Hamilton or Jefferson?

[Elijah]

Originally Posted by TJAdams

Jefferson was the governor of Virginia, he was far to important to let himself be captured. He even remained at Monticello, leaving just minutes before British Captain Kenneth McLeod cavalry rode up the mountain in search of him.
Jefferson was not alone in avoiding capture. Patrick Henry, Benjamin Harrison and John Tyler, Sr. left many a horse track in the dirt as they moved about too.

When faced with bad odds, even Washington and the Continental Army were commonly known to have retreated in the face of the enemy. Not to mention the entire Continental Congress.

Interestingly enough, the frequent snide comments and criticism of TJ's departure from Monticello mostly came later as mud in the Presidential campaigns. Primarily from pen and/or mouth of Alexander Hamilton.

During the war itself, the criticism of TJ was mostly his failure to have the state properly defended. Not that he didn't stand in front of the house and let himself be captured or killed. How would that have helped? Even so, it was not his finest moment. There was a definite failure concerning calling out the militia or keeping some forces standing for defense.

[TJAdams]

Good points Elijah,
There's a great, great book out on this very topic that covers Jefferson as governor very well. It addresses how as governor, Jefferson was powerless to force the people of Virgina to answer his militia call. He asked, they said no.
"Flight from Monticello: Thomas Jefferson at War" by Michael Kranish

[Elijah]

In an earlier post, I spoke of why I did not choose Hamilton. Now might be a convenient time to consider why I did choose Jefferson.

First, he made a name for himself by drafting the Declaration thereby becoming a very prominent patriot leader. He then used his legal background and drafting skills to work on the statutes of Virginia. In particular, the religious freedom clause and state laws concerning inheritance and property rights. TJ then served as governor of his state at a very dangerous time in history to hold that position. Yes, as stated earlier, he was not perfect in that role.

TJ then spent several years serving as foreign minister to France during the time of the Confederation. He followed by serving as Sec of State. In that role he and Hamilton fought like children each serving as a polar opposite in advising Washington. Who, by the way, considered each of them incredibly valuable as his advisors. TJ followed that with service as Vice-President but he resigned before completion of the term.

As President, TJ jumped on the LA purchase. True this may have been an overreach of executive power. something TJ was troubled by yet, the prize was simply too great to pass on. I believe his action was approved of by almost everyone. Even though he originally thought to mothball the Navy, early in his Presidency, TJ became the first President to authorize a military campaign outside of the US. Among his greatest legacies as President, TJ set the precedent of executive power being subject to the law and scrutiny of the courts. This acquiessence of court authority to subpoena documents is little discussed yet huge in its impact upon the system of checks and balances.

As a President, TJ also had his shortcomings. His belief in boycotts as a way to deal with Europe was a serious problem. Almost destroyed the economy. I do sympathize somewhat with the situation. There is no way the US could be in a position to challenge the European powers at that time. It was a problem. However, I think he could have done better. Ditto with his other economic policies. That was simply not his strength. TJ was too caught up in the ideal of the individual farmer and agricultural society.

I think TJ's greatest contributions are in religious freedom, public education, and the limitations on executive power. While choosing between the founders still seems a bit odd to me, I feel TJ ranks close to the very top in influencing our nation's early development.

[Catman]

Jefferson founded the University of Virginia.

[TJAdams]

Originally Posted by Elijah

..I think TJ's greatest contributions are in religious freedom, public education, and the limitations on executive power. .

"author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom, and Father of the University of Virginia"

These words, which Jefferson himself chose for this headstone, reflect what he felt was what he wanted to be remembered for. A great man serving the people. Rare today.

[lakechampainer]

I've been thinking about this topic and I think I'm moving towards the Hamilton side. I think maybe, that based on his experience in the military, and growing up in the West Indies, he may have had a justified fear of militarism that Jefferson didn't have or understand as well. Maybe part of why Hamilton wanted to support a rich merchant and business class, is that it would be a balance on military influence as well as on "the mob".

Any thoughts, particularly if Hamilton ever wrote about his thoughts at the Break up dinner of the Army, where Washington put on his glasses, and spoke against his officers who wanted to maybe take power to make sure they got paid?

