ABJ!

by Will Wilkinson on April 7, 2008

Radley’s running a poll asking people to vote for their favorite Founding Father. Worse than the baleful fact that Gouverneur Morris is barely registering is Thomas Jefferson’s solid lead. Here is my controversial opinion of the Master of Monticello from an old post:

Thomas Jefferson. The more I read about the guy, the more I dislike him. He was without doubt a man of incandescent brilliance. But he also seems to have been sly, creepy, and an insufferable snob, in addition to having been a racist, slaveholding, anti-cosmopolitan, anti-commercial, Jacobin utopian. When his visage appears on Cato promotional material, as it so often does, I try to stay positive.

This is what a gentleman of real moral stature sounds like:

Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The houses in [Philadelphia] are worth more than all the wretched slaves that cover the rice swamps of South Carolina….The admission of slaves into the representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the coast of Africa and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a government instituted for the protection of the rights of mankind than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey who views with laudable horror so nefarious a practice.

That’s My Man Morris speaking to the constitutional convention, demonstrating a concern for human liberty rather greater than independence from our largely benign English overlords.

You don’t have to vote for Morris, if you don’t like, but ABJ … Anybody but Jefferson!

Viewing 42 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Oh come on, he's a better choice than Hamilton!
    • ^
    • v
    Hamilton was a better political theorist, a better economist, was against slavery, and for trade, technological progress and rapid economic growth. He was right about more that was deeply important than Jefferson was. If you think central banks are a bigger issue for liberty than human enslavement, trade, or the growth of capitalism then your priorities are screwed. Advantage: Hamilton!
    • ^
    • v
    However, Jefferson was, one must admit, an excellent architect.
    • ^
    • v
    Could you elaborate on how he was a better political theorist? I've found his ideas to be lacking in comparison to Jefferson. Jefferson, for me, was a brilliant theorist who did not practice what he preached and had many inconsistencies. Certainly Jefferson's focus on agriculture and being tied to the land was misguided at best, but I still think his ideas outlined in the Declaration outshine anything Hamilton ever did. Certainly the necessary-and-proper clause is advocating of a Leviathan central government beyond economics, no?
    • ^
    • v
    Will, I agree with you on Jefferson's flaws, but Hamilton had severe flaws of his own. First, the problem with his support of a national bank is not just that it was a way of centralizing power but that it was unconstitutional. He believed it was constitutional however because he interpreted the Constitution very broadly. Second, his "Report on Manufacturers" was all about providing tarriff protection to certain "infant industries" in the U.S., so I'm not sure how he's a "free trader." Third, he was on the Federalists who were agitating for war against France. Fourth, he authored the Federalist Papers! While reasonable people can disagree about whether the Constitution represented an improvement over the Articles of Confederation, it's clear that the reason why Hamilton supported it is because it would centralize power and allow for more "energetic" government. So, I think you're wrong on this one.

    I think Jefferson's agrarianism is anachronistic at best, but I don't know of any coercive government policy he favored that was aimed at stopping or reversing urbanization.
    • ^
    • v
    Kevin, The Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional, too, and set the young U.S. on the path of imperialist expansion and violence against native peoples. It turns out that few of the Founders had much interest in strict adherence to the constitution. Basically, I think Jefferson was indeed an incredibly brilliant person, but in the end a rather loathesome character. All of Hamilton's flaws are trivial in comparison to Jefferson's failing to free his slaves basically because he bought to much French furniture and couldn't afford to.
    • ^
    • v
    In case it wasn't clear in my first comment, I agree with your assessment of Jefferson. I was just offering a few point of argument about why Hamilton wasn't quite the brilliant theorist you said. Or, maybe he was "brilliant," but often deeply wrong.
    • ^
    • v
    I voted for Ben Franklin...the original cosmopolitan classical liberal.
    • ^
    • v
    Hamilton Hamilton returned an escaped slave to a friend and returned a fugitive slave to Henry Laurens of South Carolina. He was hardly against slavery. And Jefferson was better as an economist. Hamilton was the original economic fascist who supported corporate welfare, trade protectionism, and the other things that led to the growth of the robber barons during the Industrial Revolution. It is important to note that despite his owning slaves, Jefferson did help disseminate the writings of anti-slavery, anti-mercantilist, free-market economists Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste-Say and Jefferson was hardly known for being a cruel master either.
    • ^
    • v
    Arrived here via Kinsella. As he and others have noted, Hamilton's anti-slavery credentials are by no means spotless. Jefferson banned the Atlantic slave trade as President (after trying and failing many previous times to restrict slavery and ease legal restrictions on manumission) and did eventually free nine of his slaves. I recommend Thomas Sowell's "The Real History of Slavery" for more on that time period and how men of that time that claimed to be anti-slavery resolved that with their ownership of slaves.
    • ^
    • v
    I'd also take exception to the idea that Jefferson's position on slavery was worse than Hamilton's on the Central Bank. Slavery, though dreadful, was on its last legs. The centralization of power that the Bank represented was a new, dangerous, and rising threat. Centralization and the Leviathan state are scourge of modern liberty, and Hamilton was an ardent supporter of both.
    • ^
    • v
    I'm confused about the Cato "cosmopolitan" requirement. The "search" feature on this site didn't work for me. I looked it up:


