Alexander Hamilton vs Thomas Jefferson

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Both were despicable people (Jefferson more so, obviously), but the main politically significant they had within their time was about the extent to which the US should be governed as a (white male) democracy vs an oligarchy of the wealthy and powerful. And on that issue, Jefferson was on the right side.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

most of the complaints people have about Jeffersonianism are confusions with its degenerated form, Jacksonianism.

I like the old quote about how Jackson regarded himself as a Jeffersonian and Jefferson regarded Jackson as a dangerous man.

In terms of Presidents elected 12/16 years after another leaves office. The equivalent would have been if Reagan were cognizant enough to call Bush a dangerous man in the late 1990's/early 2000's.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I have a close friend who subscribes to the Chernow/Miranda-driven pseudohistory about Hamilton having been some sort of committed abolitionist. It's frustrating because her perspective on history is generally really solid otherwise. "Not immune to propaganda" and all that...

[SWE]

Jefferson at least doesn't have an awful musical written about him, so him

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Hamilton, the GOP party until 1928 were the party of AA, and Jefferson was a Dixiecrats not a Secularist like the Dems are known today after Karl Marx and FDR, whom support income taxes

[Intell]

Hamilton, the GOP party until 1928 were the party of AA, and Jefferson was a Dixiecrats not a Secularist like the Dems are known today after Karl Marx and FDR, whom support income taxes

Full delusion about politics here that it’s actually sad.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Hamilton, the GOP party until 1928 were the party of AA, and Jefferson was a Dixiecrats not a Secularist like the Dems are known today after Karl Marx and FDR, whom support income taxes

Full delusion about politics here that it’s actually sad.

The Taney CRT that Andrew Jackson put Judges on allowed Fugitive slave Act, no I would not vote for a Prez who supported Slaveowners 😖😖😖

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We know Jefferson was a great President so him.


If you just had to go based on ideology though- Hamilton

Actually, Jefferson's time of greatness was before he was President. His only great accomplishment, the Louisiana Purchase, was handed to him on a silver platter.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We know Jefferson was a great President so him.


If you just had to go based on ideology though- Hamilton

Actually, Jefferson's time of greatness was before he was President. His only great accomplishment, the Louisiana Purchase, was handed to him on a silver platter.

And that was only accomplished by deviating from Jeffersonian Republican principles and using Hamilton's system of finance to pay for it with borrowed money from Britain, and we know how much Jeffersonians loved Britain.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

In undergraduate schooling I studied Marbury v Madison, Judicial Review set the framework for the Emancipation Proclamation and overturning the fugitive slave act in 1863. It was Justice John Marshall who was a Whig that said Marbury doesnt get his judgeship, due to  Crts deciding writ of mandamus has appellate jurisdiction and Judge Marbury went to the SCOTUS in original jurisdiction.  Therefore SOS James Madison, part of Jefferson's admin, didnt have to award Judge Marbury his commission, which was left over from John Adam's


This angered the Dixiecrats, because if an act by Congress can be struck down, and the writ of mandamus was part of the Judiciary Acts, then slave laws could be overturned; consequently,  Emancipation Proclamation, declared Fugitive slave act, CJ Sam P Chase supporting Abe Lincoln.

That's why, I dont support Jefferson

[darklordoftech]

Adam Smith favored Jefferson’s economic ideas over Hamilton’s. What views would Adam Smith have today?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Adam Smith favored Jefferson’s economic ideas over Hamilton’s. What views would Adam Smith have today?

It is not surprising that Smith would favor Jefferson when you think about it. Jefferson was after all at least pre-embargo, a classical liberal on economics and thus would have been in line with Smith. Hamilton's economics was capitalist yes, but developmental capitalism with a great deal of government intervention in the form of tariffs, subsidies and the like. It thus invoked economic nationalism and some neo-mercantilist aspects though it would be a mistake to equate any form of capitalism with mercantilism without underlying the primary differences between the larger categories, namely that of finite wealth versus wealth generation.

To answer as to what views Smith would have today would be as difficult as answering that for Jefferson.

[Mr. Smith]

Adam Smith favored Jefferson’s economic ideas over Hamilton’s. What views would Adam Smith have today?

Another reason to side with Hamilton over Jefferson.

[Sumner 1868]

It's oddly appropriate that Hamilton has being embraced by conservative hawks and neoliberal elites; given that Hamilton wanted to use the Quasi War to set up a military dictatorship.

[brucejoel99]

It's oddly appropriate that Hamilton has being embraced by conservative hawks and neoliberal elites; given that Hamilton wanted to use the Quasi War to set up a military dictatorship.

Yeah, he was indeed comfortable using the military as a means to political ends in a way that most of the other Founders weren't, & this is what gives me the most pause about a hypothetical Hamilton presidency. American democracy has endured for as long as it has in large part because of how reluctant the military has been when it comes to getting involved in domestic political affairs, & his behavior during the Newburgh Conspiracy as well as the Quasi-War raises the possibility that Hamilton might've set a different precedent.

