider the Declaration of Independence, which had been reported and lain on the table the Friday preceding, and on Monday referred to a committee of the whole. The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with still haunted the minds of many.

"For this reason, those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offense. The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it.

"Our Northern brethren, also, I believe, felt a little tender under those censures; for though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.

Just as a point of reference, the number of slaves imported annually had dropped to approximate average of 18,000 during the decade 1770-1780. However, for the decade of 1780-1790, the yearly average increased to 55,000.

It is important to keep in mind that this trade was conducted in Northern ships.

83 posted on 05/29/2012 2:19:18 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge; rockrr
In 1785, Thomas Jefferson established his Land Ordinance, which included a provision for the abolition of slavery. It was defeated by a single vote in Congress.

That would have forbidden slavery in the Northwest Territories. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 did just that, after Jefferson had left for France. There's no indication that he supported abolishing slavery in the states or in the nation as a whole.

Thomas Jefferson developed an anti-slavery clause in the first draft of the Declaration. The clause was removed by John Adams (MA), Benjamin Franklin (MA), Robert R. Livingston (NY), and Roger Sherman (CT). The parasites were living in Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut.

That was more an anti-slave trade clause than an anti-slavery clause as such. And it's pretty bizarre, blaming George III for slavery and for "exciting" the slaves to revolt and murder the people he had "obtruded" tham on.

According to Jefferson himself, it was delegates from South Carolina and Georgia who wanted the clause deleted. He also blamed Northerners who voted with them. Roger Sherman was probably who he had in mind. I see no evidence that John Adams had anything to do with killing the clause. Is that something you got from the musical?

In later years Jefferson became a determined opponent of substantive anti-slavery efforts, seeing them as Northern aggression against Virginia, and caring more about slights to Southern honor than about human freedom.

The point surely is that none of the Founders was perfect. None of their ideologies was perfect in all things. The thinking of Hamilton or Jefferson or Adams or Madison can't be translated directly into a political program today without a lot of adapting and tinkering.

We can learn from them and be inspired by them, but ought to be aware of the differences between their day and our own. I guess the reverse is true as well. What seems to us now to be right might not have been possible in their era either.

84 posted on 05/29/2012 2:39:59 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

Your claim that Jefferson attempted to outlaw the slave trade via the DOI was indeed nonsense. The DOI was a rhetorical instrument, it was not anything resembling legislation. Had his anti-slave trade clause been left in, it still would not have had any legal effect on the trade one way or another.

Thanks for admitting that deep south states wanted to keep importing slaves. Now if you will just agree that one reason some Virginians wanted to abolish the trade was partially to raise the value of their own “livestock,” by limiting supply, we’ll be more or less in agreement. The deep south states, of course, who were the market for the VA slaves, wanted to keep the trade going for exactly the opposite reason. They wanted to keep the price down.


85 posted on 05/29/2012 2:44:55 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Let's begin with your last point first.

I see that you are not a student of Adam Smith as annotated by your comment: “Arguing against ‘mercantilism’ seems to me to be arguing against capitalism.”

What you seem not to know is that Smith's entire work was devoted to free markets, enterprise, and his dedication to the laissez-faire economy.

In simple terms, Smith was a free market capitalist. His work was in direct opposition to mercantilism.

The fundamental assertions of mercantilism, a term that I think he developed, were that national wealth will come through the import and accumulation of gold or other precious metals such as silver, and that trade should be based strictly on hard metals accumulation.

Smith was highly critical of this theory of wealth and he clearly understood the class bias and loss of personal liberty in the merchant system that supported it. In fact, Smith expressed great concern about colonialism, as seen in his home country, and the early history of the United States; and the monopoly trade routes instituted by the merchant class, which often worked against the economic interests of the citizenry.

86 posted on 05/29/2012 2:46:01 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Your comment: "Hamilton--a man who argued against slavery, while Jefferson paid lip service to abolition, though supported slavery in fact and in deed. Jefferson always impressed me as the first American limousine liberal."

