Political Factions, Parties & Orientations: The American Experience

– Chapter 2, Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans

Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States, by Howard Chandler Christy (1940)

(This is an analytical review of historical literature. It includes links to sources used, but it has not been “peer-reviewed.” I am posting it to provoke thought and further research.)

The articles in this series aim to analyze the history of major political factions and parties in the USA in terms of political orientations, based on the values which psychological research has found to be associated with them. I’m also curious to see whether it’s true that, as claimed by Cicero and Machiavelli, wherever political factions or parties can form, there will be one for the “aristocracy” of the community and one for the “common” people.

Chapter 1 presented the underlying concepts and hypotheses, as well as the major political divisions found in the American colonies just before the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The current chapter begins with the creation of a new government for the new nation.

The victors of the American Revolution were the colonists who called themselves “Patriots” or “Whigs.” As noted in Chapter 1, Patriot-Whigs were more often from the lower, non-elite social orders, although their numbers did include some of the wealthy. They placed greater value on equality and freedom from British tradition, as indicated by their opposition to the monarchy and Church of England. In general terms, they appear to have been the faction of the “common” people in the colonial political system.

The collective crisis ended with the breakup of the aristocratic faction, known as “Tories” or “Loyalists.” After the conflict, about 15% of the Tory-Loyalists fled the American colonies. The vast majority stayed, however, and “…were generally able to retain their property and become American citizens.” [Wikipedia] It was therefore up the Patriot-Whigs to form a new government. They soon discovered that there were substantial differences within their own faction.

Political scientist John Hoadley analyzed Congressional roll votes between 1789 and 1803, and he could see the growth of two distinct political parties over these 14 years. One party called itself “Federalist.” The other called themselves “Republicans.” They had been “brothers in arms” against British rule. Why were they opposing each other now?

I believe the best answers can be found by consulting the protagonists themselves. Reports and records of their comments tell us something about their personal value priorities and orientations. I can’t analyze the statements made by every member of these parties, so I’ve limited my review to statements made by perceived party leaders. I’m assuming that the leaders present the clearest view of the values which define their parties. Also, I have noted only their remarks which reflect, in my opinion, the extent to which they valued tradition, hierarchy, cultural innovation, equality, self-enhancement (or self-benefit, being “pro-self”) and universal-enhancement (concerned with the benefits to others, being “pro-social”). These appear to be the values most reliable in discerning differences in political orientation. I’m also assuming that their remarks were made honestly and not under pressure. To ensure this, I’ve limited my review to records where this is most likely the case, such as their letters to friends and family. Finally, I’ve only reviewed records which were available to me on the Internet.

Alexander Hamilton

The political group known as the Federalist Party was organized and led by Alexander Hamilton. He was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis. His father was reportedly the 4th son of a Scottish “Laird,” but it didn’t help Alexander. The association between his parents was not considered a legal marriage, so he was “illegitimate.” His father, never wealthy, abandoned the family. His mother died while he was still young. The community of St. Croix admired an essay he wrote and sent him to North America for education. The Episcopal Church barred him from their schools because of his illegitimacy, but he found worthy alternatives. Shortly after entering college, he publicly defended the colonial cause against Great Britain. He served in the Continental Army during the revolution. After the war, he became a political representative for New York and Secretary of the Treasury.

Concerning his personal value priorities, he left a lot of clues:

