Professor Yang Jing of the Department of English at Nanjing Normal University
Fragile Union: Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison, by Andrew Shankman, translated by Kai Wang, Oriental Press, April 2021, 256 pp. 72.80
In May 1787, the Philadelphia Convention, which had originally been aimed at amending the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was formed under the auspices of Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison. The basic principle of the conference as a whole was to strike a balance with compromise – at which the Federalists and anti-Federalists, after four months of bickering and consultation, finally came up with a draft constitution and submitted to the states for a vote. Overall, the meeting was neither united nor successful: the three revolutionary fathers, represented by George Mason, a close friend of U.S. Ambassador jeffrey Jefferson to France who had always made it his duty to defend freedom and was called an "anti-constitutional prowess" by the Federalists. At the moment of leaving the meeting, Mason disregarded the affection of his fellow countryman and friend Washington, threw the text of the Constitution to the ground and whisked away. After the meeting, Mason issued a statement declaring that "without the Bill of Rights," he would "rather cut off his right hand than put it above the currently adopted Constitution."
The founding Fathers of the United States, who fought bloodily to win independence, why did the two sides fight swords and fire at this meeting? What is the relationship between the Bill of Rights and the Constitution? Is it power or rights that the two sides are arguing for? Fragile Unions: Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison provides readers with compelling arguments and answers.
From the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of the United States
The Articles of Confederation are a historic document of the United States. After North America declared its independence in 1776, the Second Continental Congress was responsible for drafting a national constitution called the Ordinance of Confederation. The Ordinance was adopted in 1777 and approved in 1781. The fact that this extremely limited Confederation Ordinance took up to four years to pass shows that most people at the time were wary of "not wanting to merge this vast continent into a national government" and preferring to "establish confederations like the Greeks, the Dutch, and the Swiss." Nevertheless, the Articles of Confederation were significant to the nascent republic—without which the United States could not have won the War of Independence.
However, it was also in this war that the "shortcomings" of the Articles of Confederation, signed in the name of the states but generally unconstrained on the states, were also exposed. Compared with the powerful British "Red Coat", the Continental Army's military supplies are short, the soldiers are hungry and cold, the military discipline is lax, and the military morale is scattered. Washington believes that the above factors have greatly weakened the combat effectiveness of the army and greatly delayed the process of victory in the Revolutionary War. Hamilton, who served as Washington's quartermaster aide-de-camp, felt this most deeply: Because the state governments blamed each other, General Washington himself had to pay his own money to pay the military. Hamilton put this expenditure on record — after the founding of the people's republic, the first U.S. government treasury secretary advocated strengthening the power of the central government, especially the fiscal power, which is not unrelated to this tragic experience.
After the victory of the War of Independence, the state's self-reliance did not improve. First, in order to solve the fiscal crisis, the states issued banknotes and bonds, causing inflation and disrupting the domestic market. At the same time, the states are adjacent to each other – states with good ports tax neighboring states, and the states that are asked for taxes hold grudges, so trade barriers are further increased, seriously affecting the "internal circulation". In addition, due to conflicts of interest, the southern states fought with Spain for the right to sail in Mississippi, while the north was indifferent to itself and hung high, leaving the "United States of America" a mess. The leaders of the American Revolution, who are familiar with European history, cannot help but worry that the young United States will be as fragmented as old Europe, and will be trapped in the quagmire of war for many years.
In the fall of 1786, a massive peasant uprising led by veteran Daniel Sheath in Massachusetts strongly shook the American ruling class. Washington, demobilized and returned, led an army to conquest — and although civil unrest soon subsided, the former Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army was acutely aware that in order to defend the fruits of the victory of the Revolution, a strong central government must first be created, and that the prerequisite for the creation of a government was to change the feeble Articles of Confederation into a U.S. Constitution that represented the will of the people.
