If Even Jefferson Was Bad...
Tom DiLorenzo, in his new book, Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution - And What It Means for Americans Today (see his The Founding Father of Constitutional Subversion), shows how Hamilton helped to subvert the superior (and more libertarian) Jeffersonian interpretation of the Constitution. But though Jefferson was clearly better than Hamilton in his ideas and constitutional interpretation (see Jefferson on Nullification; Fourteenth Amendment Resources), he was also a pretty bad president.
In Forrest McDonald great article, The Bill of Rights: Unnecessary and Pernicious, McDonald (pp. 404-405) gives the the example of how Jefferson blatantly violated the 4th and 5th Amendments in enforcing an 1807 embargo. More intriguing to me was the description (p. 407-408) of the Jefferson administration's blatant trampling of the Constitution during an incident when martial law was declared in the Territory of Louisiana by U.S. General James Wilkinson.
As McDonald recounts,
"A fourth set of circumstances under which the Bill of Rights is apt to be trampled upon arises whenever there is a general sense of emergency, justified or unjustified, local or national. On the local level, the city of New Orleans offers instructive examples. In the winter of 1806-7 Gen. James Wilkinson, commander of the small American army in the Louisiana Territory, asked Territorial Governor William Claiborne to declare martial law, on the ground (which Wilkinson knew to be false) that Aaron Burr was about to invade New Orleans with his rebel band. Claiborne refused, whereupon Wilkinson imposed martial law anyway; and in the name and authority of the United States, he proceeded to crush the Constitution and the Bill of Rights beneath his boot. He arrested without warrants and held incommunicado three of Burr's associates, and when writs of habeas corpus were obtained in their behalf he had them chained and sent sea to Washington. In addition, he jailed their attorney, the judge, the judge's closest friend, a newspaper editor, former Senator John Adair, and about sixty other citizens. None was charged with a specific crime, none was allowed his constitutional rights, and a number were transported from the vicinage, where they had a constitutional right to a speedy and public trial, and were shipped in secret to Washington. The president of the United States [Jefferson- SK] approved of these doings, his only reservation being that Wilkinson must stay within the limits, not of the Constitution, but of what public opinion would bear [emphasis added]."
And, of course, there was Jefferson's ownership of slaves, and the Louisiana Purchase...
Now, granted, McDonald is a Hamilton worshipper, and can be expected to trash Jefferson. But the point is even Jefferson--the author of the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the Kentucky Resolutions--did terrible things as President. It's awfully difficult for a politician to avoid being a politician, it seems. But as a friend noted, "If even Jefferson is pressured to ignore the Constitution, then the argument for limited government really is absurd."
Comments (10)
Curt Howland
Reminds me of the comment in "Marting Van Buren: What Greatness Really Means", about how Van Buren turned out to be more principled while in office than when out.
Indeed, power corrupts. And the nay-sayers think that _anarchy_ is somehow corrupting?
Yeah, I can see it now: "Responsibility corrupts". Somehow that just doesn't float.
Maybe it's just a mental equation of "liberty" with "libertine".
Published: July 14, 2008 4:45 PM
Dick Fox
DiLorenzo has been disingenuous in his words toward Hamilton. I do not know if he is intending to do a hatchet job on Hamilton or if he is honestly mistaken in his assertions but he does make wild unfounded accusations against Hamilton.
Hamilton did have mercantilist leanings and he was not perfect but he brought the United States back from near bankruptcy and he returned the gold standard making investment in the United States one of the most trusted investments in Europe.
Published: July 14, 2008 5:04 PM
Gregory Campeau
In history, it's awfully difficult to do a good job taking someone out of context and evaluating him in a vacuum. I'd say it's nearly impossible. You must remember that Jefferson had to follow two (terribly statist) Federalist presidents, both of whom were influenced immensely by the scheming Hamilton and seduced into nationalizing America, in more than ways than one. Jefferson was not the perfect president, true enough. But his predecessors had much worse "liberty records."
Published: July 14, 2008 8:06 PM
Stephan Kinsella
"Dick Fox": "Hamilton did have mercantilist leanings and he was not perfect but he brought the United States back from near bankruptcy and he returned the gold standard making investment in the United States one of the most trusted investments in Europe."
Actually, Dick, the U.S. became a good place to invest after Hamilton and his party were dethroned by the Jeffersonians in the 1800 election, who repealed almost all of Hamilton's taxes.
Published: July 14, 2008 10:06 PM
Bruce Koerber
History and revisionist history influence us but what about the present. Are we not able to act and act honorably regardless of the history of those who preceded us?
I think there is a different approach needed in the search quest. Searching for truth in historical work is different than searching for truth for one's own sake.
Relative to Hamilton Jefferson was a great classical liberal. This can be found by searching the historical data.
Discovering the underlying essence of subjectivism (and the significance of subjectivism in human beings) requires detachment and logic and justice along with other intangibles and ideals.
We are not bound by past failures. Economic science with the correct methodology (subjectivism) has opened magnificent vistas. Let's go forward even as we appreciate the past.
Published: July 14, 2008 10:12 PM
Dick Fox
Steve,
I respectfully disagree. Had Hamilton not corrected the disastrous financial situation of the United States there would have been no United States. He returned the country to the gold standard and restored commerce. This allowed him pay the debts of the US at full value in gold and to even honor the disgraced Continental currency at full value. To allow Jefferson to take credit for Hamilton's fiscal and monetary policies would be like giving Clinton credit for Reagan's supply side revolution.
Jefferson was totally opposed to banks. Had Jefferson had his way, the United States would have been basically a gentleman's club with slaves working the fields and the "intelligencia" ruling. The Jefferson myth is that he was enlightened, but actually he just liked to play with things. His obsession with toys ran his estate into virtual bankruptcy. Jefferson was a prime example of the saying, "the difference between a boy and a man is the size of his toys." His ideas were never codified because his principles changed based on the situation. Consider the Barbary Pirate incident and the purchase of the Louisiana Territory. Had Adams not built up the navy and had Hamilton not strengthened the finances of the US, Jefferson would not have been able to do either.
Then consider the horrible failure of the Embargo Act of 1807. It struck both the industrial North and the agrarian South, destroying the markets of both. While doing nothing it was intended to do.
During his presidency he had a period of peace, the financial condition of the US had been repaired, and the country was strong. But he antagonized the British and misjudged the French leading us to the 1812 conflict under Madison.
I disagree with Hamilton’s use of protective tariffs, and his domestic taxes (whisky for example) but there can be no dispute that his economics was far more enlightened than Jefferson’s.
Published: July 15, 2008 7:58 AM
Sag
"Power corrupts" has limited application here. Wasn't Jefferson a slaver before he was president? That means regardless of declarations etc. he was already corrupted before his presidency. He was better than Hamilton but not some almost perfect type corrupted by power. Think of it: declaring (radical) liberty on the one hand and slaving on the other.
Published: July 16, 2008 12:01 PM
Bill Greene
Reading this all makes me wonder if President Nixon's relatively minor sins, in comparison, might not make him the best of these presidents! But wait a minute, while we can pick flaws in any man or woman, most of those sins cited are not really all that bad. Consider the larger issue, that none of these men were Robespierres, Oriental despots, Hitlers, Napoleons, Pol Pots, Stalins, Tito's, Mao's,Charles I, or any of the kings and queens of European nations for most of the last millennia. Our very human presidents, with feet of clay, as limited by the constitution our early founders designed, all functioned pretty well: they made America clearly the freest, safest, richest nation in the world by far and a haven for more individuals seeking freedom and opportunity than ever witnessed before in the history of mankind. They accomplished this by adhering more or less to the constitution and long-established principles of freedom in such a way that the common people of Anerica were given a wide latitude in which to exercise their genius. The rest is history--No nation ever gained as much for its citizens as this one--so it is important when tearing down our leaders to keep that historical perspective. And it is doubtful that even a "perfect" president would have improved things in any significant way--After all, he is primarily a figure head, and all the heavy lifting was done by the people in the workplace.
Published: July 17, 2008 8:06 AM
Bill Greene
Reading this all makes me wonder if President Nixon's relatively minor sins, in comparison, might not make him the best of these presidents! But wait a minute, while we can pick flaws in any man or woman, most of those sins cited are not really all that bad. Consider the larger issue, that none of these men were Robespierres, Oriental despots, Hitlers, Napoleons, Pol Pots, Stalins, Tito's, Mao's,Charles I, or any of the kings and queens of European nations for most of the last millennia. Our very human presidents, with feet of clay, as limited by the constitution our early founders designed, all functioned pretty well: they made America clearly the freest, safest, richest nation in the world by far and a haven for more individuals seeking freedom and opportunity than ever witnessed before in the history of mankind. They accomplished this by adhering more or less to the constitution and long-established principles of freedom in such a way that the common people of Anerica were given a wide latitude in which to exercise their genius. The rest is history--No nation ever gained as much for its citizens as this one--so it is important when tearing down our leaders to keep that historical perspective. And it is doubtful that even a "perfect" president would have improved things in any significant way--After all, he is primarily a figure head, and all the heavy lifting was done by the people in the workplace.
Published: July 17, 2008 8:07 AM
Thomas
I would agree with other comments and, briefly, disagree wit hthis posting.
Jefferson is one of the more highly successful presidents yet, particularly his first-term. I would give the Embargo Act to you as one of his mistakes.
Why the Louisiana Purchase is bad is not at all explained
Holding slavery against Jefferson is anti-thetical to your premise. It's easy for us today to condemn slavery (and for John Adams as well) but Jefferson was a man of his time, who didn't feel blacks and whites could coexist, yet he lead a peaceful, romantic life with Sally Hemings.
He felt slavery was wrong and an abomination and even in the Virginia legislature proposed that every new state to the country be accepted on the condition it were a free state. It lost by one vote and hen ever attempted to outlaw slavery again.
Jefferson was tormented on slavery and his mind had a way of blocking out those elements which contradicted his thinking. Suffice it to say, he failed regarding slavery, but was of the right mindset.
Published: November 11, 2008 2:19 PM