“Not just the signature on a series of essays”

by Will Wilkinson on April 18, 2008

On the issue of Thomas Jefferson’s loathsomely anti-libertarian credentials, please read Charles Johnson. I agree with everything he says here, probably even the part about my making a series of interrelated mistakes, and definitely the titular imperative.

Viewing 58 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    That's all fine and good and I make no excuses whatsoever for Jefferson's slavery issue. NONE. But what I didn't see in that entire article was something about Jefferson's general views on governance and commerce. I was hoping to see laws or views he supported/held that showed an anti-libertarian POV.

    There, slavery aside, I see very little to nothing.

    BTW, you never responded to my email about a Cato debate...

    ;)
    • ^
    • v
    "I was hoping to see laws or views he supported/held that showed an anti-libertarian POV.

    There, slavery aside, I see very little to nothing."

    Reading this absurd statement reminded me of that joke about "But aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

    If I were to make the statement "Jeffrey Dahmer was anti-libertarian," purely on the basis of his having killed and eaten seventeen people, would John V also see "very little to nothing" to support it?
    • ^
    • v
    It's not an absurd statement. I was being serious and I think it's a valid point.
    • ^
    • v
    As far as I knew all those old white bastards were slaveowners and white supremacists. Since that is held constant, we can analyze them on their remaining libertarian (or not) elements.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, no. On both race and slavery, Hamilton and Adams were a *lot* better than Jefferson; Franklin and Paine were better still. It's not held constant. Jefferson contributed to the birth of 'scientific' racism in the US; Franklin worked for abolition.

    Jefferson *hoped* for the end of slavery. But he never directly worked toward it, and he did directly argue in favor of racist conclusions that his contemporaries denied.

    Ii think that there's an understandable tendency to discount slavery because, after all, it eventually ended anyway. By contrast, Hamilton's victory over Jefferson on the 'necessary or proper' clause seems to have been the first step in a constant and still-ongoing process. So people who are concerned with 2008 can decide that Jefferson's moral demerits no longer matter and Hamilton's do-- and this, fallaciously, encourages them to think that Hamilton's offenses were inherently worse.
    • ^
    • v
    Considering that Hamilton actively participated in the return of fugitive slaves, purchased slaves at auction as a proxy bidder for a family member, and rented out slaves from other people to do his housework, he was not a *lot* better by any means. Perhaps in rhetoric he was anti-slavery, but in practice Hamilton was pretty horrible.

    Furthermore, Hamilton was indeed a *lot* worse on just about everything else: trade, taxation, military power, central banking, centralization of power, and strengthening the executive branch.

    Hell, the guy openly advocated a MONARCHY at the constitutional convention!!!

    There was not a single more anti-libertarian member of comparable prominence in the "founding fathers" generation than Hamilton, and anybody who thinks otherwise is expressing only self-denial or an appalling level of historical ignorance.
    • ^
    • v
    and is living in a monarchy-- like, say, the UK, or Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand-- really inherently more unfree than living in a state with widespread chattel slavery?

    I don't *like* Hamilton; I agree that his political instincts were constantly to push the new republic in undesirable directions. But it's too easy to take the Hamilton-Jefferson debate about the Bank (for example) and say "Hamilton anti-freedom, Jefferson pro-freedom," and neglect the magnitude of slavery's offense against freedom.
    • ^
    • v
    and is living in a monarchy– like, say, the UK, or Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand– really inherently more unfree than living in a state with widespread chattel slavery?


    Today in the year 2008, no. But in 18th when even the world's most "benevolent" monarchies - i.e. George III of England and Catherine the Great of Russia - left much to be desired (not to mention that embracing them as an example of a tolerable monarch would effectively negate the entire premise and act of the Declaration of Independence and subsequent revolution...not that you would want that to be so, would you?), and the far more typical monarchies could go toe to toe with your run-of-the-mill murderous autocratic 3rd world dictator of the mid 20th century, yeah. I'd say it's a lot more unfree on the whole than an otherwise free nation-state that enslaved a minority of its population as bad as that may be.

    The history of monarchies in the world, to put it frankly, stinks. The bad ones are little more than little Hitlers and Stalins for their own time and country and the far more infrequent good ones are still far too autocratic. That Hamilton not only proposed such a system for the United States but openly praised it as the best system of government illustrates conclusively that he was no friend of liberty. When a tyrant is in power with unbridled autocratic authority all his subjects are slaves, central bank or no central bank.

    But it’s too easy to take the Hamilton-Jefferson debate about the Bank (for example) and say “Hamilton anti-freedom, Jefferson pro-freedom,” and neglect the magnitude of slavery’s offense against freedom.