The advocacy of Washington and others was strongly opposed by several "dissidents," including Mason— war hero Patrick Henry, Massachusetts representative Elbridge Gerry, and Virginia Governor Edmund Randolph. Rather than the central government's "centralization of power," they are more in favor of maintaining state power. Patrick Henry's slogan of "Unfreedom, Rather Than Die" in 1755 inspired countless revolutionaries, and now he has stepped forward as the number one defender of "state power.". He was convinced that Britain was able to openly wage wars of aggression precisely because it had a "brutal and powerful central government" (and a standing army that suppressed the people). As a Virginia figure on a par with Washington and Jefferson, Patrick Henry opposed any relinquishment of state power— a die-hard fan of what Hamilton called "state supremacy." Jefferson felt the same way about this, and once wrote ironically: "As long as Henry is alive, it will make us never live... We really wish he had died sooner rather than later. ”
Although the Federalists and anti-Federalists were divided at the Constituent Assembly, it boiled down to how the federal government centralization and state power should be divided. Around this focus issue, the two sides launched a fierce debate. The Federalist Papers, co-authored by Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay (including a series of eighty-five articles in favor of ratifying the Constitution), is another programmatic document that laid the foundations of the United States. In the above article, Hamilton and others not only demanded that the Constitution give the various branches of the central government enormous powers, but also that the Federal Congress have two absolute powers: the standing army and the right to collect taxes. This has deepened the opposition's wariness of centralization.
The idea of state power was deeply ingrained among the colonizers. Franklin, Jefferson, and others have written about the states as "my homeland." Historian Daniel Bourstyn found in the American Trilogy that there is no mention of the state in the Declaration of Independence, the "birth certificate" of the United States of America—all references explicitly to "states." At the Constitutional Convention, the Connecticut delegate declared, "My happiness depends on the existence of my state government, just as a newborn depends on his mother for nutrition." This statement also reflects the common sentiment of most of the delegates. It is worth mentioning that nearly a century later, When Faced with President Lincoln's Conscription Order, General Robert E. Lee resolutely chose to become the commander-in-chief of the Confederate Army, because he vowed never to choose to fight with "my motherland", otherwise he would "face The Father and Elder jiangdong without face". Historian S.E. Morison argues in his book The Growth of the American Republic that the failure of the Confederacy in the American Civil War was not only the indignant slavery of the gods, but also the "right of the states" that could not be lost—an unforeseen consequence of the revolutionary leaders who advocated compromise.
In the eyes of the anti-Federalists, the old Confederation clause was "the mind obeys the limbs", while the current federal constitution is "the limbs obey the command of the mind" – which they cannot tolerate. Governor Randolph, who was just as "die-hard" as Patrick Henry, vowed to defend the state's authority to the death and refused to budge in the slightest—his famous phrase was: "To give up part of its sovereignty to a state is like asking a woman to give up part of her virginity." ”
It is clear that the Constituent Assembly is intended to strengthen federal centralization and therefore weaken state power. If the two sides refuse to back down, the result must be one shot and two scatters. However, with great political wisdom (and franklin and the lofty prestige of Franklin and Washington), the delegates finally reached the "Great Compromise": the House of Representatives was proportionally divided (to the satisfaction of the large states); the Senate had two seats per state (small states were at ease). Such a distribution of posts is also consistent with the principle of representative democracy: the House of Representatives shall represent the will of the people, and the majority shall restrain the minority; the Senate shall represent the people's wisdom and should restrain the majority by the minority.
It should be noted that perhaps taking into account the colonial historical tradition and political reality (Realpolitik), the Constitution does not clarify the weight of federal and state power, but it is this compromise and balance that breaks the definition of authoritarianism between superior and subordinate in the traditional political structure, and cancels the suppression of one side on the other, which shows that this "top-level design" is deeply rooted in the essence of federalism, and is also in line with the American concept of power constraints - that is, no power can be overridden by other powers for a long time. Federalism is a political system created with the balance of central and state governments at its core—according to Tocqueville, the adoption of the federal government allows the United States to combine the strength of a large republic with the security of a small republic (Montesquieu said: "If it is a small republic, then it is easily destroyed by external forces; if it is a large republic, it is easily destroyed by internal strife."). The main thrust is to preserve the political situation for a long time, on the one hand, and to "provide a reliable guarantee of individual rights" on the other. The latter was a prerequisite for the ratification of the constitutions of the three major states of Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York—federalists must first add provisions to the constitution about civil rights and freedoms (the Bill of Rights).
