Je f f erson a n d H am i lt on

BY THE SAME AUTHOR

Th e Ascent of George Washington: Th e Hidden Po liti cal Genius of an American Icon

Almost a Miracle: Th e American Victory in the War of In de pen denceA Leap in the Dark: Th e Struggle to Create the American Republic

Setting the World Ablaze: Washington, Adams, Jeff erson, and the American Revolution

Th e First of Men: A Life of George WashingtonAdams vs. Jeff erson: Th e Tumultuous Election of 1800

John Adams: A LifeStruggle for a Continent: Th e Wars of Early America

In de pen dence: Th e Struggle to Set America Free

JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON

■ ■ ■

The Rivalry ThatForged a Nat ion

JOHN FERLING

B L O O M S B U R Y P R E S S

N E W Y O R K L O N D O N N E W D E L H I S Y D N E Y

Copyright © 2013 by John Ferling

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission from the publisher except

in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. For information address Bloomsbury Press, 1385 Broadway,

New York, NY 10018.

Published by Bloomsbury Press, New York

All papers used by Bloomsbury Press are natural, recyclable products made from wood grown in well- managed forests. Th e manufacturing pro cesses

conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin.

library of congress cataloging- in- publication data

Ferling, John E.Jeff erson and Hamilton : the rivalry that forged a nation /

by John Ferling. — First U.S. edition.pages cm

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978- 1- 60819- 528- 2 (alk. paper)

1. Jeff erson, Th omas, 1743– 1826—Political and social views. 2. Hamilton, Alexander, 1757– 1804—Political and social views. 3. United States—History—1783– 1815. 4. United

States— Politics and government—1789– 1797. 5. United States— Politics and government—1797– 1801. I. Title.

E332.2.F47 2013973.09'9—dc23

2013000824

First U.S. Edition 2013

1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

Typeset by Westchester Book GroupPrinted and bound in the U.S.A. by Th omson- Shore Inc., Dexter, Michigan

To Lorene Flandersand all those in the Irvine Sullivan Ingram Library

who have provided so much assistance over the years

Contents

Preface ix

Chronology xix

Prologue 1

Coming of Age

Chapter 1 “To make a more universal Acquaintance”: Unhappy Youths 9

Th e American Revolution

Chapter 2 “Th e galling yoke of dependence”: Becoming Rebels 29

Chapter 3 “Is my country the better for my having lived”: Making the American Revolution 50

Chapter 4 “If we are saved, France and Spain must save us”: Th e Forge of War 75

Chapter 5 “Our Aff airs seem to be approaching fast to a happy period”: Glory for Hamilton, Misery for Jeff erson 102

Postwar America

Chapter 6 “Th e ineffi cacy of the present confederation”: Grief and Intrigue 129

Chapter 7 “Th ey will go back good republicans”: Jeff erson in Paris 150

Chapter 8 “To check the imprudence of democracy”: Hamilton and the New Constitution 172

viii CONTENTS

Th e Struggle to Shape the New American Republic

Chapter 9 “Th e greatest man that ever lived was Julius Caesar”: Th e Th reshold of Partisan Warfare 201

Chapter 10 “Devoted to the paper and stockjobbing interest”: Unbridled Partisan Warfare 224

Chapter 11 “A little innocent blood”: To the Mountaintop and to the Top of the Mountain 243

Chapter 12 “A colossus to the antirepublican party”: Th e Election of 1796 271

Chapter 13 “Th e man is stark mad”: Partisan Frenzy 285

Chapter 14 “Th e gigg is up”: Th e Election of 1800 313

Chapter 15 “Th is American world was not made for me”: A Glorious Beginning and a Tragic End 332

Reckoning 348

Select Bibliography 363

Abbreviations 366

Notes 369

Index 421

Preface

Th e sun struggled to peek through the scudding winter clouds as Bill and Hillary Clinton strode briskly up the steps of Monticello, Th omas Jeff erson’s majestic mountaintop home outside Charlottesville, Virginia. It was January 17, 1993. Just three days away from becoming America’s forty- second chief executive, Clinton had chosen to embark on his inaugural festivities at the residence of his namesake, the nation’s third president.