    Assuming your eyes are keen you'll notice, Professor Levy, that I did no such thing though. Rather, I provided a whole litany of faults with Hamilton's policies and views which, taken in addition to his own personal shortcomings on slavery, illustrate him to be among the most statist and anti-libertarian members of the founding generation. And yes, included in that comparison are those who like Jefferson opposed slavery in the abstract though they fell far short in practice.
    • ^
    • v
    It is also worth mentioning that the major monarchies of the world in 1787 - the time when Hamilton proposed a monarchy for the United States - all had some form of slavery in them. Many (France, Portugal, Spain) had far worse slave systems in their American and African colonies than the United States ever had as an otherwise free non-monarchy nation.

    So I stand by my original point: Hamilton was in no way a friend of liberty, and all things considered he was still worse than the otherwise libertarian founders who failed in their practice of slavery.
    • ^
    • v
    Yes, William. Good clarification. That's what I was trying to convey in my first post above...I simply didn't think it would get so obtusely misunderstood.

    Jefferson had his failings on slavery...no doubt. He lacked the conviction to stand against it in real time and in practice....his deploring of it in rhetoric and the abstract, though nice (I suppose), was simply an near empty gesture.

    But my point was that, SLAVERY ASIDE, Jefferson's general views in abstract and in political battle against the Federalists were in favor of less government and decentralization. His philosophy of government and society was far more libertarian than Hamilton...this is so obvious it shouldn't even be debated.

    If not for the likes of Jefferson and his cohort, there's no telling what kind of government we would have had had it been left to the Hamiltonians to decide.

    When I asked my question above, I was serious and seriously curious to know of Jefferson's anti-libertarian views in terms of government, commerce and society. Did he have any? Perhaps. I would just seriously like to know what they were.

    What would Jefferson be in the modern world? What would he think of our parties and government?

    I think it's safe to say that Hamilton would be smiling and thinking up ways to expand power even further and look for areas where his monarchical leanings could "improve" society even more.

    Jefferson, OTOH, would be as distressed and disillusioned as most of us are...and seriously doubt the abolition of slavery would be a reason as to why...
    • ^
    • v
    My last two paragraphs above lead to an interesting question:

    If the 2008 election were between Hamilton and Jefferson, who would you vote for?

    I think there, the answer should be obvious for most people here. Does anyone believe that the absence of slavery would bother Jefferson or be part of his campaign platform? LOL. Of course not. But I think the issues he would be campaigning on would make us all smile.

    Anyone disagree?
    • ^
    • v
    William, I think, seriously misunderstands the state of British government in 1787-- not least because slavery on British soil was illegal. George III was a bad occupant of a constitutionally limited monarchy with an elected parliament and an independent judiciary; Catherine the Great was a good occupant of a tyrannical and despotic office. The dominant view of the day was that republican governments could not survive in large states for very long and were likely to degenerate into Cromwellian or Caesarian military dictatorship; *if* one thinks that military dictatorship is a likely outcome, a British-style monarchy is a pretty attractive alternative. As it turned out, Hamilton and the dominant view were wrong about the possibility of a continental republic-- but it's not as though Hamilton was longing to replace an obviously thriving and successful republic (he and many of the other Founders thought the U.S. was in crisis and that Shay's Rebellion was the beginning of the end) with czarism.

    I've got as much libertarian lifetime dislike of Hamilton as anyone. He leaves me cold, whereas I like Adams and Madison and feel all the usual conflicts between admiration and dismay at Jefferson. But to be "among the most statist and anti-libertarian members of the founding generation" is not actually to be very statist in absolute terms-- whereas chattel slavery *is* a tremendous violation of freedom in absolute terms.
    • ^
    • v
    As to whether Jefferson had any anti-libertarian views about government and commerce among whites-- setting, as John V insists, "SLAVERY ASIDE", the answer is yes, certainly. He supported state-level slander cases against newspapers that criticized his party or administration-- his free-press theory was kind of limited to the federal government and to no-prior-restraint. The Embargo Acts were the most radical restriction of American trade in U.S. history. And the views on the French Revolution left something to be desired...

    Jefferson was a brilliant visionary and sometimes a hero-- but sometimes pretty profoundly not a hero.
    • ^
    • v
    William, I think, seriously misunderstands the state of British government in 1787– not least because slavery on British soil was illegal.


    Professor Levy's strawmen aside (as I made no such claim to slavery's 1787 legality in Great Britain proper), it is worth noting that slavery would continue to exist in the British colonial system until 1833 - some sixty years after the Somersett case.

    As to monarchies, my point has similarly been sidestepped by the respondent. The particulars of the reigns of George and Catherine (who I simply offered as an example of a "benevolent" monarch, faults included) are simply an illustrative example of the greater point: strong monarchies tend to be so fundamentally incompatible with basic libertarian principles government that even the most "benign" (Catherine) or hapless (George) examples of them are replete with a heavy dose of autocracy.