Is the Bill of Rights necessary?
The Bill of Rights, written by Madison, the "father of the U.S. Constitution," has been repeatedly discussed and revised by Congress, but it is still a "difficult birth" when it comes to voting — a move that the Federalists deem unnecessary, and the opposition believes that the rights of the people in the bill have not been fully protected. In the end, Jefferson, then Secretary of State, hammered out: "Half a slice of bread is better than no bread." Since we cannot protect all rights, let us protect the rights we can protect. (See Half a Slice of Bread: The Beginning and End of the Bill of Rights in the United States, by Levy, translated by Li Songfeng, Oriental Press, 2021.)
As early as 1787, during the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, Roger Sherman, a representative of connecticut, conceived of a "Bill of Rights" during a debate over the provisions of the Constitution, arguing that "the question is not what rights people are born with; but how these rights are best protected in society." Soon, when a copy of the new constitution reached John Adams, the second president of the United States reacted first: the constitution lacked a declaration of rights to protect the interests of the people. He then addressed this in a correspondence with Jefferson, and the two sides achieved a "high degree of agreement" on the issue.
The U.S. Constitution is designed to empower government, and the Bill of Rights is intended to limit that. As "believers" in the eighteenth-century Enlightenment philosophers, Jefferson and Madison were well versed in Locke and Montesquieu's doctrine of delegation of power and the checks and balances of power. They were convinced that all the power of the government came from the entrustment of the people. And, more importantly, "the government is not just a servant of the people, but an untrustworthy, unreliable servant." The government cannot be allowed to take charge of its master's affairs freely; on the contrary, it must be restricted on multiple sides; it must be restrained at every possible point, and it must be wary at all times. Otherwise, it will cease to be a servant and will be anti-servant." Thus, in Jefferson's words, "Liberal government should be based on suspicion, not on trust." ”
Jefferson pointed out more than once that the United States faced the same problem as all previous republics: if power was unchecked, freedom would inevitably slide toward anarchism, which in turn required absolute monarchy to maintain social order. During the French Revolution, he watched the Jacobin Reign of Terror strangle revolutionary comrades and innocent people, sparking intense social unrest, and eventually leading to Napoleon's military dictatorship. He believes that in order to prevent those in power from moving towards despotism and dictatorship, government power must be curbed through the "chain" of the Bill of Rights.
Like Jefferson, Madison was convinced of Paine's political doctrine that "society is always good, but government is always evil." Madison repeatedly affirmed in newspaper articles and letters with friends that power has a slow infiltration and expansion nature, and must be effectively limited to suppress it. Therefore, in order to make up for the lack of "parchment fence" (checks and balances between the branches of power) in the Constitution, it is also necessary to mobilize the masses - "the people must keep an eye on those in power" in order to ensure that government power is not abused and the rights of the people are not infringed. In a letter to Jefferson, Madison wrote with concern: "Every state is repeatedly rushing against these parchment fences: where the real power of a government is, there is a danger of oppression." Based on past experience, the Bill of Rights has always been a dead letter when power is in dire need of control. ”
Unlike Jefferson's enlightenment optimism and "sexual goodness," Madison insisted on the "sexual evil theory," arguing that human nature is inherently narcissistic and greedy, and that those in power are more harmful—in the face of interests and desires, the power of faith and morality is insignificant: the greater the opportunity and temptation, the weaker the religious and moral force. He famously said, "As long as there are perverse interests and soil, the law will be trampled on", the freedom of the people cannot be guaranteed, and the relevant legal provisions are reduced to a blank piece of paper - as Rousseau, who lives in England, only one day in seven years can enjoy freedom, that is, the day they are allowed to vote.
During the Constitutional Debate, Madison made clear his "two-step" assertion of power limitation: first to let the government take power; then to let the government, which holds the power, control its own power—in his view, both due process of law and the freedom of the individual are restrictions on the power of the government, thus proving that "our system of government can self-regulate: it can regulate not only itself, but also limit the elements within the system."
However, the claims of Madison and others, in the eyes of the Federalists, were a group of diehards who deliberately delayed or even hindered the course of history under the banner of "protectors"—the famous historian Gordon S. Wood pointed out in his book Radicalism of the American Revolution that the Federalists believed that "the anti-Federalists were so fanatical in support of the Bill of Rights" was only to "cover up the fact that they were trying to weaken the power of the national government."
