Who was right?
Both were right about some things and wrong about some things.
Burr
inb4 retarded Broadway fans with political agendas
Jefferson to be quite truthful
Hamilton mostly but he could have been less of an asshole
Jefferson.
Agrarianism is God, the megaopolis is the source of the death of nations.
Depends on your point of view.
Jefferson wanted a simple decentralized agrarian republic that helped others overthrow tyranny (althought he owned slaves) wheras Hamilton wanted the USA to be a strong centralized republic.
I keep thinking of the ideological differences between Trotsky and Stalin for some reason.
States right>Fed
Jefferson obviously
>>1076936
Jefferson = Lockean
Hamilton = Hobbesian
>>1076936
Jefferson. Hamilton wanted a monarchy disguised as a republic
>>1076936
Hamilton since his version of America is actually what happened. Jefferson couldn't even be consistent with his own ideology when he held power.
America would be an unimportant regional power if Jefferson's version of America had won out.
>>1077110
What's wrong with this? It wouldn't be unjmportant, we just wouldn't be cultural imperialists
>>1078080
Cultural imperialists is all America has wanted to be since we started expanding west
>>1078373
I disagree.
Hamilton.
Jefferson wasn't consistent with his ideas once in power from a historical perspective. Personally, I prefer Hamilton because he was pro-British and recognized the necessity of a strong, centralized Federal government that would help the nation develop over a weak, decentralized Federal government.
>>1078466
Really?
I mean cultural imperialism would have happened anyway as traders (foreign and American) would've slowly cracked open the frontier as they get more and more goods to the Natives. We would have conflicted with them upfront sooner or later since their communal societies wouldn't work with our type of society.
Hamilton was a retard on many levels.
But he's still the superior choice.
>>1076936
Hamilton.
Jefferson had such a hardon for independent farmsteads that it prevented him from realistically approaching many of the problems of government. It was important that we had both views, but it is best that Hamilton's views won out of Jefferson's.
>>1076936
Jefferson. Hamilton was a dirty anglo conspirator
Jefferson is a meme and a fucking fraud and a total hypocrite. Fuck him, fuck him forever. Filthy slave-owning faggot. Not even a SJW but I don't understand how anyone can take Jefferson seriously. He didn't even free his slaves when he died the way Washington did.
>>1078966
>I'm not an SJW
>I get mad that people had slaves in the antebellum period
Shiggy diggy do
Hamilton was a nationalist and true patriot, Jefferson was (literally) treasonous scum who advocated for secession because his autistic brain couldn't handle being wrong.
>>1079163
He advocated for peaceful secession if so came the time to be.
Jefferson was right, federalist scum.
>>1078966
>Jefferson is a meme and a fucking fraud and a total hypocrite.
Jefferson did everything in his power to undermine the stability of the country because MUH NOBLE LIFE OF YEOMANRY. The Kentucky Resolution should've had him hanged for treason.
>>1079191
Kys my man
Everyone who's stupid enough to say "Jefferson was a hypocrite, never freed his slaves. If Jefferson had his way we'd be insignificant" is an idiot who has not read anything
on Jefferson beyond a cursory level. He wanted slavery to be abolished. He thought it would be an issue the next generation of Viriginians would have to address. Whether he said that because he wanted to continue profiting fromslavery or understood the massive logistical nightmare that would be complete emancipation all at once is ambiguous. What is not ambiguous is that he authored the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia statute of religious freedom, not to mention he put his scruples aside on muh elusive republic and fucking doubled the size of the US. And if you're going to do a comparison of Hamiltonian Vs Jeffersonian economic ideology I'd argue that Jefferson's yeoman republic was better suited to the economic conditions facing the US at the time. The upholding of agriculture and land owners was more conducive to US expansion than Hamiltons policies for manufacturing activity. Not to say Hamilton was wrong. I
Just think Hamilton was
Looking ahead which is also good. But goddamn oversimplifications and examining Jefferson through a modern perspective are idiotic
>>1077110
As opposed to a broke pseudo-republic run by special interests and corporations and hated by as many as not?
>>1079240
good post
>>1076936
Hamilton because he's more qt
>>1076936
Jefferson
Hamilton paved the way for the American superpower.
>>1076936
>colonial babbling
>interesting
jefferson was an unreasonable loon
>>1079240
That was actually a pretty good analysis. Good shit anon.
>>1079225
Advocating for states to be able to secede from the Union if they don't like laws while you're VP of the Union is pretty fucking treasonous.
>>1079783
Except it isn't.