So, let's examine the two.

On the issue of slavery, here is Thomas Jefferson's record.

Beginning with the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Jefferson introduced strong wording in the initial draft condemning the practices and processes of the slave trade.

In the Virginia Assembly, in the 1788, legislator Jefferson supported a bill to prohibit the state from importing slaves.

Next, in the 1784 Congress, Jefferson proposed federal legislation banning slavery in the New Territories of the Northwest.

As President in 1807 he signed a bill prohibiting the US from participating in the international slave trade.

And now Hamilton's actions:............

87 posted on 05/29/2012 3:01:58 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Hamilton used the idea of a stable currency to help move the Bank of the United States back onto the agenda of Congress, and succeeded in convincing Madison that the reason, currency stabilization, was advantageous to the country as a whole.

But let's look at who Hamilton was, and from the beginning:

May of 1867 finds that a convention was organized in Philadelphia to take up the issue of a united colonies constitution.

The delegates fell into three factions. There were Democratics, demonstrating constant dread of Federal encroachments, and advocating keeping the power of the Federal government at a minimum level.

The Democratic Republican faction wanted to invest the Federal Government with just enough power to make it effective.

Finally came the Monarchists, later the Federalists, who repudiated a Republican form of government.

Hamilton was strongly in favor of a government patterned after the European monarchies. He was totally against democracy, especially a republican form of government. He was the arch-Federalist who “hated Republican Government, and never failed on every occasion to advocate the excellence of and avow his attachment to a Monarchic form of Government, was so enamored with the British system of government that he called for the annihilation of the several State governments.”

How did this manifest itself in his actions?

Alexander Hamilton dreamed of an alliance between a strong central government and the wealthiest businessmen. In 1791 when he first proposed the national bank, as the proposal was written, it was openly a Federal monopoly over the money supply, with government subsidies to businesses that were aligned with his party. His rationalizations for this relationship were based on more than loose interpretations of the Constitution that he used to justify his proposals.

Hamilton's proposals were resented and received immediate resistance. The Virginia House of Delegates declared that “in an agricultural country like this, to erect a large monied interest in opposition to the landed interests, is a measure which must, in the course of human events, produce one other of two evils: the prostration of agriculture at the feet of Commerce, or a change in the present form of Federal Government fatal to the existence of American liberty.”

He also advocated the appointment of Senators and a President for life as well as the creation of a subservient House of Commons in order ‘check the imprudence of democracy,’

In addition to this, he suggested that the ‘rich and well born’ should have ‘a distinct, permanent share in the government’ because ‘the mass of the people... seldom judge or determine right.’

During a speech delivered in New York, he exclaimed, “The People! Gentlemen, I tell you the people are a great Beast!”

Alexander Hamilton foisted the argument that the government should undertake activities designed to make the nation more prosperous.

Others, such as Thomas Jefferson, saw that his ideas would consolidate power in the hands of the few, and argued for a more limited government that would not use its power to meddle in the lives of the citizens, thus respecting the concept of liberty.

88 posted on 05/29/2012 4:18:09 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Nothing?

You said this: “Tom sure didn't practice what he preached.”

Not so.

You said this: “In his private life he was quite profligate. Always had to have the finest wines, books, furniture and scientific instruments from Europe. As a result he went deeply into debt, thus being unable to free any of his slaves since he had had mortgaged them.”

And you know that how?

You said this: “Difficult to imagine a better description of a slave owner. A parasite indeed.”

Those were all negative, mostly supposition, and pejorative. Not very honest comments.

89 posted on 05/29/2012 4:27:34 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Well, you obviously know nothing about Hamilton that doesn't revolve around the bank. And, your citing of Jefferson's actions re slavery prove my point: a limousine liberal--if there ever was one in the 18th century. Yes indeed he wrote beautifully...about slavery among other things. But, PeaRidge, what was happening at Monticello? What was his actual life like? Oh...indeed...there were slaves there. And, he might have used them for more than chores around the fields and in the house.