[RINO Tom]

As a side note, I think it's always dangerous to use something like "Hamilton wanted government intervention into the economy" and use it as a proxy for his ideology without dissecting it ... the guy wanted the government to create an economic engine that could fuel private business and enterprise to a point where the American business community and economy as a whole could go toe to toe with anyone in the world ... that dream of his has been achieved, and there is every reason to believe he would now want the government to leave that very business community the hell alone and let them thrive.

As another side note, I am seeing Hamilton tonight.

[Orser67]

As a side note, I think it's always dangerous to use something like "Hamilton wanted government intervention into the economy" and use it as a proxy for his ideology without dissecting it ... the guy wanted the government to create an economic engine that could fuel private business and enterprise to a point where the American business community and economy as a whole could go toe to toe with anyone in the world

It's oddly appropriate that Hamilton has being embraced by conservative hawks and neoliberal elites; given that Hamilton wanted to use the Quasi War to set up a military dictatorship.

Yeah, both of these quotes point to the side of Hamilton that I think is being downplayed in the current cultural moment. I personally think that Hamilton deserves a lot of credit for helping to establish a working federal government (in contrast to the government of the Articles of Confederation), and his rags-to-riches story is worthy of admiration. But he's also someone who was closely allied with the mercantile elite, supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, favored a full-on and probably costly war with France (as opposed to the IRL Quasi-War), and favored crushing the Whiskey Rebellion (we got somewhat lucky as a country in that the rebellion ultimately ended without much of a fight), frequently attacked his opponents for supposedly being atheists, and was far more skeptical of democracy than many of his contemporaries.

[HisGrace]

The one who wasn't a hypocritical slaver.

Better to be on the side of democracy but a hypocrite than on the wrong side. If Hamilton had his way the country would have been an unelected oligarchy. Jefferson's "all men are created equal" statement is the defining idea of this country. The fact that he did not always live up to that in his own life does not make the idea itself untrue. Jefferson might be a better example than anyone that the idea is bigger than the man.

Surprised and happy that Jefferson is winning.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Surprised and happy that Jefferson is winning.

Yeah, I'm very pleasantly surprised too. I guess I didn't give this forum enough credit.

[xxorange_gamerxx]

I have mixed feelings on both, honestly. They were both clearly elitists (though it manifested in different ways) and they both detested the masses in some way, as Hamilton favoured a government run by rich, "well born" aristocratic elites, while Jefferson in theory favoured popular participation, but only for white men and especially not for slaves.

With all that said, though, I would ultimately lean more towards Hamilton in terms of economics & governance, if only because a lot of his ideas about effective economic & political management kinda ended up being proven right.

That said, Jefferson's ideas about having popular participation in some form are still very important to take into account, even if he himself failed to live up to those himself.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Jefferson was racially progressive in his own way. Certainly down with the swirl.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With all that said, though, I would ultimately lean more towards Hamilton in terms of economics & governance, if only because a lot of his ideas about effective economic & political management kinda ended up being proven right.

Perhaps, though I would submit that Jefferson was also partly vindicated in this regard as far as his fears for a future in which Hamilton's economic vision was fully realized. Considering how Hamilton's career ended, I'm not sure I'd say he was a particularly good politician, though there is a virtue in that I suppose.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Surprised and happy that Jefferson is winning.

Yeah, I'm very pleasantly surprised too. I guess I didn't give this forum enough credit.

I'm not surprised. Jefferson was pathetic as President, but there's no reason to think Hamilton would've been better, just different. Neither man really had the temperament to be even a good President, but their flaws were different.

It's a shame that the brief existence of the Department of Foreign Affairs was snuffed out by augmenting it with other responsibilities to make it the Department of State. Jefferson would've been less able to establish a political base if he'd only had Foreign Affairs within his remit. Then perhaps some other Republican would've become the leader of the opposition to the Fedealists, perhaps Madison, maybe Henry Tazewell.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

People confuse the word Secular and Dixiecrat. It alls goes back to the Dem party of 1900, with Karl Marx became the Secular party, with FDR inoffensive relationship, and the Dixiecrat party of Grover Cleveland who didnt put Blacks, Women and Immigrants into the Bill of Rights until Woodrow Wilson helped usher it in 1920 for Womem and 1964 for Blacks. Females, and Minorities understand that Jefferson was a Dixiecrat, not a Secularist

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

People confuse the word Secular and Dixiecrat. It alls goes back to the Dem party of 1900, with Karl Marx became the Secular party, with FDR inoffensive relationship, and the Dixiecrat party of Grover Cleveland who didnt put Blacks, Women and Immigrants into the Bill of Rights until Woodrow Wilson helped usher it in 1920 for Womem and 1964 for Blacks. Females, and Minorities understand that Jefferson was a Dixiecrat, not a Secularist

Damn, well thanks to Karl I guess for showing Cleveland who was boss.