1. Still in his youth, he wrote to a friend, “…my Ambition is prevalent that I contemn the grov’ling and condition of a Clerk or the like, to which my Fortune &c. condemns me and would willingly risk my life tho’ not my Character to exalt my Station…I wish there was a War.” [Alexander Hamilton Writings, p.3]
2. He based his opposition to British rule on the argument that freedom was a natural right [p.12–13], and freedom was more secure under a Constitution than a Monarchy. [p.41]
3. He asked a friend to find him a wife, stressing that her family should be wealthy, the wealthier the better. [p.60]
4. He acknowledged that there were times when innovation was useful. [p.86]
5. He argued that wealthy Tories should be allowed to return to the USA: their wealth was needed for commerce, and they would become friends, if the USA gave them privileges. [p.137]
6. He said that communities naturally divide into the few rich and well-born versus the mass of the people. The people are “turbulent and changing,” the rich and well-born are not. Therefore the rich and well-born should have “a distinct, permanent share in the government.” [p.164. This is from a report of his speech at the Constitutional Convention. He did not write it down himself.]
7. “…the advantage of character belongs to the wealthy. Their vices are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the state, than those of the indigent; and partake less of moral depravity.” [p.137]
8. He rejoiced at the changes in France [as of 1789] for the sake of liberty, but he feared that innovations might go too far. “Philosophic politicians” had great influence, and they were “mere speculatists” who aimed too high for human nature. [p.521]
9. He preferred a connection with Great Britain, because “We think in English, and have a similarity of prejudices, and of predilections” [p.523]
10. He said he was “affectionately attached to Republican theory,” and desired “above all things to see the equality of political rights to the exclusion of all hereditary distinction….” [pp.749–750, italics in original]
11. To his political opponents he declared, “You sacrifice every thing that is venerable and substantial in society to the vain reveries of a false and new fangled philosophy.” [p.778]
12. He didn’t fear the U.S. government being used to create an aristocracy or monarchy. He thought the idea was incredible, that the project would take so long to accomplish that no individual would be interested in the attempt. But he did fear that the people might be aroused by appeals to prejudice, fear or jealousy, and create a monarchy as a consequence. [p.781]
13. At some point while he was Secretary of the Treasury, there was apparently an allegation that Northern financial speculators had obtained Southern property by “taking advantage of superior opportunities of information.” Hamilton responded rhetorically: “Is a government to bend the general maxims of policy and to mould its measures according to the accidental course of private speculations? Is it to do this or omit that in cases of great national importance, because one set of Individuals may gain, another lose, from unequal opportunities of information, from unequal degrees of resource, craft confidence or enterprise?” He didn’t answer these questions. Presumably he did not believe this was a matter for Federal policy.[p.786]
14. He faulted the French revolutionaries for substituting “the mild & beneficent religion of the Gospel [with] a gloomy persecuting and desolating atheism.” [p.835]
15. He publicly confessed to having had an extramarital affair that lasted many months. [p. 883; also on Wikipedia]
16. He proposed the creation of a “Christian Constitutional Society” in the USA, to support both Christianity and the U.S. Constitution. [p.989]
17. He further proposed the creation of urban “institutions of a charitable & useful nature” to be managed by Federalists. In association with this, he noted that the “Jacobins” [the Democratic Republican Party] had been organizing against Federalists in several cities. [p.990, also Letter to Bayard of 1802]

Based on these comments, I would say, first, that Hamilton strongly valued “self-enhancement.” I believe that’s reflected in his comments about his ambition (#1), his desire for a wealthy wife (#3), his defense of personal gain from inside information (#13), and his public confession to an extramarital affair (#15), since he was less concerned about the effect of this public comment upon his wife. I suspect his sense of needing to secure personal freedom (#2) also reflected the value he placed on self-enhancement. He did propose to create charities which would benefit city-dwellers. Normally, that would suggest he also valued “universal enhancement,” the benefit of others. But his comments associated with this proposal suggest it was really meant to enhance the chances of the Federalist political faction (#17). Since he was a leader of that group, their enhancement would also benefit Hamilton himself.

I’d also say that Hamilton strongly valued “tradition.” He believed there were times when innovation was useful (#4), but he feared it could go too far, as in France (#8). It upset him that the French revolutionaries had turned away from Christianity and toward atheism (#14). He accused his opponents of throwing away what society had established, in favor of new-fangled philosophies (#11). He proposed the creation of an association dedicated to supporting Christianity (#16). And, even though he had fought against the British, he felt bound to them by language, prejudices and predilections (#9).

Finally, I’d say that Hamilton strongly valued “hierarchy.” He did value equality, in the sense of an equality of political rights (#10). But his other comments make clear that this was because he was opposed to a hierarchy based on heredity. What he favored was a hierarchy based on wealth. He argued that the USA should welcome back wealthy Tories and grant them privileges because of their wealth (#5). He asserted that the rich and well-born should have a distinct and permanent share in government, because they were not “turbulent and changing” like the common people (#6). He believed that wealthy people were superior in character (#7). And he was less afraid of the government creating an aristocracy than of the common people being agitated by fear, prejudice or jealousy into creating a monarchy (#12). He differed from colonial “Tories” or “Loyalists” in that they supported the British monarchy, a political system based on heredity. Because he rejected hereditary hierarchy, he was opposed to British rule, but not to hierarchy as such.