Th e visitors were given a tour of the mansion, aft er which they joined a motorcade for the journey to Washington. When Clinton took offi ce in a fes-tive ceremony on January 20, he spoke of Jeff erson in his inaugural address, describing the Found er as an apostle of change. Jeff erson, said President Clin-ton, had believed in democracy and knew that periodic “dramatic change” was essential in order to “revitalize our democracy” and “preserve the very foundations of our nation.” To endure, Clinton said, America “would have to change,” but the changes must come within the framework of “America’s ide-als” as set forth by Jeff erson: “life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness,” and the equality of all humankind. As it had been during Jeff erson’s time, Clinton continued, each generation was compelled to “defi ne what it means to be an American.”1

Clinton returned for a second visit to Monticello only seventy- fi ve days into his presidency, and throughout his term he spoke so oft en of his pre de-ces sor that a national news magazine referred to Jeff erson as “Bill Clinton’s muse.” Clinton even enlisted Jeff erson in the fi ght for national health insur-ance, avowing that Jeff erson would be shocked to learn that not every Ameri-can had access to aff ordable health care. As had Jeff erson, Clinton said that he believed “democracy would rise or fall not on the strength of some po liti cal elite, but on the strength of ordinary people who hold a stake in . . . how our society works.”2

Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush, said little about Jeff erson. Bush was drawn more toward a diff erent found er, Alexander Hamilton. On May 30, 2006, a spring- soft morning in the capital, Bush walked from the Oval Offi ce

x PREFACE

to the Rose Garden to announce the appointment of a new secretary of the Trea sury. In his remarks, the president said that he hoped his appointee, Henry Paulson, would follow the example of Alexander Hamilton, the fi rst Trea sury secretary, in overseeing the “management of public fi nances” that were crucial to “the health and competitiveness of the American economy.” Above all, Bush desired that Paulson would, like Hamilton, use his talent and “wisdom to strengthen our fi nancial markets and expand the reach of the American Dream.”3

George Washington was the one who made things happen, but while he was the prime mover in Revolutionary America, it was Alexander Hamilton and Th omas Jeff erson, more than any others, who shaped the new American nation. Th e strong central government, our system of fi nance, and the indus-trial vigor of the United States are Hamilton’s legacy. America’s bedrock belief in equality, its quest for novelty, and the continental span of the nation were bequeathed to succeeding generations by Jeff erson.

Hamilton’s and Jeff erson’s contrasting views on the shape of the new American republic— its government, society, and economy— sparked a bitter rivalry. Furthermore, the ideas and issues that divided those two Found ers have persisted from generation to generation in American politics. Th eir op-posing views are like the twin strands of DNA in the American body politic. In the nineteenth century, partisans clashed over banks, tariff s, the money supply, and workers’ rights, among other things. In subsequent generations, po liti cal parties have battled over issues such as regulation of trade, the dis-tribution of wealth and power, and government’s role in health care. Always, however, the divisions in these battles stretch back to the fundamental diff er-ences that separated Jeff erson and Hamilton: faith in democracy, commit-ment to civil liberties, trust in the wholesomeness of market forces, the availability of individual opportunities and security, toleration of dissent, the scope of the military, and above all, the depth and breadth of government intrusiveness.

Jeff erson’s and Hamilton’s standing in the minds of Americans has hardly been constant. For de cades following Jeff erson’s election to the presidency in 1800, a contest that spelled po liti cal ruin for Hamilton, the Virginian cap-tured the hearts of Americans. All the while, Hamilton slid, if not into obliv-ion, at least into the dark shadows of history. Th e Democratic- Republican Party, or Demo cratic Party, as it was known by the 1820s, had been Jeff er-son’s, and it was largely predominant until the mid- nineteenth century. A succession of Demo cratic presidents kept alive the memory of Jeff erson as the

PREFACE xi

author of the American creed— which he had articulated in the Declaration of Independence— while portraying their administrations as locked in battle against latter- day Hamiltonians. Andrew Jackson, who was oft en called the “second Jeff erson,” saw American history as a struggle between those who feared the people and those who resisted “the selfi shness of rulers in de pen-dent” of the people. Jackson called his foes “the Monarchical party,” as had Jeff erson, and he depicted his administration as battling the anti- democratic tools of wealthy merchants and fi nanciers. Jacksonians toasted the “PLANTER – JEFFERSON” for sowing the “Demo cratic Tree of Liberty,” which they in-sisted Jackson had brought to “blossom like the Rose.”4

But a great shift occurred in the second half of the nineteenth century. Th e reputation of Jeff erson, a Southerner and a slave own er, suff ered nearly mortal wounds in the hearts of many Americans in the wake of Southern secession, civil war, and the repudiation of slavery. Th e standing of Hamil-ton, who had been a proponent of a strong national government, soared, and he ascended even higher in America’s pantheon of heroes as the country entered the Industrial Age later in the century. While trea sury secretary, Hamilton had off ered an alternative to Jeff erson’s agrarianism, ultimately making possible the explosive growth of the American economy. As the cen-tury ended, Hamilton was touted as the creator of modern capitalism and the fi rst American businessman, and in 1900, when New York University established a Hall of Fame to honor eminent Americans, Hamilton was the fi rst inductee.5