    Main Entry:
    2cosmopolitan
    Function:
    adjective
    Date:
    1798

    1 : having worldwide rather than limited or provincial scope or bearing 2 : having wide international sophistication : worldly 3 : composed of persons, constituents, or elements from all or many parts of the world 4 : found in most parts of the world and under varied ecological conditions <<<<<

    Are you saying Jefferson was provincial, not "worldly" enough???? Is "cosmopolitan" a code word for a supporter of a globalist-one world government?? What exactly do you mean by this term??
    • ^
    • v
    Thomas Jefferson OWNED people, KNEW it was wrong, and kept doing it anyway. If that doesn't DQ you from the libertarian hall of fame, what does?
    • ^
    • v
    Or, if that's too stoutly principled, what does it take to move down in an ordering of men, some of whom did at least as much in establishing American liberty, never owned other humans and were powerfully articulate critics of the practice?

    Do some people REALLY think central banks are worse than human enslavement?
    • ^
    • v
    You're only saying that because you favor a "globalist- one world government," Will.
    • ^
    • v
    Central banking is one of the worst forms of human enslavement, actually. You should try going out more often, WW, and read some Hoppe and DiLorenzo for good measure.
    • ^
    • v
    This post is a joke right?

    We're going to disqualify Jefferson from the (sic) libertarian hall of fame?

    The standard you are applying to Jefferson exploits his personal flaws. Essentially, the "messenger is not worthy of his message" approach.

    And as asked before, WTF is cosmopolitan, and what does that have to do with being libertarian? Is it some sort of elitism, where plain and common people such as myself are inadequate as libertarians because we're not worldly or sophisticated enough? A libertarianism of snobbery?

    If that's a charge against Jefferson, charge me as well. I dress simply, I live simply and I speak plainly.
    • ^
    • v
    Alberto wins!
    • ^
    • v
    "Hamilton was a better political theorist, a better economist, was against slavery, and for trade, technological progress and rapid economic growth."

    Uh, Will. You should take a moment to better familiarize yourself with Hamilton's politics before making statements like that. The only thing in that entire sentence with even a grain of truth to it is Hamilton's stance against slavery, and even that is only in the abstract sense. In day to day life Hamilton had no problem entering financial transactions that involved the purchase and sale of slaves for others, and he even rented slaves for employment doing house chores.

    As to your assessment of his economics, they are entirely wrongheaded. Hamilton's economic writings, particularly his 1791 Report on Manufactures, were in no small way a direct attempt to refute Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," which remains essentially the bible of libertarian economics to this day.

    This is evident both in Hamilton's own time when his Report on Manufactures claimed an immediate position as the American response to the "British" views of Smith and later Ricardo, and in its direct economic heirs: Matthew Carey, Henry Carey, and Frederick List. Nor was any of this by accident as, far from being "for trade," Hamilton's report mounted a vigorous defense of the quintessential doctrines of mercantile protectionism.