    I'm not sure what to make of the following, aside from the incredible ignorance it demonstrates:

    The dominant view of the day was that republican governments could not survive in large states for very long and were likely to degenerate into Cromwellian or Caesarian military dictatorship


    Far from being subject to a "dominant" small-state argument, the relationship described was very much an open debate among the late 18th century's political theorists. Furthermore the "large republic" side of that debate had some very prestigious names associated with it, not the least among them being Madison and, before him, David Hume (http://www.constitution.org/dh/perfcomw.htm).

    it’s not as though Hamilton was longing to replace an obviously thriving and successful republic (he and many of the other Founders thought the U.S. was in crisis and that Shay’s Rebellion was the beginning of the end) with czarism.


    Again Professor Levy misses the point. Hamilton needed not to espouse the reign of Ivan the Terrible to bring himself into active courtship with a fundamentally non-libertarian principle. The problem with monarchy takes no more essence in its worst examples than its best. The problem with monarchy is the centralized power structure of monarchy itself, which exists inherent to a monarchial system of government regardless of the individual attributes of the persons who happen to temporarily hold its office. Hamilton's enthusiastic courtship with monarchy is accordingly anti-libertarian in and of itself. Though it is indeed likely he never envisioned an American version of Ivan the Terrible (although his embrace of the Alien and Sedition Acts gives plenty of cause for wonder), neither is it even remotely likely that he envisioned his monarch as a 21st century figurehead with little to no policymaking power.

    Hamilton's embrace of monarchy is entirely consistent with his subsequent advocacy of a strong executive and his constant work toward the centralization of federal power. Both were different means to a similar goal; neither were even remotely consistent with liberty.
    • ^
    • v
    He supported state-level slander cases against newspapers that criticized his party or administration– his free-press theory was kind of limited to the federal government and to no-prior-restraint.


    That's a bit of an oversimplification of the issue, but granted it was so it was also entirely consistent with the original scope of the 1st Amendment per the application of the constitutional rule that was correctly stated in Barron v. Baltimore. As originally designed, the Bill of Rights' freedom of the press provision applied exclusively to the policies of the federal government. State policies were to be governed by the individual and varying stipulations of their respective constitutions. Though an imperfect application of libertarianism on Jefferson's part, his tolerance of state-level suits was not inconsistent.

    The Embargo Acts were the most radical restriction of American trade in U.S. history.


    They were also enacted as a genuine, if misguided, national defense policy amidst the turmoil of Europe's Napoleonic wars, and this too was done within the full purview of the Constitution. Nor was the Embargo Act inconsistent with Jefferson's advocacy of free trade, as he stated as early as his 1793 response to Hamilton's overtly protectionist Report on Manufactures that the use of trade restrictions for military purposes was a legitimate and constitutional exception to the rule that commerce should be free. Jefferson was misguided in this belief as he overestimated the strength of an embargo as a negotiating point abroad vis-a-vis its domestic harm, but his policy was not inconsistent with anything he espoused prior - in fact it was exactly what he espoused in 1793.
    • ^
    • v
    The problem with monarchy is the centralized power structure of monarchy itself, which exists inherent to a monarchial system of government regardless of the individual attributes of the persons who happen to temporarily hold its office. Hamilton’s enthusiastic courtship with monarchy is accordingly anti-libertarian in and of itself.


    Your misunderstand what libertarianism is. Libertarianism is primarily concerned with how people act towards each other in a political context, namely: when and how violent force can be justifiably used in society.

    Only secondarily is libertarianism concerned with which particular political system of monopoly government, if any, is mostly likely to lead to the most libertarian outcomes.

    From my perspective as an anarchist, the problem with any form of government is the centralized power structure of government itself, which exists inherent to government regardless of the individual attributes of the persons who happen to temporarily hold its office. Minimal-statist libertarians' enthusiastic courtship with democracy would be accordingly anti-libertarian in and of itself, if and only if we understood libertarianism to be primarily concerned with choosing between which particular form of government is THE BEST POSSIBLE WAY of achieving liberty.

    Luckily, libertarians are free to disagree with each other over which form of government, if any, is best, because the primary concern of libertarianism is broader than specific institutional arrangements. When two or more libertarians are judging between what all agree are second-best, non-ideal systems, libertarian theory alone does not provide us with clearly-defined ordinal rankings with which to correctly place monopoly, democracy, aristocracy, dictatorship, and anarchy in relation to each other. Creating such ordinal rankings requires looking beyond strict libertarian principles and turning instead to the empirical sciences of economics, historical analysis, game theory, and time-preferences.
    • ^
    • v
    Libertarianism is primarily concerned with how people act towards each other in a political context, namely: when and how violent force can be justifiably used in society.