I have to note that Hamilton’s apparent value priorities of self-enhancement, tradition and hierarchy are those which have been found to be most associated with a “conservative” or “center-right” political orientation today. [link]

Descriptions of Hamilton by historians and his contemporaries seem to agree with these observations. He’s been portrayed as an egotist, an ambitious opportunist seeking power and higher status [“A Second Bonaparte”] . It’s said that he favored the English government, that he praised the House of Lords as a barrier to “pernicious innovation,” and that he basically preferred aristocracy to democracy [Political Theories of Alexander Hamilton] . His peers are said to have regarded him as egotistical, aristocratic, and dictatorial, but also noted that he was reverential toward tradition and generous to refugees and fellow soldiers [Jefferson and Hamilton].

Did other members of the Federalist Party share Hamilton’s value priorities? The Federalist Party is described by one source as having “unabashed elitism” and “an older conception of politics that stressed deference by the people to their leaders” [“Federalist Party” (Encyclopedia.com)]. Another source claims that the Federalist Party “appealed to businesses and to conservatives,” “was closely linked to the Congregational church,” and came to be viewed as aristocratic [“Federalist Party” (Wikipedia)]. Political Scientist John Hoadley says that members of the Federalist Party were generally “supporters of a more aristocratic political system.” Historian John Miller [The Federalist Era] portrays Federalist Party leaders as wealthy men who assumed a strong link existed between property ownership and ability to govern, meaning they “had a natural-born right to rule their inferiors in the social and economic scale” (pp.108–109). Historian Patrick Allitt [The Conservatives] agrees: the Federalists were men of wealth and status who believed that hierarchy was natural, that politics should be left to the privileged, and that the traditional social order should be conserved (pp.7–12). All of these reports lead me to conclude that, indeed, the value priorities of other members of the Federalist Party were similar to Hamilton’s. Therefore, they likely shared a similar political orientation.

Thomas Jefferson

The leader of the Republicans, or “Democratic Republicans,” was Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson’s mother came from one of Virginia’s most important families. His father was not the largest landowner in the area, but he had at least 1,000 acres of land and a quantity of slaves. Jefferson was therefore economically secure, and his education was the best available for the time and place. [Jefferson vs. Hamilton, Ch.1] He was raised in the Church of England. His father died while he was young, but his mother lived until 1776. [Thomas Jefferson, p.2] He went to college, studied law, and began a political career. He represented Virginia in the Continental Congress and gained fame for drafting the Declaration of Independence. During the Revolution, he also served as Virginia’s Governor. After the war he served as Ambassador to France, Secretary of State and President. [Jefferson: Political Writings, pp.xiv-xx]

What can his writings tell us about his value priorities and political orientation? I haven’t read all of his letters; that would take me years. But I have read letters he wrote between January 14, 1760 and February 28, 1801, and I think the following comments are enough to give us insight into Jefferson’s value priorities:

1. As a youth, he wrote that he wanted to go off to college for several reasons. He wanted to remove distractions, enhance his education and make acquaintances who could be useful later. He also calculated that his absence would lower the expenses of the family’s estate. [The Works of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 1, p.433]
2. As a law student, he wrote that “Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.” He noted that many legal scholars had claimed that it was, but the Common Law predated Christianity in England. Also, there never was an Act adopting Christianity as part of Common Law. [The Works of Thomas Jefferson, vol.1, p.458–9]
3. He argued that settlers moving West should not be forced to buy the land from Congress. They were already indebted and “little able to pay taxes.” [The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol.2, p.80]
4. During the War of Independence, a prisoner-of-war camp was set up near the Jefferson family estate. Jefferson heard that the Governor of Virginia was thinking of moving the prisoners, and Jefferson asked the Governor to reconsider. Jefferson argued that the prisoners were comfortable where they were, they had invested labor in the camp, and it would be seen as a cruel breach of faith now to move them elsewhere. [The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol.2, pp.176–180]
5. On the other hand, while Jefferson was Governor of Virginia, he ordered that a captive British Lt. Governor be kept in irons. Jefferson said it was warranted because this particular POW had been responsible for barbaric cruelty against American citizens. [The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol.2, pp.246–264. Jefferson consulted with General George Washington before putting this POW in irons. Letters from Washington to Jefferson in July and August 1779 indicate that Washington offered opinions but let Jefferson decide.]
6. When he was told that the Cherokees were in need of supplies, he suggested that the three States bordering the Cherokee nation each provide supplies to the settlements nearest to them. [The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol.2, pp.274–5]
7. He proposed the emancipation of Virginia’s slaves and giving them enough education and materials to support themselves in a colony somewhere. He expected that racial prejudice and resentment would lead to violent social conflict if they remained in the State. [Letters and Addresses of Thomas Jefferson, pp.25–6 (from Notes on Virginia, 1781)]
8. Concerning his own slaves, he intended to keep all of them, so long as their labor paid off his debts. After those debts were paid, he intended to make things easier for them. He claimed he was “governed solely by views to their happiness.” [The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol.4, pp.416–7; also p.343. He doesn’t say that he will free them!]
9. While serving as Ambassador to France, he complained that his salary was inadequate: “I ask nothing for my time: but I think my expences should be paid in a stile equal to that of those with whom I am classed.” [i.e., he expected to be able to live up to other ambassadors in Paris] [The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol.4, p.12]
10. He was pleased “to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests & nobles,” and proud that his country had “produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions.” [The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol.4, p.334]
11. He advised a nephew to “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” Jefferson noted that his nephew might conclude that there was no god or that there was a god, and either conclusion could be beneficial. What mattered most was that he relied on the “oracle” of his reason. [The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol.4, pp.430–2]
12. In his “Proposed Charter for France,” written prior to the Revolution, he suggested an equalizing measure [#7]: “All pecuniary privileges and exemptions, enjoyed by any description of persons, are abolished.” [The Works of Thomas Jefferson, vol.5, p.482]
13. Concerning French politics just prior to the Revolution, he noted, “That enemy (the civil & ecclesiastical aristocracy) begins to raise it’s head.” [The Works of Thomas Jefferson, vol.5, p.489]
14. A fundamental principle he proposed was that “the earth belongs to the living and not to the dead.” He argued that such a principle could be reflected in national laws, such as those which treated property, privilege, commerce, and hereditary offices. [The Works of Thomas Jefferson, vol.6, p.10]
15. He was clearly happy that a military expedition against cattle-stealing Native Americans north of the Ohio River had wiped out 3 of their villages. He explained it was hoped and desired that by these measures the Native Americans would be induced to accept peace. [The Works of Thomas Jefferson, vol.6, p.273, 297]
16. In response to a petition from certain “free people of colour in Grenada,” he remarked that he didn’t think it would be desirable to bring “a body of sixty thousand free blacks & mulattoes into our country.” [The Works of Thomas Jefferson, vol.6, p.270]
17. In 1792 he needed to appoint a new Chief Clerk, and he had to choose between two career employees with equal claims to promotion. He said he decided to promote the one who was married, because “500. dollars place a single man as much at his ease as 800. to a married one.” [The Works of Thomas Jefferson, vol.6, p.457]
18. He was surprised by the extent of inequality and misery in France in 1785. He recognized the impracticality of dividing property equally. But he believed there was so much misery around that legislators could come up with all kinds of ways of subdividing property without violating natural inclinations. He proposed that inherited property be divided equally among living relatives of the deceased, and that a tax system be created to “exempt all from taxation below a certain point, & to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” [The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol.7, p.35–36. Jefferson incorrectly dated the letter “1795.”]
19. Jefferson suggested in 1797 that a population of wealthy merchants was rapidly monopolizing the Federal government and public finances to serve their own interests, a circumstance which he compared to being in “bondage.” [The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol.7, pp.121–122]
20. He denounced the belief “that government, religion, morality, & every other science were in the highest perfection in ages of darkest ignorance, and that nothing can ever be devised more perfect than what was established by our forefathers.” [The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol.7, p.328–329]
21. He proposed that each township in Virginia include a free “English” school. [The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol.7, p.414]
22. He supported, in Virginia, recognition of the right to vote without restrictions based on ownership of property. [The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol.7, p.454]

These comments suggest, first, that Jefferson strongly valued “universal enhancement,” or benefits to others, sometimes to a remarkable degree. He mentioned, as a motive for his going to college, that it would reduce the burden on his family’s estate (#1). He argued that settlers shouldn’t have to buy land from Congress, because they were poor (#3). He argued that certain prisoners of war shouldn’t be moved because they were comfortable where they were (#4). He suggested that States aid Native Americans who were in need of supplies (#6). He suggested that Virginia free its slaves and help them establish a colony somewhere (#7). And he proposed that Virginia provide free primary education in every township (#21).