Hamilton wrote an article accusing Jefferson of being a "devious demagogue and ambitious troublemaker" and arguing that the Bill of Rights was superfluous and "ulterior motives." In article eighty-four of the Federalist Papers, he declared unequivocally that "the bill of rights, in the sense and scope of the current debate, in the proposed constitution, is not only unnecessary, but may even cause harm." The provisions of the Bill of Rights include certain limitations on powers not delegated to the Government ... For example, since the government is not authorized to restrict freedom of the press, why should it be stated that it must not be restricted? ”
At hamilton's instigation and influence, federalists wrote articles openly satirizing constitutional amendments, especially with regard to one of the enumerated rights—the individual rights of American citizens, and how biased and absurd it was to list a few of them, such as freedom of speech. As a "parody" of the amendment, lexicographer Noah Webster went out of his way to add a "restrictive congressional clause" that "Congress can never deprive an American resident of the right to eat and drink in the right season, nor can he be forbidden to use a left-lying or lying-down position when an American resident is tired of resting on his right side during a long winter night."
Of course, Hamilton and others are not opposed to upholding civil liberties and rights, but they are highly wary of the "democratic" ideas embodied in the Bill of Rights. Edmund Randolph argues that the ills of the state stem from "the riots and debauchery inherent in democratic politics" and claims that "the democratic elements of our system" harbor great dangers; John Adams wrote in his article: "Remember, democratic politics has never lasted long. It will soon decay, dry up, and eventually kill itself. Hamilton, who was the least comfortable with democracy, accused the populace of being "turbulent" and "their judgments were rarely correct," and asserted that there had never been a non-suicidal democracy in the history of ancient Rome to date—that the experience of world democracy "hovered between extreme despotism and extreme anarchy." Therefore, in order to avoid these extremes, the United States must adopt a "Meritocracy" model.
According to historian Charles A. Beard in his book Economic Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, the political elite attending the Constituent Assembly was mostly from the wealthy classes and believed that "property is the stabilizing force of society." Conversely, the proletarian, who has nothing (hence "no perseverance"), is easily incited to "give the proletarian the right to vote," and Gouverneur Morris, who succeeded Jefferson as ambassador to France, declared: "[The poor] will also sell this right to the rich, because the rich can afford it." In the eyes of the above-mentioned elites, democracy is nothing less than a poison, not only corrupting the character of the government and the people, but also opening the door to anarchy. The most frightening aspect of Morris's reporting back home during the French Revolution was that all the property of the Paris riots— both public and private — could not be secured, and even Catholic monasteries were looted.
Ironically, despite their personal efforts to rise to the elite, Hamilton and others have no shortage of "aristocratic complexes"—they stubbornly believe that the aristocratic class is essential to political stability: because the nobility inherits wealth and status, it can coordinate the conflict between upper and lower powers, thus ensuring the firmness and independence of its position. In other words, the role of the nobility, like the wheel of balance, is to prevent the mob (the "ragtag") from trampling on the rules and the rights of the rich, and on the other hand, they want to prevent the monarchs with absolute power from degenerating into dictators.
In contrast, Jefferson, who came from an aristocratic background, was the "patron saint" of American democracy—Richard Hofstadter called Jefferson a "noble-born democrat" in his book American Political Tradition and Its Founders. In response to the fallacy that power is "linked" to wealth, Jefferson argued that the poor should enjoy equal political rights with the rich, and even that "the rich citizen should enjoy fewer suffrage rights than his poor neighbor" because "wealth should not be represented; the advantages of wealth should be deprived as much as possible." At the same time, he advocated equating wealth with a sense of responsibility, that is, the more wealth, the higher the status, the greater the social responsibility (noblesse oblige) - this is also his common belief with Washington and others, as Mr. Liu Zuochang put it, "these gentlemen in Virginia have a strong sense of public responsibility." Jefferson also disagreed with the shock caused by the Sheath uprising in American politics, believing that such an uprising once every twenty years was not a bad thing—at least to warn those in power that "all power comes from the people." Jefferson spent his life thinking about how to protect the rights of the people—in his view, the stronger the government, the richer its income, the more effective its management, the greater the threat to the rights of ordinary people.