He did not even free them at his death. Yes: do as I say but not as I do.

And Hamilton did nothing? He was a founding member of the NY Manumission Society (abolition of slavery). Here is the entire section on Hamilton and slavery from Wiki (they use much from the latest biography of Hamilton by Chernoff):

Hamilton's first polemic against King George's ministers contains a paragraph that speaks of the evils that "slavery" to the British would bring upon the Americans. McDonald sees this as an attack on the institution of slavery, David Hackett Fisher believes the term is used in a symbolic way at that time.[97]

During the Revolutionary War, Hamilton took the lead in proposals to arm slaves, free them, and compensate their masters. In 1779, Hamilton worked closely with his friend John Laurens of South Carolina to propose that such a unit be formed, under Laurens' command. Hamilton proposed to the Continental Congress to create up to four battalions of slaves for combat duty, and free them. Congress recommended that South Carolina (and Georgia) acquire up to three thousand slaves for service, if they saw fit. Although the South Carolina governor and Congressional delegation had supported the plan in Philadelphia, they did not implement it.[98]

Letter from Alexander Hamilton, 1779 Hamilton argued that blacks' natural faculties were as good as those of free whites, and he warned that the British would arm the slaves if the patriots did not. In his 21st-century biography, Chernow cites this incident as evidence that Hamilton and Laurens saw the Revolution and the struggle against slavery as inseparable.[99] Hamilton attacked his political opponents as demanding freedom for themselves and refusing to allow it to blacks.[100]

Hamilton, often in close association with his friend John Jay, was a leader in the anti-slavery movement in New York City following the Revolutionary War. They founded the New York Manumission Society to abolish the city's role in the international slave trade, and to pass legislation that would permanently end slavery in New York State. Both goals were accomplished by 1799.[101]

In January 1785, he attended the second meeting of the New York Manumission Society (NYMS). Jay was president and Hamilton was the first secretary and later became president.[102] Chernow notes how the membership soon included many of Hamilton's friends and associates. He was a member of the committee of the society that petitioned the legislature to end the slave trade, and that succeeded in passing legislation banning the export of slaves from New York.[103] In the same period, Hamilton returned a fugitive slave to Henry Laurens of South Carolina.[104]

Hamilton never supported forced emigration for freed slaves. Horton has argued from this that he would be comfortable with a multiracial society, and that this distinguished him from his contemporaries.[105] In international affairs, he supported Toussaint L'Ouverture's black government in Haiti after the revolt that overthrew French control, as he had supported aid to the slaveowners in 1791—both measures hurt France.[106]

Hamilton may have owned household slaves, as did many wealthy New Yorkers (the evidence for this is indirect; McDonald interprets it as referring to paid employees).[107]

He supported a gag rule to keep divisive discussions of slavery out of Congress. He opposed the compromise at the 1787 Constitutional Convention by which the federal government could not abolish the slave trade for 20 years, and was disappointed when he lost that argument.[108]

End of wiki section.

Now tell me again: what did Jefferson do re slavery?

90 posted on 05/29/2012 5:09:29 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

You blow smoke very well.


91 posted on 05/29/2012 6:03:57 PM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

As I read your post, I was reminded of something from a book I am reading:

“People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”


92 posted on 05/29/2012 7:22:36 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: x
Thank you X for that eloquent and wise commentary on Jefferson.

Since you are arriving late to the discussion, let me bring you up to date. We were discussing Hamilton's opinion and his ideas on banking. The issue of Jefferson was a misdirection executed by Sherman Logan when he used a personal insult of Jefferson to redirect the conversation away from Hamilton's monarchical ideas. I think he used the word parasite.

Nothing like a good ad hominem to stir up the pot, as I know you can appreciate.

So, your contentions have been already answered, and if you will look backward, you will see where you were wrong.

With regard to Jefferson's slavery clause, if you remember there were four others on the writing group, and many said a “sub group” consisted of Adams and one other. The clause removal has alternately been attributed to either the convention as a whole or those two. Most seem to think it was Adams.

