Liberal Richard Nixon revisionism vs. liberal Alexander Hamilton revisionism

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There was no "conservatism" in the early United States. What there was was Toryism, which was associated with having opposed the Revolution and which, while clearly on the right, cut across groups that would today be viewed as all over the place on the scale of socioeconomic advantage. Inasmuch as seeking to conserve political and economic forms inherited from Britain (or replicate forms present in Britain) could be seen as "conservative", Hamilton was obviously more conservative than noted Reign of Terror apologist Jefferson, and he was indisputably reactionary and elitist regardless.

In Jefferson's America, an ideology based on urbanism, government bureaucracy, and the working class would be unfathomable; in Hamilton's America, it would be the natural left pole of national policy. And, indeed, it is.

Well, yes, the Federalists won the long game on political economy even as they lost it bigly on electoral politics. I don't think that contradicts what I said.

Not really germane, but I should mention that I actually like the Hamilton musical as well as the next guy, and I like it because whenever I listen to it I remind myself that the Chernow/Miranda version of Hamilton is a propaganda character, kind of like the dancing FDR in Yankee Doodle Dandy.

[Mopsus]

In Hamilton's America the working class would never have gained the right to vote, and so such ideology would never stand an even remote chance.

It's hard to say how that would have played out. On the one hand, the first state to abolish the property requirement was Kentucky, but even Hamilton's state of New York gave poor white men the right to vote in the 1820s.

Which only happened because Hamilton's political party and the general political attitude that he championed were thoroughly defeated in the previous two decades.

What do you mean? Andrew Jackson didn't win the Bank War until the 1830s!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Jefferson promoted the ideal of an agrarian republic because he believed (correctly) that an economy built primarily on wage labor would result in a highly unequal society, with wealth and political influence concentrated in the hands of a very few. Modern liberals and progressives seek to counteract this reality through the creation of a welfare state and market regulations; such innovations would have been inconceivable in Jefferson's time, and so liberals acted to oppose the policies of centralization that served to benefit the monied interests.

Last year's me explains it better:

The Republicans were a coalition of Southern planters and small farmers and tradesmen in the Mid Atlantic initially organized to oppose Federalist policies. They claimed to represent the interests of the "common man," which meant that they opposed efforts to centralize power in the hands of the elites. They disliked banks and manufacturing for a number of reasons: commercial ventures, they argued, were a threat to democracy because they elevated the love of money over the love of country, established a quasi-artistocracy with merchants and bankers at the top, and robbed citizens of their independence by making them dependent on markets for everyday goods (it didn't help that many small farmers were in debt to these firms, and therefore resentful of their influence). As such, they were suspicious of the federal government, whose policies in the last decade of the 18th Century served to elevate these "monied interests." They supported increased popular participation in politics and favored Jefferson's vision of an agrarian republic populated by independent yeoman farmers who would be free of the corrupting influence of money. Following the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Republicans enjoyed an explosion of popularity that would allow them to dominate the national government until the close of the 1st Party System. Some, like their founder Jefferson, were slaveholders, but others were life-long abolitionists (and it's worth noting that Federalist darling Charles C. Pinckney supported restoring the slave trade after it was outlawed in 1808).

[Mopsus]

In Jefferson's America, an ideology based on urbanism, government bureaucracy, and the working class would be unfathomable; in Hamilton's America, it would be the natural left pole of national policy. And, indeed, it is.

Well, yes, the Federalists won the long game on political economy even as they lost it bigly on electoral politics. I don't think that contradicts what I said.

I don't think so either. Still, when moderns look at something the occurred two hundred years ago, they're naturally going to take the long view. I don't think it's wrong to do so, even if it is wrong to romanticize those who promote your views for all the wrong reasons.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

In Hamilton's America the working class would never have gained the right to vote, and so such ideology would never stand an even remote chance.

It's hard to say how that would have played out. On the one hand, the first state to abolish the property requirement was Kentucky, but even Hamilton's state of New York gave poor white men the right to vote in the 1820s.

Which only happened because Hamilton's political party and the general political attitude that he championed were thoroughly defeated in the previous two decades.

What do you mean? Andrew Jackson didn't win the Bank War until the 1830s!

Hamilton was the foremost champion of the idea that, while all individuals had certain rights endowed to them by God, human beings were basically unequal, and some men were inherently better suited than others to hold the reigns of power. Accordingly, the Federalist Party adopted the attitude that the role of the common people was to show up to vote every two years and then to shut up and let their betters run the country. This philosophy was totally eviscerated by the Jeffersonian Revolution of 1800, inaugurating a half-century of democratization that left South Carolina as the only state to retain the property requirement on the eve of the Civil War and paved the way for the rise of Jacksonian Democracy and the centrality of the common man to American political rhetoric.

[Mopsus]

Hamilton was the foremost champion of the idea that, while all individuals had certain rights endowed to them by God, human beings were basically unequal, and some men were inherently better suited than others to hold the reigns of power. Accordingly, the Federalist Party adopted the attitude that the role of the common people was to show up to vote every two years and then to shut up and let their betters run the country. This philosophy was totally eviscerated by the Jeffersonian Revolution of 1800, inaugurating a half-century of democratization that left South Carolina as the only state to retain the property requirement on the eve of the Civil War and paved the way for the rise of Jacksonian Democracy and the centrality of the common man to American political rhetoric.

