Download pfd

Darren Staloff, a professor at New York University, goes beyond the obvious in accounting the lives of these three founders. He inspires us to look at the essence of their philosophies and their contributions to our founding to see their relevance to our own generation. He makes us aware of their wisdom and insights, as well as their human shortcomings. I have watched Staloff lecture on CSPAN. He’s the kind of professor we all would wish for: he illuminates key points from history to make them fascinating and relevant to our own day.

Although each of these founders had clear viewpoints about how our young nation should proceed, all were pragmatic in applying the principles they advocated. Their main emphasis – regardless of ideology – was doing what was needed to strengthen the likelihood of survival for our country rather than merely clinging stubbornly to their principles. This lesson is sorely needed in today’s world of partisanship, where the emphasis seems more on pointing out what the other person is doing wrong rather than what we can do together to move our county forward. The disgust of voters with the inactions of our government is well-founded: most people realize that a failure to take action on the key issues of our day imperils us as well as the next generation. We have become a world of “true believers”, where the actions of our leaders are based more on ideology than on meeting the needs of our nation, our world, and even of themselves. Bold and decisive action is needed at the state and federal levels to move past our impasses regardless of ideology or political consequences. We also are reminded by Staloff that few of our national heroes are without major stains on their personalities, including those in this study.

Alexander Hamilton was a revolutionary war hero, brilliant jurist, legislator, framer of the constitution, advocate for a stronger national government, and an abolitionist. He was our first Treasury Secretary and founder of the Bank of New York. A man of passion who evoked strong reactions for and against him, a trait that would eventually prove his undoing. After his bitter experience with the Revolution that was nearly lost due to human weakness, Hamilton wondered if people are even capable of a republican form of government (as opposed to a monarchy). He believed that politicians must be realistic in their assessment of human nature and that government must be structured to avoid collapse under the illusion that people will act according to idealistic expectations. This means that all goals of government must be accompanied by a clear plan to reach the objectives that are set. Taxation must be part of the plan to build roads, create schools, etc. To have a strong central government that serves all the states must be ready to cede some power. Hamilton considered political science a real science where the right actions lead to the desired results: “Just as geometry was based on self-evident axioms, political science depended on fundamental ‘maxims,’ like ‘there cannot be an effect without a cause’… (P 75) Perhaps his chief contribution to the young nation’s prosperity was the facilitation of trade. A student of civilizations and follower of Adam Smith, he believed that financial interaction between all levels of society – rich and poor, urban and rural – led to prosperity for all. To that end, he convinced Congress to create a National Bank to engineer the loans that would facilitate trade. Trade also provided a source of income for the government which could take a bite from every turn of the dollar. In a time when taxes were no more popular than now, he used taxes to pay down the considerable war debt while the nation’s prosperity increased. (P 93)

John Adams was an early champion of the bi-cameral system of government in his native Massachusetts years before proposing it for the Federal government. Brilliant, but prone to fits of self-pity and depression that made him less than likable to many, Adams “may have been the nation’s greatest statesmen, but was also its most notable curmudgeon.” (P 134) He was brought up in a relatively egalitarian society that was based on connection to small communities and that recognized the value of hard work. In community meetings, issues were resolves and in a forum of mutual respect. His father was a farmer who determined that his oldest son become educated, preferably as a clergy. Once at Harvard, Adams was exposed to the thinkers of the Enlightenment who advocated a rational approach to life based on the discoveries of Newton and the insights of Locke. He distanced himself from the Calvinist teachings of his youth, stating that the doctrine of Christ’s divinity was: “a convenient cover for absurdity.” (P 138) He became enthralled with the study of civilization and the emphasis of the Enlightenment on the role of knowledge in improving people’s lives. “Knowledge is the most essential foundation of liberty.” (P 145) He was committed to public education and backed freedom of the press. He became a prominent and successful lawyer. Adams saw an intimate relationship between education and liberty: he thought that one cannot exist without the other. Those who have had the advantage of education must take the role of leading others in maintaining their freedom. As a diplomat in Europe during the 1780s, Adams was frustrated in his attempts to raise money from Europe to keep his new country afloat. Congress was largely unable to raise funds because at this point we were only a loose collection of states that were not required to contribute to the expenses of the whole. This led Adams to push for a strong Federal government. Adams eventually came to believe less in the perfectibility of man and civilization than other founders due to his assessment that human nature – with its extreme passions – would hold us back. He also knew of – and was well known for – his own extreme passions. He was especially concerned about how the elite could easily dupe the average person into working against their own liberties by the use of slogans and “tricks.” (P 183) He also cited many historical cases in his writings where the majority – once it gained control – would oppress the minority. Adams saw the advantages of political strife as being a significant factor in keeping one faction from ruling for too long, particularly factions of the upper and lower classes. (P 190) One year after he became President in 1787, it seemed that we were heading for war with France, who requested our support for their revolution while we strived to remain neutral. His refusal to be swayed or bribed led to a groundswell of popularity for Adams. This also led to Congressional funding for a navy that had been nearly non-existent before. (P 213) This protected American shipping and allowed it to expand, enriching the country. Due to the perceived threat from France, Congress also provided the Sedition Act and an army far beyond what Adams had requested in a flurry of patriotism, but Adams pushed for diplomacy over war. Although he used the Sedition Act, he also was concerned that the expanded army could be used internally against those accused of sedition. Adams lost the election of 1800 to Jefferson due to divisions within his own party, mainly with followers of Hamilton, and although he probably won the popular vote, state legislators in those days determined the electors who decided who would be President. (P 228)