Industrialization was a double- edged sword. It provided new social, cul-tural, and material opportunities, but wealth and power were soon concen-trated in fewer and fewer hands. Giant corporations and important fi nanciers exercised nearly unmatched po liti cal clout, while unpre ce dented numbers of Americans lived in squalor and coped with dangerous and exploitive work-ing conditions. Jeff erson’s reputation rebounded, especially in the South and the Great Plains, home to farmers who saw themselves as victims of rail-roads, tariff s, and the fi scal policies of a national government in the grasp of corporate and fi nancial giants. Jeff erson’s image took on renewed luster among those who feared his vision of an Arcadian America was vanishing before new hordes of Hamiltonians. William Jennings Bryan, the foremost spokesman for the oppressed farmers, was saluted in the 1890s as “the Jeff er-son of today.” In hundreds of speeches, Bryan exhorted his followers to es-pouse “Jeff ersonian principles with Jacksonian courage.” He proclaimed that Jeff erson had stood for “equal rights for all, special privileges for none.” Oth-ers who resisted privilege, monopolies, and centralized authority reminded their followers of Jeff erson’s “sympathy with pop u lar rights” and his belief

xii PREFACE

that “all civil power should be . . . exercised that the interest and happiness of the great mass of the people would be secured.”

In the shadow of the fi rst laudatory biographies of Hamilton, two editions of Jeff erson’s papers were issued beginning in the 1890s. Th ey were accompa-nied by several favorable life histories. A veritable army of historians por-trayed Jeff erson as having stood for advancing the liberating tendencies unleashed by the American Revolution while Hamilton had represented the forces of reaction.

Busts, statues, and memorials of Jeff erson sprang up across the landscape. Demo cratic Clubs sponsored a Jeff erson celebration at Monticello in 1896, and the next year the Demo cratic Party inaugurated its Jeff erson Day Dinner, which thereaft er has been held annually on the anniversary of the Found er’s birthday. Attendees sang a song with lyrics proclaiming Jeff erson the “sym-bol of the nation” who had stood for “the Universal Brotherhood of Man.” Many of the tributes to Jeff erson portrayed each federal law that aided Wall Street and corporate America as “a monument to the memory of Alexander Hamilton.”

In the 1920s, countrywide fundraising eff orts, including “Jeff erson Week” in April 1924, raked in money as part of a generation- long campaign to make Monticello a public memorial. During the In de pen dence Day celebrations in 1926, the sesquicentennial of America’s break with Great Britain, the Th omas Jeff erson Memorial Foundation formally dedicated Monticello and opened it to the public. In 1927, the gigantic sculpture at Mt. Rushmore was dedicated, a shrine to Jeff erson, Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Th eodore Roo se-velt as the greatest Americans.

Hamilton did not fade away during the reawakening of appreciation for Jeff erson. President Th eodore Roo se velt was the fi rst occupant of the White House to openly extol Hamilton, calling him “the most brilliant American statesman who ever lived.” Roo se velt also praised Hamilton as having pos-sessed the “loft iest and keenest intellect” among the Founding Fathers, touted his “constructive statesmanship,” and asserted that he had “a touch of the he-roic, the touch of the purple, the touch of the gallant.” Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts was of like mind. A biographer of Hamilton, Lodge praised his subject as an exemplary American nationalist.

Roo se velt and his followers understood that the national government had to play a role in coping with the harshness and inequities ushered in by in-dustrialization and urbanization. Hamilton, the exponent of a strong execu-tive branch and broad federal powers, was their hero. Some turned their scorn and malice on Jeff erson, suggesting that a Jeff erson government was a do- nothing government.

PREFACE xiii

Roo se velt and his adherents were also ultranationalists who longed to ex-tend the reach of American power, infl uence, and economic interests. Th ey were drawn to Hamilton, the exponent of a robust, powerful United States capable not only of defending itself but also of expanding its borders. Early in the twentieth century, the admirers of Hamilton erected statues in his honor in numerous communities, or ga nized a movement to preserve his home in Manhattan, the Grange, and in 1904 commemorated the centennial of his death. In the 1920s the Coo lidge administration put Hamilton’s image on the ten- dollar bill (and Jeff erson’s on the seldom- seen two- dollar bill).6