    No less a source than Milton Friedman traced the pernicious "infant industry" argument for protectionism to Hamilton. Thus, wrote Friedman, the argument "that was made by Alexander Hamilton and continues to be repeated down to the present, is that free trade would be fine if all other countries practiced free trade but that, so long as they do not, the United States cannot afford to. This argument has no validity whatsoever, either in principle or in practice."
    • ^
    • v
    "Thomas Jefferson OWNED people, KNEW it was wrong, and kept doing it anyway."

    Yes he did, and as much as he did it he was also a product of his century. But many of the same sins were perpetrated by Alexander Hamilton. The biographies by McDonald and Chernow both record instances where Hamilton essentially rented the slaves of others to perform housework. He also served as a proxy bidder for slaves at an auction and participated in the capture and return of fugitive slaves to their owners.

    Does this making him any less of a man of his time and context than Jefferson? No. But it does negate the contention that Hamilton had some sort of upper hand over Jefferson in the "practice what you preach" department.
    • ^
    • v
    OK, I'm convinced Hamilton was horrible, too, which does nothing to improve my regard for Jefferson.
    • ^
    • v
    Then would not the question be a matter of comparative horribleness? If Jefferson was bad for failing to practice what he preached, at minimum his message was correct and at least part of the time his policy actions matched that message (e.g. the Declaration of Independence, fighting Hamilton for free trade, opposing nationalized banking).

    But Hamilton was not only a failure in practicing his preached message on slavery. His policies were also horribly statist in almost every category. He openly advocated a strong centralized government, heavy government intervention into the free market, government subsidies of selected "favored" industries, protectionism, a strong national military, a strong federalized monetary policy, and a liberal interpretation of the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause to justify expanded federal power.

    Hell, Hamilton spent the better part of the constitutional convention harping about how America should have a monarchy! There is no greater antithesis of libertarianism in the founding generation than Hamilton, and Jefferson for all his flaws still ends up miles ahead on any honest comparative scale.

    Now if you want a list of truly great libertarian founders, you have to go to the more obscure among them. George Mason, Luther Martin, and St. George Tucker come to mind.
    • ^
    • v
    Hamilton...Jefferson. Who cares? Ron Paul is current and revelant. The good doctor beats them all.
    • ^
    • v
    Back in 2000, I wouldn't have believed that a man who had attended David Kelley's seminars could have written something like this. Of course, today, I can believe almost anything that comes from the mouth or the keyboard of an Objectivist.

    I haven't read much about Jefferson, but have read plenty of work written by him. Jefferson's dedication to religious freedom and speech were unquestioned. Jefferson was mainly responsible for the outlawing of slavery in the Northwest Territory and wanted to insert a clause in the Declaration condemning George 3 for not suppressing the slave trade.

    Hamilton is the patron saint of today's neo-conservatives. He loved reckless spending, corporate welfare, and taxes. He tried to get the US into a war with France in the 1790's, which Adams almost singlehandedly prevented. He also wanted the President and the Senate to be elected for life!

    It's too bad Aaron Burr didn't kill him a lot sooner.
    • ^
    • v
    Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8 from 2:29 to 3:17 (by Andrew Napolitano, great 4part video)
    • ^
    • v
    Chris, Yes, it's practically inconceivable that one would learn to independently apply one's intellectual and moral judgment instead of slavishly touting pre-selected heroes from a cartoon pantheon.
    • ^
    • v
    Wait, we are expected to take DiLorenzo and the Lew Rockwell crowd seriously on the libertarian credentials of Jefferson, the same DiLorenzo who calls John C. Calhoun one of the greatest libertarian philosophers who ever lived?
    • ^
    • v
    I'm uncomfortable with the contrasting of homosexual marriage and incest. Is not the real comparison with the legalization of homosexual activity. The taboos against homosexual activity seem much more varied across cultures and time then are those against incest.
    • ^
    • v
    Over at Lew Rockwell dot Com, revenge-theorist/ Hans Prancytime Hoppe protege/faux legal scholar Stephan Kinsella mistakes "Morris" for "Hamilton." It's good for laughs, see http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/...