93 posted on 05/30/2012 11:19:50 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I provided you the passage on honesty for a reason. Twice you have misrepresented what I have posted.

“Your claim that Jefferson attempted to outlaw the slave trade via the DOI was indeed nonsense.”

That is purely from your imagination. I stated clearly that he had included a clause condemning slavery in the DOI to show the canard in your characterization of Jefferson as a slave owner and “parasite”.

I have no problem in the truth that there were some states, north and south, that wanted to keep importing slaves. I think you still do.

94 posted on 05/30/2012 1:09:26 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
"Now tell me again: what did Jefferson do re slavery?" Be glad to.

Beginning with the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Jefferson introduced strong wording in the initial draft condemning the practices and processes of the slave trade.

In the Virginia Assembly, in the 1788, legislator Jefferson supported a bill to prohibit the state from importing slaves.

Next, in the 1784 Congress, Jefferson proposed federal legislation banning slavery in the New Territories of the Northwest.

As President in 1807 he signed a bill prohibiting the US from participating in the international slave trade.

95 posted on 05/30/2012 1:15:23 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Sounds like a request for sources. What are your concerns?


96 posted on 05/30/2012 1:16:47 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Hello Rockrr.

Let me get back to you on that.

97 posted on 05/30/2012 1:18:28 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Again, you make my point: words were easy for Jefferson, it was acting well that he often found extremely hard. Limousine liberal of the 18th century for sure.

Perhaps you somehow missed what I said to you in my previous post, so allow me to repeat it: Jefferson had slaves on his plantation throughout his life, and lived well off their labor. Further, he did not free them at his death as did Washington (except for two of Sally Hemming's family); nor did he educate them--as did Washington. And here are a few more of his deeds (from Wiki, well-referenced):

In 1798 his friend Tadeusz Kościuszko, a hero of the Revolution, entrusted Jefferson with his American estate and will, by which he intended slaves to be purchased for freedom, as he strongly supported abolitionism. He died in 1817, but Jefferson never executed his will, although he could have freed all his own slaves with the money, at no cost to himself.[8]

And then there's this:

As governor of Virginia for two years during the Revolution, Jefferson signed a bill to promote military enlistment by giving white men land, "a healthy sound Negro...or £60 in gold or silver."[37]

While president, he refused to recognize the new nation of Haiti--because there had been a slave revolt there. Liberty for me but not for thee.

What a phony your hero was.

98 posted on 05/30/2012 3:03:50 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
With regard to Jefferson's slavery clause, if you remember there were four others on the writing group, and many said a “sub group” consisted of Adams and one other. The clause removal has alternately been attributed to either the convention as a whole or those two. Most seem to think it was Adams.

From what I've been able to find out, the "anti-slavery clause" wasn't deleted by the drafting committee but later, after the Declaration had been presented by the committee to the Congress as a whole. Jefferson blamed the South Carolina and Georgia delegations and some of the "Northern brethren" who benefited from the slave trade.

One source (R.B. Bernstein) says that Adams fought the deletions, and the timid Jefferson didn't really express his reaction to the deletions. Another (Gary B. Nash) says that Adams particularly approved of the language in the anti-slavery clause. I don't find anyone saying that Adams killed or tried to kill the passage either in the committee or in the Congress.

99 posted on 05/30/2012 5:16:49 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
By 1787 the US had no means of raising funds to pay over one hundred million dollars in debt. This was an astronomical claim against an empty treasury. Some respected men suggested debt repudiation. The Confederation was dissolving. European States expected to pick up the pieces of a failed, decade old American experiment in self government.

The Constitution that Hamilton worked to implement saved the Union. By it, Hamilton and other able men set us on a course that paid our debt without crippling taxation. Because of them, the world watched a largely subsistence agricultural nation develop into a second tier industrial powerhouse in a little over a hundred years.

Your cheap shots directed at such men are disgusting.

100 posted on 05/31/2012 3:00:33 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-180 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson