Philosopher views
HAMILTON’S ECONOMIC IDEAS
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- HAMILTON’S OPPRESSIVE IDEAS
- DENOUMENT
HAMILTON’S ECONOMIC IDEASHis economic ideas were no less radical, impressive or important. His REPORT ON MANUFACTURERS (1791) was the first major departure from Adam Smith’s WEALTH OF NATIONS (1776). The document argued for a system of protective duties designed to promote the interests of American businessmen and manufacturers. Today, we would call this viewpoint “protectionism.” Because Hamilton’s economic ideas were so influential, they became relatively widespread in the early days of the United States. The Swiss economic historian Paul Bairoch (in his book ECONOMICS AND WORLD HISTORY) has argued that this shows America does not have its roots in so-called “free trade,” as is often claimed. In fact, he claims, America probably would not have successfully industrialized at all if not for Hamiltonian policies of protective tariffs, duties and other legislation designed to shelter fledgling industries. Jefferson hated these economic ideas, confronting Washington with a list of 21 objections to Hamilton’s proposed policies. Jefferson decried Hamilton’s desire to increase the public debt, disputed the geographical distribution of the benefits (Jefferson thought farmers would get screwed, which the urban elite would benefit), and many other things. Perhaps his sternest rebuke to Hamilton came based on Jefferson’s moral objections investment speculation. Jefferson considered rich men who used their capital to invest in enterprises not their own (who we might today call venture capitalists) to be the lowest forms of life on earth, saying this behavior “nourishes in our citizens vice & idleness instead of industry & morality." Hamilton’s ideas seemed to Jefferson to be a lot closer to King George III than to any American thinker, accusing him of engaging in a monarchical conspiracy. Hamilton’s response: "It is a strange perversion of ideas, and as novel as it is extraordinary, that men should be deemed corrupt & criminal for becoming proprietors in the funds of their Country." For those of you that don’t speak Old Uptight American, here’s a translation: yeah, my friends and I are rich. And we’re just going to get richer as the country grows, so get over it. If some farmers lose out on their land and enterprises so that my friends and I can run the country, that’s a price I’m willing to pay. There are a lot of Hamiltonians still around in American politics, as should be clear. HAMILTON’S OPPRESSIVE IDEASHamilton’s notion of a strong national government did err on the side of oppression at times. This is best evidenced by his warm support for the final form of the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798. These acts made illegal the publication of "any false, scandalous and malicious writing." Such publications were made high misdemeanors, punishable by fine and imprisonment. These laws were mostly used to silence dissent. Twenty-five men were arrested and their newspapers forced to shut down as a result of this legislation – including Benjamin Franklin's grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, editor of the Philadelphia Democrat-Republican Aurora. (When Jefferson was elected, he pardoned all of those convicted, as much due to his belief in free speech as to his desire to stick his thumb in Hamilton’s eye.) Hamilton constantly disputed Jefferson’s claim that the general public should control government. "Men," he said, "are reasoning rather than reasonable animals." He referred (in his last letter on politics) to democracy as a “disease,” saying that "a clear sacrifice of great positive advantages, without any counterbalancing good; administering no relief to our real disease, which is democracy, the poison of which, by a subdivision, will only be more concentrated in each part, and consequently the more virulent." This shows his opinion of the average American, compared to Jefferson’s continued desire to trust the public. Even sometime allies recognized the elitist tendency in Hamilton. Perhaps the most balanced view came from Madison, his customary colleague. Madison’s final assessment of Hamilton was written in 1831: "That he possessed intellectual powers of the first order, and the moral qualities of integrity and honor in a captivating degree, has been awarded him by a suffrage now universal. If his theory of government deviated from the republican standard he had the candour to avow it, and the greater merit of co-operating faithfully in maturing and supporting a system which was not his choice." Again, the translation from Old Uptight American: Hamilton preferred a more robust, more centralized government. At least he admitted it and didn't overtly destabilize the government. I know he was smart, and everyone else knew it too. His morals -- well, at least he had SOME integrity and honor about him. Allegedly. More on that in our final section. DENOUMENTWe know about the scandal that ended up killing Hamilton. Aaron Burr had been a political rival of Hamilton’s since at least 1777, when Burr sent a contemptuous letter to Washington about Hamilton, then his closest aide. That culminated in the elections season of 1804, where Hamilton repeatedly ripped Burr in public speeches. But he crossed the line when he said (at an event attended by a Burr supporter, and by the press), that though he held "despicable" opinions of Burr, he had more dirt on him that he wouldn’t dish just yet. A journalist reported to the country that Hamilton "could detail . . . a still more despicable opinion" of Burr. And, in Sports Center parlance, it was on. Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel and killed him. Some Hamilton apologists insist that, though he showed up to the duel and took a pistol, he did not intend to fire at Burr. But the Burr scandal wasn’t the only hot water Hamilton found himself embroiled in. It wasn’t even the juiciest. That happened in 1792, when Hamilton headed up the Treasury Department. Three congressmen -- James Monroe, Abraham Venable, and Frederick Muhlenberg – thought they had found evidence that Hamilton was misappropriating government funds. James Reynolds, a shady character currently in jail, was bragging that Hamilton had given him money out of the treasury to play the stock market. Reynolds had evidence, too. That money had changed hands. Monroe et. al. went to Hamilton's office to confront him. That’s when it got weird. Hamilton admitted he had given James Reynolds money -- but he said it was his own money, not the government's. And the money wasn’t for speculation (though that is apparently how Reynolds used it – proving Jefferson’s maxim about the moral character of speculators), but a BRIBE. Hamilton was having an affair Hamilton with Reynolds' wife, Maria. When Reynolds found out he demanded “satisfaction” -- money. It gets better. Reynolds said that Hamilton could continue the affair so long as the money kept coming. As historian Lisa Marie de Carolis noted, “Mr. Reynolds was a clever pimp who was now harboring some very destructive information on one of the highest officials in the country.” Amazingly, the three congressmen were satisfied by Hamilton’s explanation, and agreed to keep it quiet. They apparently did, until July 1797, when a pamphlet was published with the allegations. At that point, the public could be kept in the dark no longer. CONCLUSION When you learn about the so-called “Founding Fathers” in school, you get the impression that they were these morally upstanding men of a bygone era where honor was protected at all costs. As I hope this essay makes clear, it just ain’t so – and it’s somewhat comforting that the politicians of days past were just as sleazy, greedy, and sexually predatory as the ones we see today. One could make a strong case for Hamilton as the Bill Clinton of his day: both were extremely intelligent, motivated, natural politicians; Hamilton was technically born illegitimate, while Clinton was the child of a single mother; both saw their records tarnished by stunning sex scandals; and while Clinton merely threatened to bash William Safire in the nose, Hamilton actually followed through with physical violence against a political rival. Hamilton’s note to his wife, written directly before the duel with Burr, is the final record from his life: "If it had been possible for me to have avoided the interview, my love for you and my precious children would have been alone a decisive motive. But it was not possible, without sacrifices which would have rendered me unworthy of your esteem. ...Adieu best of wives and best of Women." No word on whether he penned a similar missive to James Reynolds’ wife. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|