Nevertheless, Hamilton never eclipsed Jeff erson in popularity in early- twentieth- century America, and admiration of the nation’s fi rst Trea sury secretary vanished almost entirely during the Great Depression. In the 1930s, Franklin Delano Roo se velt governed through a New Deal co ali tion of farmers and urban industrial workers seeking relief from the economic collapse and eager for social and economic reforms, and he openly embraced the legacy of Jeff erson. Indeed, FDR was sometimes called the “new Jeff erson.” FDR saw the battle waged by the New Deal against “the moneyed class” as similar to Jeff erson’s struggle against Hamiltonianism. “Hamiltonians we have today,” FDR said, pointing to them as his implacable adversaries. Time and again, FDR decried these Hamiltonians as exponents of dominion by Wall Street and America’s economic elite. New Dealers characterized their programs as built on a Jeff ersonian template of opposition to oppression. Th ey were kindred spirits of Jeff erson, they said, with the similar design “to promote the interests and opportunities of the people.” In hyperbole seldom matched by an occupant of the White House, FDR even labeled Jeff erson the “great commoner.” New Dealers willfully styled Hamilton as a “fascist” as well as “a great beast” who had evinced only loathing for ordinary citizens.

Admiration for Jeff erson peaked during those years. Th e Jeff erson postage stamp and nickel appeared in 1938, the latter with his profi le on one side and an image of Monticello on the other. In 1943, on the chilly, windy bicenten-nial of his birth, the Jeff erson Memorial in Washington was offi cially dedi-cated to America’s “Apostle of Freedom” who had “sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the minds of men.” Merrill Peterson, a Jeff erson biographer, remarked that the memorial was “the most important thing to happen to Jeff erson” since his death in 1826 and proclaimed Jeff erson as “the heroic voice of imperishable freedoms,” standing in the “radiant center” of the American ideal.7

In the past half century Hamilton’s reputation has been on the uptick while Jeff erson’s has plunged once more. As the shroud of the Cold War fell over America, Hamilton was venerated as a foreign policy wizard who had

xiv PREFACE

championed a fi rm hand in the conduct of diplomacy. Furthermore, with the fi rst signs in the 1960s of the resurrection of conservatism from its Great De-pression near- death experience, Hamilton reemerged to become what one magazine called the “patron saint” of the po liti cal right wing. His ser vice on behalf of the fi nancial sector and his commitment to a free market economy were applauded. Th e bicentennial of Hamilton’s birth was widely celebrated in 1957, and fi ve years later Congress approved a bill making the Grange a national memorial.

Meanwhile, Jeff erson’s reputation suff ered during the civil rights era. He came to be viewed in many quarters as a hypocrite who had posed as an ex-ponent of human rights while owning slaves and espousing racist sentiments. In the wake of DNA testing in 1998 that appeared to confi rm long- standing charges that he had fathered at least one child by one of his slaves, Jeff erson’s reputation sank further. Many thought of him as the lecherous exploiter of a helpless woman that he owned. In some circles, Jeff erson came to be seen with such contempt that movements arose to rename schools that bore his name. In 2012, an opinion essay by a prominent scholar in the normally sober New York Times called Jeff erson the “monster of Monticello.”8

Before President Clinton, John F. Kennedy was the last Demo cratic chief executive to speak oft en of Jeff erson. Kennedy supposedly reread Jeff erson’s fi rst inaugural address on the eve ning prior to his own inauguration and pro-nounced it “better than mine.” At a 1962 dinner to honor Nobel Prize winners, Kennedy famously remarked that the honorees were the “most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever gathered at the White House, with the possible exception of when Th omas Jeff erson dined alone.” 9

By 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected to the presidency, nearly every vestige of Jeff erson’s America had disappeared. Cities had swelled. Th e num-ber of farmers had shrunk to less than 5 percent of the nation’s population. Jeff erson’s America seemed as remote as powdered wigs and silk stockings. Moreover, with Reagan’s presidency, and the accompanying triumph of neo-conservatism, adulation of Hamilton soared to heights nearly as loft y as rev-erence for Jeff erson had been half a century earlier. Reagan spoke of the “wisdom of Hamilton’s insight” and the “ever perspicacious Hamilton.” An-other wave of admiring biographies appeared, most proclaiming that the America of the late twentieth century was Hamilton’s legacy. Modern- day Hamiltonians maintained that the United States’ emergence as the world’s greatest industrial power and the global center of high fi nance and central banking was due to Hamilton’s creative genius and the forces he had set in motion. A PBS documentary in 2004 christened Hamilton the “forgotten fa-ther” of America. Th at same year the New- York Historical Society unveiled