    No Micha. Libertarianism's primary concern is the status and liberty of the *individual.* It is from that status that *all* other relationships stem, including the relationship between the individual and the state.

    Recognizing that to be the case, the simple study of history strongly attests to the fact that some systems of state are inherently less conducive to the preservation and exercise of individual liberty than others. And monarchy just so happens to be one of those systems, hence my characterization of it (and its proponent Hamilton) as generally incompatible with libertarianism.
    • ^
    • v
    "some systems of state are inherently less conducive to the preservation and exercise of individual liberty than others. "

    Please show your data.

    Number of perfectly libertarian republics in human history: 0
    Number of perfectly libertarian monarchies in human history: 0

    For any lesser measure (states that have directly turned into totalitarian regimes, or states that have committed genocidal acts against parts of their population, or states that have practiced widespread domestic slavery, or states that have imprisoned people for speaking against the state, or states that have raised taxes over X level, or...) this'll be a tricky exercise, not one for which republics will obviously dominate the results.

    While I'm not an anarchist anymore, I'm with Micha on the forms of government question. The American in me stirs to patriotic stories of the triumph of republicanism against monarchy, but the libertarian as well as the historian of political thought in me has to shrug a bit as between forms of government until I know something about the policies they enact and the stability they engender (i.e., not just 'does this government adopt good policies?' but 'does this government have a tendency to collapse into a much worse form of government?')

    [aside #1: I'm perfectly well aware of the debate over large-state republics-- really!-- but Madison's contribution to that debate was still in the future when Hamilton spoke, and Hume's essay was widely perceived as a work of satire since it was so incompatible with everything he had ever written about the British constitution. In the time before the Philadelphia convention, there was not actually much debate on the question.]

    [aside #2: Hamilton's "enthusiastic courtship" of monarchy consisted of *one* speech to the Convention-- presumably reported on by Madison to Jefferson and enthusiastically used by the latter as a political charge during the nasty politics of the 1790s. And, since his advocacy was for a monarchical *executive* in the context of the rest of the constitutional order being considered, yes, I do think that constitutional monarchies like 18th c. Britain, not absolutist monarchies like Russia or France, are the relevant point of comparison.]

    [aside #3: The question to which the Embargo Acts were an answer wasn't "did Jefferson act hypocritically?"-- for that I would have pointed to the Louisiana Purchase instead-- but rather "did Jefferson espouse anti-libertarian views" as regarded how white people should be governed. That the Embargo Acts were consistent with his stated views doesn't help the cause of claiming him as a pure-as-the-driven-snow-except-for-black-people libertarian hero.]
    • ^
    • v
    No Micha. Libertarianism’s primary concern is the status and liberty of the *individual.* It is from that status that *all* other relationships stem, including the relationship between the individual and the state.


    I don't see the difference between your definition and my definition of libertarianism's primary concern.

    Recognizing that to be the case, the simple study of history strongly attests to the fact that some systems of state are inherently less conducive to the preservation and exercise of individual liberty than others. And monarchy just so happens to be one of those systems, hence my characterization of it (and its proponent Hamilton) as generally incompatible with libertarianism.


    That might be a good argument for Hamilton's naivety about history, if not his libertarianism, if it didn't happen to be the case that at the time Hamilton lived, the long-term stability of democracy did not have much evidence in its favor. You are criticizing Hamilton for failing to grasp history that had not happened yet.

    Again, I would be much more critical of minarchist libertarians and would have a much stronger case against them as libertarians for supporting democracy if there currently existed a functioning, thriving, stable society of ordered anarchy.

    But such a society doesn't (yet) exist, and the few functioning, thriving, stable anarchist societies that have existed in the past existed under conditions that were sufficiently different from our present circumstances for it to be excusable for minarchists to discount these examples as unconvincing.

    Monarchy:Democracy::Democracy:Anarchy
    • ^
    • v
    I don’t see the difference between your definition and my definition of libertarianism’s primary concern.


    You defined libertarianism's primary concern as being placed in the interaction of people in a political context, such interaction being unspecified in any further way. Such a definition could theoretically extend to any political philosophy as it is not qualified by the basic premise of the individual.

    I defined it as being placed in the rights and liberty of the individual, with all interactions being an *extension* of the original principle of individual liberty.

    That is the difference between our definitions.

    That might be a good argument for Hamilton’s naivety about history, if not his libertarianism, if it didn’t happen to be the case that at the time Hamilton lived, the long-term stability of democracy did not have much evidence in its favor.


    Indeed it did not, but at the same time the propensity of monarchies to descend into autocratic tyranny DID have extensive evidence at the time Hamilton lived. He knew that evidence as did everyone around him, yet Hamilton alone, at least among the more notable founders, was willing to overlook it and advocate monarchy anyway.