In September 1789, Madison introduced the Twelve Amendments to the Constitution, ten of which were retained by a congressional vote, and the Bill of Rights is synonymous with these ten amendments. The amendment is intended to guarantee civil liberties, such as freedom of expression and the right to bear arms, as well as the reserved rights of the people and the cantons. At the end of 1791, the Bill of Rights was formally approved by the cantons and thus became an integral part of the Constitution (Madison had intended to add the provisions of the bill to the text of the Constitution, but failed). To this day, despite amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights remains unchanged because Americans firmly believe that it represents the "noblest and most sacred" idea in American history: "Citizens should be the masters of government, not their servants"—and to rule out the possibility of a "worst government," pressure must be exerted on two fronts: both to limit the government's power and to hold it accountable.
As a result, a fierce dispute arose between Hamilton, who advocated centralization, and Jefferson, who advocated limits of power— who served as secretary of the Treasury and secretary of state in the first administration, respectively, the "Jerhan Controversy," which not only had an impact on the U.S. economy at the time (the United States rose rapidly in the nineteenth century and gradually replaced Britain as the world's leading economic power), but also had a profound impact on the U.S. political situation for more than two hundred years.
Third, the "two-line struggle": power and rights
Both in terms of origin and spiritual temperament, Jefferson and Hamilton are very different — the former worshipped bacon, Locke and Newton, and the latter loved one person: Julius Caesar. The two men's governing strategy can also be described as the opposite: influenced by the French "physiocratism" school, Jefferson attached importance to state power, advocated the establishment of a country based on agriculture, and emphasized individual rights and trade freedom, believing that the government should not interfere in economic affairs; Hamilton believed in state interventionism, committed to the establishment of a strong federal government, and vigorously developed industry, commerce and banking, so as to promote the rapid rise of the US economy. Hamilton insisted that individual freedom in the United States could not be discussed without the wealth and strength of the state; Jefferson took a very different view of this, arguing that while national prosperity is important, individual freedom is even more important. Due to political disagreements and a group of "disciples" each, "partisan strife" (the prototype of the future democracy/Republican Party) gradually formed - the two were like "aggressive roosters", and even President Washington could not help it.
The issue of the location of the capital is the first round of a dispute between the two sides. Before and after the founding of the People's Republic of China, the United States was set in Philadelphia and New York, and it was one of the largest cities at that time. Jefferson and Madison, on the other hand, wanted to learn from London's lessons and set the capital away from the possibility of an absolute monarchy and "court culture"—London concentrated almost all of Britain's political, economic, and social power, and a small number of people held political and economic (especially financial) privileges, forming a special interest class with social control. Therefore, in order to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, Jefferson and Madison proposed that the capital of the republic be located in a remote area, such as on the Potomac River on the north-south border – which would not only cut off the political and economic centers, spatially weaken the connection and corruption between government and business, but also help to balance and coordinate the economic interests of the southern states and the north.
Hamilton, influenced by "mercantilist" ideas, initially preferred to have his capital in the big cities, but was more concerned about whether his fiscal reform package would be implemented than the location of the capital, which apparently required the strong support of Jefferson and others. Eventually, after difficult negotiations, the two sides agreed: Jefferson and Madison agreed to the core terms of Hamilton's fiscal plan—the federal takeover of the states' wartime debts; Hamilton agreed to settle the capital at Washington, a new city on the Portmark River—to compensate and appease the southern states. Because the deliberations were secretive, the political compromise of 1790 was also seen as a "secret deal."
The greater contest between the two sides is reflected in the attitude towards the newspaper media. Hamilton was a well-known "fast gunner" and a leading political commentator, and his Gazette of the United States was edited by the well-known newspaperman John Fenno. Hamilton often published articles under his pseudonym attacking political opponents, accusing Jefferson of being "hypocritical and cunning"—"a nobleman's head embedded in the frame of a commoner"—and denouncing him as a pro-Frenchman—he "showed a feminine love for France and a femininity toward England."