His concern for benefits to others was not absolute, however. He treated cruelly those who had been cruel to others (#5 and #15), and said he disliked the idea of bringing thousands of free Blacks into the country (#16).

He was also concerned about personal benefits (“self-enhancement”). He wanted to go to college to enhance his education and develop useful contacts (#1). He intended to keep all of his slaves to pay off his debts (#8). And he complained when, in his view, the payments for his expenses as Ambassador were not enough for him to maintain the same status as his peers (#9). Overall, though, I think Jefferson expressed more concern for benefits to others, and certainly more than Hamilton did.

Second, Jefferson strongly valued cultural innovation and placed little or no value on tradition. He argued that Christianity, the colonial religious tradition, was never the basis for English “common law” (#2). He lamented that the human mind had been dominated for so long by kings and priests (#10). He told a nephew to reason for himself whether there was a god (#11). And when Jefferson proposed that a fundamental principle of law should be that “the earth belongs to the living and not to the dead” (#14), one meaning was that current generations should not be bound by ancient legal traditions. He certainly rejected the view that our ancestors knew best and no innovation could be better than whatever they had established (#20).

Third, Jefferson placed more value on equality and less value on hierarchies. He proposed that France abolish all established “pecuniary privileges and exemptions” (#12).

He identified the French civil and church aristocracy as “That enemy” (#13). He chose whom to promote in his office with a view to equalizing their economic circumstances, given the similarity of their claims otherwise (#17). To address inequality, he proposed a tax system which increased taxes in line with increased property (#18). He suggested that a group of wealthy merchants was monopolizing the government for their own benefit and placing the country “in bondage” (#19). And he proposed to abolish the requirement of property ownership for the right to vote (#22).

I’ll pause here to note that the value priorities of universal-enhancement, cultural innovation and equality are those which have been found to be most strongly associated today with a “liberal” or “center-left” political orientation. [link]

What do historians tell us about Jefferson’s social and political values? Historian Claude Bowers says that Jefferson dismissed any aristocratic claim to his mother’s pedigree, he identified with the small farmers among whom he had grown up, he was a humanitarian, and he firmly opposed traditional state-religion laws. [Jefferson and Hamilton (pp.95–104)]. Scholars Joyce Appleby and Terence Ball claim that Jefferson supported civic education in order to encourage “skepticism toward tradition and the past,” that he believed superior intelligence or talent didn’t make anyone superior morally or politically, but that he also believed natural differences made women and people of color less able to govern themselves. [Jefferson: Political Writings (pp.xxiv, xxix, xxvii)] Historian Richard Hofstadter notes that Jefferson feared the self-interested policies of priests and aristocrats more than whatever wrong-headed policies might be endorsed by “the people,” by which he generally meant farmers. Hofstadter mentions also that Jefferson proposed a “common-school system” to widen knowledge and opportunities among the common people. Most surprising to me was Hofstadter’s report that Jefferson wrote a note in 1816 in which he “concluded that the state ought not be aggressive in redistributing property.” [The American Political Tradition (pp.41, 42, 48)] I’ve read that note (scanned version here, transcript here), and Jefferson does seem to argue against the progressive tax system he had proposed 31 years earlier (comment #18 above). But the Jefferson of 1816 acknowledged that a person’s wealth could be so great that it threatened the State, in which case he proposed equal division of that wealth among relatives when that person died. Overall, I think these observations still tend to support my analysis of Jefferson’s value priorities and political orientation.

How similar to Jefferson’s were the value priorities of other members of the Democratic Republican Party? Wikipedia suggests that the major issue dividing the Democratic-Republican Party from the Federalist Party was the matter of social equality: Democratic-Republicans painted Federalists as “supporters of monarchy and aristocracy,” while the Democratic-Republicans, following Jefferson, believed in “political equality for white men.” [“Democratic-Republican Party”] Education scholar Brian Dotts says that Democratic-Republican societies endorsed public education to “eradicate archaic institutions and obsolete traditions,” that they believed “policies should adjust to changes in the general will,” and they were committed “to serve the public good above self-interest.” [Civic and Moral Learning in America, pp.34–42]. Historian Sean Wilentz claims that Democratic-Republican societies demanded free public education to “break down class privileges,” and they hated Hamilton’s programs because his programs would create a class of “insider monied men and speculators,” who would manipulate the government to their advantage and expect to be considered superior to ordinary citizens. [The Rise of American Democracy (pp.58, 55)]. Historian Padraig Riley explains how these egalitarian Democratic-Republicans were able to justify their alliance with slaveholders against Hamilton and the Federalist Party: they argued that a New England elite of Federalist masters had made everyone equivalent to slaves (recalling Jefferson’s comment #19). [Slavery and the Democratic Conscience (p.25)]. I have to conclude that Jefferson and members of the Democratic Republican Party did share similar value priorities, and a similar political orientation.