Thanks

[TJAdams]

Tony,
Personally, I don't give much weight to Hamilton's military experience.
Washington only learned of Hamilton's actions at Harlem Heights (1776) as an artillery captain and added him as his aide-de-camp on 20 Jan. 1777. No disparity on Hamilton's bravery & devoting to the cause, I just do not see him having a fear of the military as he wanted a larger regular army.

[The Highwayman]

Neither; Aaron Burr - a supporter of abolitionism and women's rights - was far more interesting and admirable.

[Elijah]

Originally Posted by The Highwayman

Neither; Aaron Burr - a supporter of abolitionism and women's rights - was far more interesting and admirable.

I don't know if he really proved all that admirable but historians and conspiracy theorists have certainly enjoyed reading/writing about him through the years. He was very strong on education for women. His daughter was well known for being very smart and educated.

Of course the question we all want an answer to is 'were you actually dreaming of separating the Mississippi valley from the rest of the country or was it simply Mexico or Texas all along?' and, of course the follow-up, 'did you take any positive actions against the US in furtherance of these dreams?'

Were his political ambitions more dear than his loyalty to country? If true, wouldn't that be pretty bad for a man serving as Vice President?

[TJAdams]

Burr was indeed a character.

[The Highwayman]

I don't see anything wrong with the Burr conspiracy; putting aside the fact no solid evidence exists if Washington and co. had the right to carve a country out of frontier then what's wrong with other people trying to do something similiar?

Were his political ambitions more dear than his loyalty to country? If true, wouldn't that be pretty bad for a man serving as Vice President?

The vast majority of politicians in history have placed personal ambitions above patriotism; that's simply how the real world works.

[Elijah]

Originally Posted by The Highwayman

I don't see anything wrong with the Burr conspiracy; putting aside the fact no solid evidence exists if Washington and co. had the right to carve a country out of frontier then what's wrong with other people trying to do something similiar?



The vast majority of politicians in history have placed personal ambitions above patriotism; that's simply how the real world works.

Well, assuming the goal was restricted to Spanish territory it still represents private citizens raising an army to invade a neighboring state. It jeapordized foreign policy, risked war with Spain, and was not legal. That seems a fairly bad scheme for a sitting Vice-President to involve himself in.

However, what if the goal is separating the western states from the union. There was some evidence of that goal although mostly hearsay in some rather sensational newspaper stories. At the trial, I believe only Col Morgan testified to plans for separating the western states. His testimony seemed self-serving and really only had Burr discussing what he felt was a probability. That the Western states would separate.

The situation of a filibuster is different from that of the revolution. They were looking to invade foreign territory and take it for themselves. In the revolution, they had the land and lived there but needed to throw off the foreign control.

[Hardrada]

Thomas Jefferson.

I think economically, Jefferson was superior actually. People say he supported an farming society, but that is what America was for a very long time. Jefferson understood the ideas of comparative advantage written about by Ricardo. Hamilton wanted to shelter the small American industries in contradiction of comparative advantage.

Though I do agree with the sentiment to not fight in Europe. What advantage is the US going to gain by fighting Britain? None that I can see. It also says a lot that Lafayette didn't support those who gained power quickly after the FR. Shows that the FR was being run by a bunch of scoundrels.

Don't like the undeclared war on the Barbary Coast, or not amending the Constitution for the Louisiana purchase.

[Jon Jordan]

Originally Posted by Elijah

Well, assuming the goal was restricted to Spanish territory it still represents private citizens raising an army to invade a neighboring state. It jeapordized foreign policy, risked war with Spain, and was not legal. That seems a fairly bad scheme for a sitting Vice-President to involve himself in.

However, what if the goal is separating the western states from the union. There was some evidence of that goal although mostly hearsay in some rather sensational newspaper stories. At the trial, I believe only Col Morgan testified to plans for separating the western states. His testimony seemed self-serving and really only had Burr discussing what he felt was a probability. That the Western states would separate.

The situation of a filibuster is different from that of the revolution. They were looking to invade foreign territory and take it for themselves. In the revolution, they had the land and lived there but needed to throw off the foreign control.

Shows the wisdom of the 12th Amendment - the Jefferson-Burr, Adams-Jefferson problems between sitting president and sitting vice president were substantial. Fortunately we "fixed the glitch" (to quote "Office Space").

[Cyberknight]

Both. The necessary tension between authority and independence were never fully solved, even by the Civil War, but at least the founding principles of the country indictae the importance of the two.