In response, Jefferson hired the famous poet Philip Freneau (Madison's friend in Princeton) to start The National Gazette to fight back, and the two sides fought with their respective partisan "mouthpieces." As the debate escalated, the rhetoric escalated from partisanism to personal attacks, and its scope expanded from party leaders on both sides to almost all political leaders — not even presidents Washington and Adams. In the pen of Freno and others, Hamilton was no more than "the lewd bastard son of a Scottish itinerant trader", but he was keen to act as a "lackey" of the rich new York, and his moral character was questionable; this man was empty-eyed, domineering, and constantly regarded himself as Napoleon — even daring to propose to Congress that the senator serve for life, which showed his personal political ambitions. President Washington, who has always indulged in the shielding of Hamilton, "is more like an actor than a political leader, best at Shakespearean dramatic performances"; the president reads very little, and his speeches are written by others — he "can't write a complete sentence without misspelling a few words"; and more fatally, the president is generous in appearance, but in fact morally corrupt — he once hooked up with "the daughter of a washerwoman."
Just like the common "routine" in all party struggles from ancient times to the present, personal privacy related to the "next three roads" will always be the most popular topic for the audience. Unlike the high-profile Hamilton, Jefferson has always stood up to the strict, but he can't resist the tabloid reporter's "digging deeper": there are rumors that the "black beauty" who accompanied Jefferson's daughter to France in 1787 was actually Jefferson's "Congo" concubine, who had an illegitimate child. Around the middle of the nineteenth century, Jefferson's popularity in the abolitionist movement plummeted, apparently unrelated to the widespread spread of this rumor.
Hamilton, by contrast, suffered more questions and hurt his private life — so much so that he eventually had to retire from politics. As government treasurer, he cheated on Maria Reynolds, the wife of a New York speculator James Reynolds, who was maliciously blackmailed by Reynolds and caused a storm and discredited reputation. Political opponents seized on this stain and went on to accuse Hamilton of abusing his power and committing corruption. Hamilton, anxious to clear himself of "malfeasance," wrote a self-defense, publicly acknowledging his marital infidelity while insisting that "I have no problem with the economy" — as if justice Bacon had defended himself: "I did accept bribes, but it did not affect my judgment." — Hamilton, for example, said that Reynolds had sought his own treasury position, and that he had flatly refused in defiance of coercion as a way of proving his "loyalty to his duties." But once public trust collapses, how can politicians gain a foothold in politics?
As the biggest victim of party newspapers and political pamphlets, Hamilton (and Adams, among others) advocated the control of newspapers suspected of "defamation" and the immediate suppression of them if violated. Jefferson and Madison, on the other hand, advocated that unrestricted newspaper speech—and that any doctrine of thought needed to be publicly displayed in the Marketplace of Ideas—should be subject to public judgment in order to effectively expose the shady scenes in government management: "Discussions of public affairs should be unhindered, dynamic, and widely open, including fierce, harsh, and sometimes unpleasant, sharp criticisms of government and public officials." In their view, "mere fear of serious damage does not justify the suppression of freedom of expression and assembly." It's like people burning women for fear of witches..."