Hamilton. Jefferson was sort of a detached idealist who didn't really exercise much in the way of conscious adherence to virtue. He cheated on his wife with a slave-woman and for all his talk of Liberty did not free his slaves. He idolized agrarianism but his own farm was unprofitable and the guy didn't know how to manage his money.
Hamilton clearly lived out his ideals. He was prudent and upright and a man of his word. He was so dedicated to principles and honor that it ended up costing him his life. Sure, his ideas may be more practical, maybe even Machiavellian, compared to Jefferson's loftier ideals but I don't put much stock in someone's philosophy if they're bad at sticking to their principles.
>>1082387
The main reason why we don't have a president Hamilton is because he fucked some bitch and he was found out.
>>1082597
Nah, burr was just a cunt.
>>1082597
he probably could've run and won the presidency if he wasn't killed. that sex scandal you mentioned actually played out in hamilton's favor since he came clean immediately and asked for public forgiveness, which could be a lesson to some current politicians *cough*
>>1082982
people today want perfection though, its all a marketing game
>>1078966
Kill yourself
>>1082387
The question is not who was a better man or who actually followed what they said. Get your feels the fuck out of here and put the goalposts back while you're at it.
>>1076955
So much nuance....how will I know what to believe if there's no black or white?!
>>1082982
Hamilton took 6 years to confess to the affair, and only after he was investigated by an investigative reporter by the name of James T. Callender.
>>1083807
Hegel.
>>1077059
This. Never had it described this way but the correlation is perfect.
Jefferson's agrarian society wouldn't have survived the Industrial Revolution. Hamilton had a clear vision of where society was headed. Muh States rights has never been a viable position, and states have always been more oppressive than the big bad national gov.
>>1076936
Jefferson's people became the people liked at the end
Hamilton's model was the one used at the end
American politics is weird
>>1079240
It's hard to take someone at face value that they want to abolish something when they personally profit from it (re:Hillary Clinton and campaign finance). Jefferson did make any real moves towards abolition. Gradualism is a farce championed by people who don't really want to see real change.
The rest of your post is spot on but only reinforces the fact that Hamilton was right in the end. When it came time for Jefferson to be in charge he moved much closer ideologically to Hamilton.
>>1087230
>le smug liberal Democrat face
>>1087230
>muh oppression
>the state caters to the health of the state as a whole and doesn't fulfill every whiney bitch minorities request
>>1087303
No political party is traditionally the states rights party. Whichever is not in power nationally suddenly becomes the states' champion. Had a republican been in the white house when Colorado legalized marijuana and attempted to shut it down, you'd suddenly see muh states rights liberals.
>>1087322
>"it's just not healthy for our state to recognize you slaves as humans"
>"You're trampling on our rights ATM y'know"
>>1087337
Slaves may be humans, but they are also property.
>>1087328
>people can't have opinions other than mine
>MY SANDBOX
>MY RULES
They both had their merits. The ideal thing would've been for both men to swallow their pride and come to a compromise.
Hamilton was more right than wrong and despite being somewhat elitist with his preference for finance and industry, he wasn't a hypocrite that had sex with his wife's half-sister/slave. I did dislike Hamilton's pro-British views as much as Jefferson's pro-French tendencies.
>>1087322
so feds can do both and states can only do one
yet people say states are more efficient
>>1087416
States are far more efficient.
Feds can do neither without the state's help.
>>1087414
>Hamilton didn't have a sex scandal
>>1087414
>he wasn't a hypocrite that had sex with his wife's half-sister/slave.
Except Hamilton had an extramarital affair and Jefferson didn't.
I agree with everything else you said, though.
>>1087442
Jefferson raped his slaves. Often.
>>1087464
Where are the brooofs?
>>1087471
His black sons.
>>1087249
Jefferson was more likable what with his rhetoric being along the lines of "who's awesome, you're awesome"
Hamilton's was more practical since it allowed the government to run easier and was more compatible with the things that will happen in the future (also it didn't require as much genocide or slavery).
>>1087433
sex scandal=/=having sex with someone you literally consider property.
Maria Reynolds has the ability to say no
>>1087488
>arguing a historical point with "modern morality"
No.
>>1087477
>WE WAS JEFFERSONS AND SHEEEIIT
Hamilton by far. He should be worshipped by Americans. #1 economy by 1900 would not be possible if not for him.
>>1087497
>there wasn't an abolitionist movement at the time
>there weren't moral objections to slavery being discussed at the time
Both were autists, Madison was a happy medium.
>>1087586
he obviously did not believe those freedoms extended to non-white non-citizens. It doesn't make him a hypocrite because you don't understand his positions.