    I wonder what the discourse ethics implications are.
    • ^
    • v
    Interesting that you keep avoiding explaining what this "cosmopolitan" thing is all about. I no longer live in the States (I'm from Ohio), so I'd like to see what it means in this context.
    • ^
    • v
    Hey Will, I just don't see it man. I don't believe you're being fair at all here. Are you really implying that Jefferson was for the extinction of the Native Americans? Jefferson did more to try and help the natives than any other American President. He convinced some to start building houses and settling on farms, which the Cherokee heeded quite well for one. There's really no comparing the Louisiana Purchase with Hamiltonian central banking nonesense.
    • ^
    • v
    To those that are horrified that anyone doesn't prostrate before TJ: Most, if not all, of the tired tripe about Hamilton supporting monarchy and some sort of onerous hyper-Keynesian centrally-controlled state comes to us from his political enemies. To be sure, he was no angel; in his habit of being suckered by a friendly face or a damsel in distress (Maria Reynolds), he was dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

    But his contributions to public finance (his bond refinancing basically being the only thing keeping the federal government solvent), defense of a central government capable of keeping the US safe in the midst of Democrat-Republican bellicosity, and work with the anti-slavery societies in NYC is too often ignored. Basically, using what popular history knows of him (his infamous duel aside) to judge him is akin to future generations judging Ron Paul by Daily Kos's screeds about the honorable Dr. Paul in the midst of the silly newsletter kerfuffle.

    As to his being a neo-con, it's worth noting that it was Jefferson's Democrat-Republicans who were celebrating the bloodbath in revolutionary France and calling for war against England, even though they steadfastly refused to put in place the mechanisms (a strong military and sound public finance) that were necessary to wage war against any European power. They finally got one eight years after Hamilton's death, and it resulted in our ruthless invasion of another nation, and our tiny capital being burnt to the ground. The same contemporary media that demonized Hamilton likes to call this a "victory".

    But hey, I understand that giving a pragmatist even a modicum of credit would ruin the fun of idolizing an idealist. So carry on.
    • ^
    • v
    Regarding TJ's ownership of slaves, keep in mind that if he had, those very slaves would have been re-enslaved within days. Virginia, North Carolina and Maryland all had laws requiring freed black slaves to leave those states within fifteen days, or be subject to re-enslavement. The northern states, though free, had no shortage of bounty hunters willing to capture a black people and return them to the south. Hamilton himself did so himself a few times. Many of these bounty hunters had no problem capturing legitimately freed slaves under false pretenses, and turning them over to auction houses in the nearest slave state.

    By all accounts, if one had to be a slave in Jefferson's time, Monticello was the least objectionable place to be one. Jefferson's alternative was certain re-enslavement of his slaves somewhere that was certain to be worse. Until slavery was abolished, what else was he to do?
    • ^
    • v
    ...keep in mind that if he had released his slaves...

    Damn laptop.
    • ^
    • v
    Hamilton would love the nation today and Jefferson would hate it. Hamilton would love our intertwined banking and taxation system and its ability to support a jugernaut of a military. He would love our unbelivably large beuracracy and support the tyranny created by the federal reserve. Though Hamilton's ambitions were not to assist the elite his polices were very aristocratic and have lead to the oligarchy in which we reside.
    While Jefferson had his flaws and did believe his short comings (most notable slavery) would be ended if not within soon after his time, his fundamental beliefs in the good nature of people, representative government, and the ability of commerce to flourish without government regulation is why he is the best libertarian. Unfortunately one needs to separate Jefferson's actions from his ideals. Though his actions were flawed, he captured a true understanding of Freedom. James Madison is a close second to a patriarch for freedom. Both would be astounded by our nation's national debt and use of fear to supress the people.
    • ^
    • v
    Now hold on a second. Painting Hamilton as an authoritarian who would approve of our malignant government is simply preposterous.

    It's true that Hamilton argued for a stronger central government at the Convention, but when he didn't get it, he still argued stridently for ratification anyway. There is just no way that he could have written the Federalist Papers with the Constitution's author had he favored the monarchical form of government his detractors claim he did.

    Hamilton didn't want a Bill of Rights; he wanted it clear that by addressing only those rights bestowed upon the Federal government, all other rights not mentioned were given to the states themselves, an argument which could have been made by Jefferson himself.