At the same time, Jefferson placed particular emphasis on the "indoctrination" function of the press, emphasizing that the active participation of the educated populace could truly guarantee the freedom of the press—as Marx pointed out in 1849, under the condition that the public's expectations for a free and open press were lost, the freedom of the press must be "hopelessly morbid", in other words, the greatest threat to the freedom of the press was the people's twilight, indifference to public affairs, and eventually becoming spectators and thus losing their precious independent ideas. The "negative teaching material" cited by Jefferson and others was Tsarist Russia— "a conspiracy of silence." Under such an authoritarian government, "every rash remark is tantamount to gross treason," leading to constant self-censorship of everyone, leading to a situation of all kinds of chaos. Jefferson shouted: "The people are completely trustworthy, they should be allowed to hear everything that is true and false, and then make a correct judgment." If I were to decide whether we should have a government and not a newspaper, or whether we should have a newspaper and not a government, I would not hesitate to choose the latter. ”
It should be noted that although there are major differences between the two sides on a number of issues, there is no doubt that the consensus is far greater than the dispute – otherwise the transition of power after the election of 1800 (what Jefferson called the "Revolution of 1800") would have been difficult to complete. When Congress voted for thirty-six consecutive rounds of voting for two candidates, Jefferson and Aaron Burr, Hamilton pushed the crowd, breaking down party divisions and putting Jefferson on the presidency on the grounds that Jefferson was "more gentlemanly" (Burr was later tried for treason) — and it is said that Hamilton's exact words to the Federalists were: "In this world, if I have to hate anyone, it is Jefferson." But the public interest must transcend personal grievances. Similarly, Jefferson had great admiration for Hamilton's talents. In a letter to Madison in 1788, he praised the Federalist Anthology as "the finest exposition of the principles of government." In a letter from home in 1790, Jefferson again praised that "there is no better work in the field of theory guiding practice than the Federalist Anthology." In addition, in the "Reynolds Incident", Jefferson also resolutely abandoned the party struggle and fought for Hamilton, saying that "it is difficult for gentlemen to fight villains since ancient times". In fact, according to the consensus of historians, during his eight years in power, Jefferson's ideas of statecraft became more and more contrary to his original intentions, and instead came closer and closer to Hamilton, who died young (who died under Burr's gun in a duel). In the event of a holiday, a reconciliation between the two (such as Jefferson and Adams in their later years) is inevitable.
Only then did Jefferson confidently declare at the inauguration of the presidency, "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists"—because he knew that the conflict between the two sides stemmed more from political opinions than from the desire for power, and that their greatest consensus was the recognition of the nature of power, that greed for power is where man's innate desire lies, and that power "is like a mouth, always opening its mouth to devour; at the same time, it is like cancer, growing barbarically, devouring life faster and faster, and eventually becoming its own victim." Therefore, their greatest fear is that "this thirst for power will be diverted to oppressed peoples." They know that while power is essential to maintaining freedom, its dangers are multiplied when it spirals out of control. From the point of view of political balance, they do not believe in the people nor in the officials — even officials elected by the people cannot believe unconditionally — because there are no people made of special materials. At the same time, at the level of political practice, they also regard government power as a "natural enemy" that infringes on individual rights. According to the eminent historian Bernard Bailyn in his book The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (especially Chapter III, "Power and Freedom"), power and rights refer to different objects: the former is for the public, and the latter for private. He therefore believed that the best way for (public) power to function was to neither corrupt under the temptation of power nor to succumb to the tyranny of the majority. He goes on to argue that power seized from rights does not confer legitimacy on rulers, and that the rights (privileges) established on top of this power are naturally illegitimate, as in the case of the Jacobin "tyranny" of the French Revolution. In short, by its very nature, "rights mean equality and fair treatment of those involved without regard to their status" – in Belling's view, this is the thrust of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Looking back at the "Jahan Controversy" more than two centuries later, it is not difficult to find that it has nothing to do with moral character (both sides show a "gentlemanly" side), but indeed it is a "two-line struggle" in the course of American history--it is manifested not only in the struggle between federal and state power, the concept of large and small government, and the struggle between industrial and commercial and agricultural interests, but also in the struggle between government power and individual rights. Mr. Luo Rongqu once made the following statement in the General Theory of American History, "From the perspective of protecting the people's democratic rights and pure democracy, Hamilton is classified as a conservative, but if we look at the inevitable process of capitalism, Hamiltonism is essentially radical, while Jeffersonism is essentially conservative" - the two complement each other and jointly promote and promote the development of American history. To borrow the words of the philosopher Russell, "Jefferson made America the homeland of democracy, and Hamilton made America the homeland of millionaires." The political victory belonged to Jefferson and the economic victory belonged to Hamilton. This is also the result of the "conspiracy" of the original American founders — Andrew Shankman's book "Fragile Union: Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison" is titled "Original Intents", and its meaning may lie in this.
bibliography:
Qian Mansu, editor-in-chief, Gentleman Seeking The Nation: The Founder of the United States, Oriental Publishing House, 2017
Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992
Leonard Williams Levy, The Origins of the Bill of Rights, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999
Editor-in-Charge: Huang Xiaofeng
Proofreader: Shi Gong