Athena
07-02-2006, 11:38 AM
The following is an explanation of the conflict between Jefferson and Hamilton that lead to the Federalist papers.Â*Â*Some use the Federalist papers as though the forefather's of the US were in agreement, and these people oppose democracy.Â*Â*The forefathers of the US were not in agreement. Jefferson was a strong supporter of democracy.Â*Â*Hamilton was not.Â*Â*Â*Â*
From Revolution to Reconstruction: Biographies: A. Hamilton 27 Throughout the summer, Hamilton and Jefferson continued their sniper war. Jefferson adamantly contending that Hamilton was promoting monarchy; ...
www.let.rug.nl/usa/B/hamilton/hamil27.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
Jefferson confronted Washington with a list of 21 objections to Hamiltonian policies, which Washington forwarded to Hamilton for response. The complaints included concern over the size of the public debt, moral concerns over speculation ("it nourishes in our citizens vice & idleness instead of industry & morality"), the geographical inequities of the funding system, and a monarchical conspiracy "contemplated in the Convention" whose adherents were overrunning the government.
Hamilton responded at length and competently as usual, but protested to Washington: "I have not fortitude enough always to hear with calmness, calumnies, which necessarily include me, as a principal Agent . . . I feel, that I merit them in no degree; and expressions of indignation sometimes escape me, in spite of every effort to suppress them."
In his "objections and answers" to Jefferson's complaints (Washington had not revealed their author to Hamilton), Hamilton began by pointing out that the debt was incurred by the revolution, and not by any actions of the present administration. Taking Great Britain's example, Hamilton stated that their funding system clearly benefits all parts of the economy. Had the United States only made provisions to retire the debt as opposed to funding it, "Our Debt would still have gone from us & with it our reputation & credit."
As to corruption among those who deal in funds, Hamilton's response highlights the difference between his and Jefferson's moral worlds. Whereas Jefferson considered "stock- jobbers" and speculators to be the lowest form of humanity, Hamilton stated, "It is a strange perversion of ideas, and as novel as it is extraordinary, that men should be deemed corrupt & criminal for becoming proprietors in the funds of their Country." Although Hamilton conceded that "jobbing in the funds . . . diverts a certain number of individuals from other pursuits," he points out that, overall, stock acting as capital and properly used serves to promote "industry by furnishing a larger field of employment." Besides, Hamilton continued, "The Debt existed. It was to be provided for. In whatever shape the provision was made . . ." speculation would have occurred regardless.
In response to the sectional inequities of the funding system, Hamilton responded that the owners of the debt come from all states, not just the north. Granted, the majority of the wealth devolved upon the north, however, that is because the greater part of the war was fought in the north, thus the heavier concentration of bonds in the hands of northern creditors. As far as southerners parting with their bonds prior to the funding provision, Hamilton pointed out that they unloaded their property voluntarily "upon fair terms, without surprize or deception." Furthermore, many southern bond holders parted with their assets during the fight for the funding measure because of their confidence that the plan would be defeated. "'Tis their own fault," Hamilton sniffed, "if the purchase money has not been beneficial to them."
Hamilton addressed charges of monarchical conspiracy as a misrepresentation of the many theoretical discussions at the convention favorable to the British constitution. To the accusation that monarchists are overrunning the government, Hamilton sharply replied that, of the current legislators who had attended the constitutional convention "none can be considered as influential but Mr. Madison and Mr. Gerry. Are they monarchy men?"
Closely following his receipt of the 21 objections, Hamilton lashed out at Jefferson in a series of editorials he signed "An American."
From Revolution to Reconstruction: Biographies: A. Hamilton 27 Throughout the summer, Hamilton and Jefferson continued their sniper war. Jefferson adamantly contending that Hamilton was promoting monarchy; ...
www.let.rug.nl/usa/B/hamilton/hamil27.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
Jefferson confronted Washington with a list of 21 objections to Hamiltonian policies, which Washington forwarded to Hamilton for response. The complaints included concern over the size of the public debt, moral concerns over speculation ("it nourishes in our citizens vice & idleness instead of industry & morality"), the geographical inequities of the funding system, and a monarchical conspiracy "contemplated in the Convention" whose adherents were overrunning the government.
Hamilton responded at length and competently as usual, but protested to Washington: "I have not fortitude enough always to hear with calmness, calumnies, which necessarily include me, as a principal Agent . . . I feel, that I merit them in no degree; and expressions of indignation sometimes escape me, in spite of every effort to suppress them."
In his "objections and answers" to Jefferson's complaints (Washington had not revealed their author to Hamilton), Hamilton began by pointing out that the debt was incurred by the revolution, and not by any actions of the present administration. Taking Great Britain's example, Hamilton stated that their funding system clearly benefits all parts of the economy. Had the United States only made provisions to retire the debt as opposed to funding it, "Our Debt would still have gone from us & with it our reputation & credit."
As to corruption among those who deal in funds, Hamilton's response highlights the difference between his and Jefferson's moral worlds. Whereas Jefferson considered "stock- jobbers" and speculators to be the lowest form of humanity, Hamilton stated, "It is a strange perversion of ideas, and as novel as it is extraordinary, that men should be deemed corrupt & criminal for becoming proprietors in the funds of their Country." Although Hamilton conceded that "jobbing in the funds . . . diverts a certain number of individuals from other pursuits," he points out that, overall, stock acting as capital and properly used serves to promote "industry by furnishing a larger field of employment." Besides, Hamilton continued, "The Debt existed. It was to be provided for. In whatever shape the provision was made . . ." speculation would have occurred regardless.
In response to the sectional inequities of the funding system, Hamilton responded that the owners of the debt come from all states, not just the north. Granted, the majority of the wealth devolved upon the north, however, that is because the greater part of the war was fought in the north, thus the heavier concentration of bonds in the hands of northern creditors. As far as southerners parting with their bonds prior to the funding provision, Hamilton pointed out that they unloaded their property voluntarily "upon fair terms, without surprize or deception." Furthermore, many southern bond holders parted with their assets during the fight for the funding measure because of their confidence that the plan would be defeated. "'Tis their own fault," Hamilton sniffed, "if the purchase money has not been beneficial to them."
Hamilton addressed charges of monarchical conspiracy as a misrepresentation of the many theoretical discussions at the convention favorable to the British constitution. To the accusation that monarchists are overrunning the government, Hamilton sharply replied that, of the current legislators who had attended the constitutional convention "none can be considered as influential but Mr. Madison and Mr. Gerry. Are they monarchy men?"
Closely following his receipt of the 21 objections, Hamilton lashed out at Jefferson in a series of editorials he signed "An American."