Then what did Jefferson mean when he wrote of the "natural aristocracy"?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Hamilton was the foremost champion of the idea that, while all individuals had certain rights endowed to them by God, human beings were basically unequal, and some men were inherently better suited than others to hold the reigns of power. Accordingly, the Federalist Party adopted the attitude that the role of the common people was to show up to vote every two years and then to shut up and let their betters run the country. This philosophy was totally eviscerated by the Jeffersonian Revolution of 1800, inaugurating a half-century of democratization that left South Carolina as the only state to retain the property requirement on the eve of the Civil War and paved the way for the rise of Jacksonian Democracy and the centrality of the common man to American political rhetoric.

Then what did Jefferson mean when he wrote of the "natural aristocracy"?

Jefferson did believe that some individuals were naturally more virtuous, but distinguished between the "natural aristocracy" of virtue and the "artificial aristocracy" of wealth. He writes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The key here is that while Hamilton considered wealth as evidence of virtue, Jefferson considers it separate, perhaps even antithetical. Furthermore, Hamilton concludes that the common people are essentially devoid of virtue and that government by the many is thus a threat to the rule of reason, whereas Jefferson contends exactly the opposite:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

An examination of the national political campaigns in which Jefferson participated in might shed some light on his "affiliation", and, in doing so, on that position occupied by his opposites. The Republicans firmly positioned themselves as the people's party (for better or worse), and the Federalists were certainly never going to do that. Similarly, it was the Frderalists that championed the first Alien & Sedition Acts, and the party even received defections among those wary of Revolution in France. It was the liberal spirit of Republican intellectuals (or at least Jefferson) that had no problem fantasizing about bloody revolution. In the 1800 campaign, Jefferson was the candidate accused of wanting to legalize rape, and upon his victory, a Connecticut woman rushed to her friend's house with a Bible, shouting "you're a Democrat, they'll never look hear!" apparently under the assumption that Jefferson would ban religion. If the Federalists were to be decried as quasi-monarchists and mercantilists, the Republicans were imagined as atheists and anarchists.

[SWE]

There was no "conservatism" in the early United States. What there was was Toryism, which was associated with having opposed the Revolution and which, while clearly on the right, cut across groups that would today be viewed as all over the place on the scale of socioeconomic advantage. Inasmuch as seeking to conserve political and economic forms inherited from Britain (or replicate forms present in Britain) could be seen as "conservative", Hamilton was obviously more conservative than noted Reign of Terror apologist Jefferson, and he was indisputably reactionary and elitist regardless.

In Jefferson's America, an ideology based on urbanism, government bureaucracy, and the working class would be unfathomable; in Hamilton's America, it would be the natural left pole of national policy. And, indeed, it is.

In Hamilton's America the working class would never have gained the right to vote, and so such ideology would never stand an even remote chance.

They wouldn't have if Jefferson got his way either, so

[Devout Centrist]

There was no "conservatism" in the early United States. What there was was Toryism, which was associated with having opposed the Revolution and which, while clearly on the right, cut across groups that would today be viewed as all over the place on the scale of socioeconomic advantage. Inasmuch as seeking to conserve political and economic forms inherited from Britain (or replicate forms present in Britain) could be seen as "conservative", Hamilton was obviously more conservative than noted Reign of Terror apologist Jefferson, and he was indisputably reactionary and elitist regardless.

In Jefferson's America, an ideology based on urbanism, government bureaucracy, and the working class would be unfathomable; in Hamilton's America, it would be the natural left pole of national policy. And, indeed, it is.

In Hamilton's America the working class would never have gained the right to vote, and so such ideology would never stand an even remote chance.

It's hard to see how any of the framers or founders would want the working class (or at least racial minorities and women) to get the right to vote.

In Hamilton's America, you'd probably see a unitary state with an urban political class and a hereditary upper house, somewhat similar to the House of Lords with appointments. We see reflections of this with the electoral college and the general distrust in democracy that was present among Federalists. Suffrage would likely remain in the hands of property holding men, at least until reforms were enacted to change voting rights. Slavery would be illegal and it's likely agrarian interests would be diminished in their capacity, alongside rural ones as well.

In Jefferson's America, there would be a lot less power concentrated in the Federal government, an almost nonexistent army, and a consensus around an agrarian republic. There would be no central banking or really any regulations on banking entirely, and states would pay their own debts as they incurred them. Slavery would likely continue to exist and the cities would receive little influence on the affairs of surrounding communities. In addition, voting rights would probably be extended to white men that did not own land, but not beyond that. The upperhouse would likely be elected and be based around population, with slaves included as a whole person for representation purposes.

Both sides have their failings and it's important to note that both are extremely outdated. There's little one can find comforting about either. In the case of Hamilton's, a unitary state without a Bill of Rights is pretty terrifying in a modern context. Jefferson's America, if he had stayed true to his principles, would probably be a rural backwater with even worse divides between states, and cities that were never fully developed. States would have large conflicts and the US would remain these United States.