The development of US political parties also appears to further support the Theory of Political Parties proposed by Cicero and Machiavelli: that, wherever political factions or parties can form, there will be one for the “aristocracy” of the community and one for the “common” people. In fact, Jefferson agreed. In his letter of August 10, 1824, to Henry Lee, Jefferson remarked:

“men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties. 1. those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2dly those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them cherish and consider them as the most honest & safe, altho’ not the most wise depository of the public interests. in every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. call them therefore liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats or by whatever name you please; they are the same parties still and pursue the same object.” [scanned letter here and transcript here]

Note that, during the American Revolution, the Patriot-Whigs had been the faction of the colonial “commoners,” united against the colonial “aristocratic” faction of Tory-Loyalists. Why did the Patriot-Whigs split into two parties after their triumph? Jefferson again offered a profound insight. In a letter to Thomas Cooper (July 9, 1807), Jefferson commented:

“I had always expected that when the republicans should have put down all things under their feet, they would schismatise among themselves. I always expected too that whatever names the parties might bear, the real division would be into moderate & ardent republicanism.”

The implication was that Federalists had been “moderate” Republicans, whereas he and his supporters had been “ardent” Republicans [fervent, passionate, vehement]. Thus, after their success, the “moderate” Patriot-Whigs became the new aristocratic faction, the Federalists, while the “ardent” Patriot-Whigs became the new faction of the “common” people, the Democratic-Republicans.

In a previous essay [here], I speculated that factions would have sub-factions based on distinctions among their value priorities. But Jefferson’s insight, with the weight of experience supporting it, suggests that a more important source of party or faction division is the difference between those who are “moderate” with regard to their value priorities and those who are “ardent” concerning the same value priorities. It’s a difference which can become the basis for antagonistic sub-factions, and even new political parties.

The next Chapter in this series will address the decline of the Federalist Party, the division of the Democratic-Republican Party, the rise of new political parties, and the value priorities and political orientations they reflected.

AFTERTHOUGHTS:

1. In light of the above, I think political history reflects, in part, a struggle of political orientations: a struggle between those who inherently value tradition, hierarchy and self-enhancement and those who innately value cultural innovation, equality and universal-enhancement. So I take issue with the idea that political polarization in the USA has its roots in the personal feud between Hamilton and Jefferson [as expressed here]. My theory is that the feud between Hamilton and Jefferson arose from their opposing political orientations, and that later political polarization also arose from the fact that natural populations [as opposed to populations based on choice or selection] commonly include individuals who have opposing political orientations.
2. Jefferson demonstrates how a member of the aristocracy can be oriented politically toward the welfare of commoners. Hamilton demonstrates how a commoner can be oriented politically toward the welfare of the aristocracy.
3. I’ve seen posts by conservative writers suggesting that Hamilton was a “progressive.” I think this is because his policies were directed toward creating a strong central government, which many modern conservatives dislike. In reality, Hamilton was trying to establish, quickly, a modern capitalist economic system, dependent upon finance, commerce and manufacturing. He wanted to ensure that these industries would benefit from the government directly, assuming that “general welfare” would follow. That’s what conservatives today call “trickle down theory.” Unlike progressives, Hamilton was less concerned about ensuring the welfare of the general population directly, through government support for things like education, housing and economic assistance. Note, too, that “private enterprise” still turns to the Federal government for help during national commercial and financial crises.
4. Although Jefferson and members of his party were inclined toward the value priorities of equality, cultural innovation and universal-enhancement, these were not value absolutes. In theory, all U.S. citizens had equal political rights, but it was assumed that some citizens had less capacity to freely exercise their rights. For example, free Blacks, women, and adult White males without property were denied the right to vote because it was assumed they could not be independent, that they needed adult White males with property to protect their rights and interests. [Alexander Keyssar, The Right to Vote] It was a “habit of thinking” which took time, argument, protests and sometimes force to overcome. Gradually the cultural imagination was enlarged, and more citizens came to be accepted as capable participants in the political system — at least by a majority of Americans.