Thomas Jefferson “was much more than simply a revolutionary statesmen and political theorist… he truly was the universal man idealized by the Renaissance...read widely in metaphysics, epistemology, and moral and aesthetic philosophy…and avid student of the sciences, conversant with most recent developments in chemistry, biology, zoology, botany… [had an interest in] meteorology…widely read in…political economy and…an amateur anthropologist.” (P 234) In addition to drafting the Declaration of Independence, he drafted two Constitutions for his state of Virginia. At the beginning of our republic, Jefferson spent five years as our ambassador to France before returning to serve as Washington’s Secretary of State. He took part in the design of the new nation’s capital, and designed the Virginia state Capital as well as laying out the plans for the University of Virginia. Born to the manner, Jefferson was an American aristocrat who held as a priority the rights of the common man. While in France, he was disturbed by the wretchedness of the poor under the monarchy, even while being himself a slaveholder. For Jefferson, as well as the planter class to which he belonged, the role of women was “…home and hearth…” (P 243) He was a champion of the right of newspapers to publish any and all news and opinions, except for libel, and of religious toleration, or the right to have no religion at all. (P 254) In 1781, Jefferson wrote his only book published in his lifetime: Notes on State of Virginia, wherein in extolled his native state where he saw the possibility of the good society. He wrote his views on some of the topics dearest to him, including the separation of church and state, constitutional government, checks and balances and individual liberty. He claimed that farming and living in touch with the land imparted “…natural virtue, goodness, and innocence.” (P 283) However, in his book he also asserted the intellectual inferiority of the Negro, advocating freeing them and settling them in colonies where they could truly experience freedom. In contrast to the republican sensitivities of his time, Jefferson pushed the idea of “mass participatory democracy” based on a trust in the people to pursue and do what is right, despite the errors that will at times inevitably be made. (P 297) Along with his belief in direct democracy, “Jefferson’s idealized democracy governed best by governing least.” When government becomes non-responsive to the needs of its people, periodic revolution may be in order. In a letter to James Madison he wrote: “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” (P 305) This was in sharp contrast to the other founders who were shocked by the idea of armed rebellion against the government. Jefferson was also a strong advocate of the French revolution, even as it became more violent. He did expect that “the present disquiet will end well.” (P 306) His tone changed to one of condemnation of France when it appeared that we might go to war a few years later. Because of his belief in limiting government, Jefferson argued for “strict construction of the Constitution during the debate over Hamilton’s proposed bank.” (P 310) The bank wasn’t mentioned in the Constitution and therefore was not permissible. Jefferson actually threatened succession of the South in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which he believed were aimed at him. Jefferson actually threatened succession of the south in response to the acts, which he considered unconstitutional attempts to suppress dissent, but his viewpoint ultimately prevailed as he defeated Adams in the election of 1800, but a tie in the Electoral College between Jefferson and Burr threw the election to the House of Representatives. During his presidency, Jefferson reversed the Federalist trend toward larger government, and directed the energies of the central government away from commercial development toward agrarian expansion. His emphasis became states’ rights and sharply limited government intervention, which continued for the most part right up to the Civil War. He also “requested and received the repeal of all internal taxation.” (P334) His government would rely on import-export tariffs. He also made a substantial down payment on the national debt. Most savings were made by the near elimination of the military and navy, relying instead on “well-organized and armed militia.” (P 335) His Louisiana Purchase, which nearly doubled the territory of the country, set back his efforts at budget control only $15 million, but this led to the removal of many Native Americans from their lands. In 1807 he initiated an embargo on all trade with Europe to avoid being drawn into the expanding European wars, but this created a financial disaster – including widespread unemployment – due to the slowdown in trade, and many farmers and manufacturers were threatened with bankruptcy.

Staloff states in his conclusion:
Sincere devotion to abstract truths has animated some of the most ferocious…partisanship…and heightened ideological differences among people whose practical differences might have easily been negotiated…Maintaining an authentic commitment to a virtuous sentiment has all too often been a means to claim a self-righteous moral superiority that salves the moral sensibilities of concerned citizens without actually helping the moral objects of their concern. All too often Jefferson’s politics of principle have allowed Americans to sin with good conscience. (P 360)

I think he is telling us that people of all political persuasions have claimed the founders as the source of their ideologies as they dig in and refuse to engage in constructive dialogue to resolve their differences and meet the needs of the American people. We can perhaps learn from these three founders that compromise for the common good is possible, but that gridlock only postpones decisions that must ultimately be made if our government is to best represent the needs of the people they are sworn to serve.