    It's indisputable that Hamilton wanted a stronger central government, but I've found no proof that he wanted what we have today: a federal government which uses the commerce clause to essentially steal rights from the states whenever it sees fit. Hamilton was a strong proponent of Madison's creation, and he made articulate arguments in the Federalist Papers of the virtues of a more balanced system of government.
    • ^
    • v
    All you people trying to find consistency in historical figures: Jefferson was ALWAYS a libertarian, Hamilton ALWAYS did X...

    These arguments really only hold water in the face of ignorance--no one is ever entirely consistent, and if you think so, it is only because you have not yet heard of their inconsistencies.

    Good luck trying to find the "universal" Libertarian, or whatever you're after.

    Meanwhile, I'll attempt questions that have a better chance of being answered, like whether God exists or not.
    • ^
    • v
    And in a weird twist, we have ultra-PC, Sandefur, who finds racism under any rock and attacks federalists and decentralist as know-nothing neo-confederate yahoos, saying he loves Jefferson: "Jefferson is the person in history I most admire." Despite Jefferson's ownership of slaves and his extreme federalism (e.g. the Kentucky Resolution), which normally calls down the righteous, smug, sanctimonous wrath of PC Sandefur.
    • ^
    • v
    Will, give me some of what you are smoking, I could use an escape from reality. You ask do you really think a central bank is worse than owning other human beings? Well yes I do. because actual slavery was eventually abolished, but the central bank is still arouond and it has made slaves of us all. There is no difference, in fact, the bank is worse because it is slowly bleeding the country to death and no one is seriously talking about getting rid of it.
    • ^
    • v
    Talk about self-reductio...
    • ^
    • v
    Interesting conversation. I just finished Chernow's bio of Hamilton, which I strongly recommend to anyone, but particularly to his vehement detractors. He's a fascinating character who was both amazingly prescient and, from a libertarian perspective, dangerously wrong about important things. I actually think he's an object lesson in how the siren call of statism can attract intelligent, moral people who really do want to do good. The political difference between him and Jefferson can be characterized simply as follows: Jefferson's bete noir was executive tyranny; Hamilton's was mob rule. As libertarians, I think we can agree that either outcome is undesirable, and from there proceed dispassionately to evaluate in a nuanced way the blindspots each man suffered. Demonizing Hamilton and lionizing Jefferson simply doesn't do them justice. In terms of individual character, I actually think it's hard to deny that Hamilton was the more admirable of the two, but he was also undeniably the first best example in our history of the "fatal conceit." But give the man some credit: he was a self made man, and the only one among the major founders (except Franklin) who actually understood and appreciated capitalism. Jefferson wasn't just against a central bank; he was against any bank at all and inveighed against capital finance as nothing more than gambling. The anti-capitalist rhetoric of modern American liberalism starts with him. Yes, Hamilton was far too ready to use central power to set up and fund the institutions he thought America needed to hold its own against the European powers. At least he was coherent and consistent. Jefferson and Madison wanted to do without taxes and standing armies, which is great so long as you have some other way to save the country from war. Instead they instigated conflict with England, and finally got us a war that we were unable to fight. Yes, Hamilton put too much power in the federal government and the executive, but he also (unlike Jefferson) respected the importance of an independent judiciary that could reign it in. Jefferson postured (rightly) against the Sedition Act on constitutional grounds, but had no problem with (indeed, abetted) state courts persecuting Federalist journalists. Meanwhile, Hamilton as a private lawyer is responsible for enshrining the principle that truth is a defense to libel. In short, reality is far more interesting than bad Hamilton good Jefferson, or vice versa. I for one wish the two men had been able to respect and learn from each other. Someone who combined Hamilton's administrative brilliance, practical mind, and understanding of business with Jefferson's wariness of centralized power would have been a great founder indeed.
    • ^
    • v
    Jefferson was the man. I think we can all agree that slavery was terrible, Jefferson knew this himself. I'm sorry you're so offended but Thomas Jefferson did more for the founding of this country's government than any other single man.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

View My Stats