>>1087801
except he'd write about the immorality of slavery. He said slavery was a violation of their human rights, but did nothing to stop it in his own backyard. That's because he was a gradual abolitionist who benefited too much from slavery.
>>1087511
Up until Lincoln's Kentucky debates for governer the topic of slavery and abolitionism were rarely talked about, in the north and never spoken of in the south.
Back before modern/industrial (yellow) Journalism society had the ability b to ignore sensitive topics
>>1087477
>His black sons.
...with Sally Hemmings. No evidence for anyone else. And there is no evidence he raped her, unless you consider having sex with someone you own inherently rape (which is perhaps valid, but not what you meant).
>>1087837
maybe keeping her officialy as a house slave was the easiest way to take care of a family member that was also a lover
what would people say if he just kept a freed slave around the house, think of the neighbours
>>1087856
>Up until Lincoln's Kentucky debates for governer the topic of slavery and abolitionism were rarely talked about, in the north and never spoken of in the south.
That is absolutely not true. It was the single biggest issue of the day.
>>1087837
The non-Jefferson guy in the OP was a noted abolitionist
>>1076936
I prefer Jeffersons way of thinking but it isn't very realistic, for the most part. Without Hamilton the US would never have became the superpower it did.
>>1087885
As I said, the issue of slavery was not a talking topic.
The Kentucky debates were the first time the topic of slavery was debated on a political scale.
Abolitionists were really loud at the time but really, the issues fought in Congress and the stage was never directly about slavery but the expansion or restriction of it in new states
>>1078373
I agree.
I pick Jackson
>>1087926
>the issues fought in Congress and the stage was never directly about slavery but the expansion or restriction of it in new states
And why do you suppose that is? Because a free state majority would... abolish slavery.
>>1079240
He just got lucky with the louisiana purchase though.
>>1076955
Stop being pretentious, you know you can understand the question
>>1087856
>rarely talked about, in the north
Weird how it could be abolished in all those states without anyone talking about it.
>>1088425
Wage slavery is more profitable and puts on the guize of choice.
Blacks were just as much slaves in the north as the south.
>>1078966
>Implying Jefferson didn't shape this country through the Louisana Purchase, drafting of the Declaration of Independence, and envoy to France
Nice meme you dip. Also, without Jefferson, Hamilton and Washington would've created a Britain 2.0
>>1088378
Or....he could have set her free?
>>1079783
What is freedom of association
>>1088965
And be a wage slave?
>>1089070
it's still better than literal slavery
>>1089094
Impossible to determine, how do you define "better"?
>>1083895
yes but he came clean when he was exposed instead of continuing to lie.
>>1087464
No consensus on that.
>>1088157
Lucky in it being offered. Took the initiative on it and then essentially got the ball rolling on the whole sea to shining sea bit. Lewis and Clark expedition Envisioned a nation of farmers which was essential to the US being able to actually get spread out. I'd say that Jefferson was far more important than Hamilton on establishing the rapid territorial growth of the country. Hamilton was responsible for crafting an economic plan that would help the US industrialize in the northeast. I would still contend that Jeffersons economic ideas made a lot of sense given the US' inputs of production at the time. Lots of land, fewer urban centers in most of the country. New England was really the only part of the country until the 1860's that had the wherewithal for significant industry. Hamiltons protectionism policies definitely advantaged the northern states. Ideologically, I prefer Jefferson. His idea of each generation choosing its constitution resonates with me. And he is probably the greatest enlightenment thinker the Americas produced.Also I prefer decentralization of power. He never did free his slaves but that doesn't discredit his actual ideas.
>>1078978
>implying that participation in chattel slavery wasn't looked down upon by the intellectual elite even in the antebellum period
When Lafayette paid Jefferson a visit after that whole mess with the imprisonment by various European powers, he basically spent his whole time at Montichello telling Jefferson what an asshole he was for owning slaves.
>>1089165
And?
>acting like Chattle slavery is worse than other forms of slavery
>>1089165
Lafayette never visited Monticello during that trip. He only saw Jefferson during his visit at Madison's plantation and I doubt he spent his time there bitching about slavery.
>>1089244
its well documented that Lafayette visited both Montpelier and Monticello in November of 1824. He discussed slavery with both of them, calling slavery the biggest draw back of the United States freedom.
Jefferson
>>1089244
Welleverything you've written is factually wrong, so I'm not really sure how to respond beyond a simple:
You didn't really think you'd get away with peddling this bullshit, did you?
>>1078966
Nice ad hominem, but how does his owning slaves have anything to do with his ideas?
>>1076936
Jefferson should have brought the guillotine back with him from France and had Hamilton be its first customer, followed by Adams.
Hamilton, you filthy idealists.