PREFACE xv

an exhibit on Hamilton’s life and work. Conceived by an editor of the National Review, a leading conservative magazine, the show was titled “Th e Man Who Made Modern America.” George Will, the conservative colum-nist, had enunciated a similar view years earlier, writing that there was “an elegant memorial in Washington to Jeff erson, but none to Hamilton. How-ever, if you seek Hamilton’s monument, look around. You are living in it. We honor Jeff erson, but live in Hamilton’s country.”10

If history is a guide, the loft y ascent of Hamilton’s reputation and Jeff er-son’s corresponding decline will not last forever. But one thing seems certain. Politics in its broadest framework is likely to witness continuing divisions over the competing ideas that set Jeff erson and Hamilton at odds.

Th is book about Jeff erson and Hamilton explores what shaped the thinking and behavior of each man. It inquires into their activities during the Ameri-can Revolution and the war that accompanied it, their hopes for the new American nation, and the po liti cal warfare that each waged against the ideas of the other. But the book is about more than ideology and po liti cal confron-tations. It aims to discover what shaped these men’s temperament, to under-stand the character of each, and to explain the role of character in the choices that each made. It also seeks to answer not only what made each a leader but also how each met the hard tests of leadership. Finally, the book seeks to peel away their public personae to discover the private sides of Jeff erson and Hamilton.

When I began this book some three years ago, I held Jeff erson in higher esteem than I did Hamilton. I had not always had such a high opinion of Jef-ferson, but I had grown more positive toward him in the course of working on several books on the early Republic. My admiration grew as I followed the thread of his social and po liti cal thought through de cade aft er de cade. I wasn’t surprised by that, but what I did fi nd a bit startling was that I grew far more appreciative of Hamilton. I saw much that was noble in his sacrifi ces and valor as a soldier, much that was praiseworthy in his po liti cal and polemical skills, and much that was especially laudable in his vision for the nation and the nation’s economy.

As I was beginning this project, Don Wagner, a po liti cal scientist and longtime friend, remarked to me that it would not be easy to get inside the heads of Jeff erson and Hamilton. “Men like that think diff erently than you and me,” Don said. He was correct. It was never easy, but the challenge to come to grips with men of such soaring ambition and legendary objectives, men who played for the highest stakes, made working on the book all the more exciting.

xvi PREFACE

Another challenge was that Jeff erson and Hamilton lived in a strikingly diff erent period. I have sought to understand each man in the context of the time in which he lived and acted. Intriguingly, however, I found much that was surprisingly familiar, especially the ways of politics and politicians, not to mention the attraction of power and what some will do to acquire it, and keep it.

As this book took shape, I realized how much my life and thought had been shaped by Jeff erson and Hamilton. My maternal ancestors had followed Jeff erson’s dream, one generation aft er another marching westward through Virginia, into Pennsylvania, and fi nally just across the border into West Vir-ginia, always owning their farms and carving out for themselves the very sort of in de pen dent life that Jeff erson had cherished. A third of the way into the twentieth century, my grandfather’s children— including my mother— received college educations. Th e Ferling side of my family, which arrived in America only in the 1870s, faced a hardscrabble future, but they made their way along the path prepared by Hamilton, working in industry. My father, the son of a glass cutter, was a hard hat who worked for a large petrochemical company. I was a member of the fourth generation of the paternal side of my family in America, and the fi rst to attend college. In the course of writing this book, I came to think that the educational opportunities that had fallen into my lap— and the laps of a great many others like me— was one of the things that Hamilton envisaged in his plans for the American economy.

A word about the book’s mechanics. First, the numbered endnotes are pre-ceded by a list of secondary sources that were especially valuable and perti-nent. See the Select Bibliography— and also the “Abbreviations” section— for the full citation of each of these works. Th ese par tic u lar sources are not oth-erwise cited in the numbered notes unless the author is quoted. Unfortu-nately, these lists of helpful secondary works do not include Jon Meacham’s Th omas Jeff erson: Th e Art of Power (New York, 2012), an insightful biography that appeared a few weeks aft er the submission of this manuscript.

Second, in the hope of conveying as much as possible about my subjects, I have preserved the original spelling in quotations from Jeff erson’s and Ham-ilton’s writings.

Debts accumulate in the course of writing any book. I am particularly grate-ful to Matt deLesdernier and James Sefcik for reading the manuscript, point-ing out errors, and off ering guidance. Four good friends, Edith Gelles, Michael deNie, Keith Pacholl, and Arthur Lefk owitz, answered many questions that I posed. Lorene Flanders, who has graciously supported my research and

PREFACE xvii

writing, provided an offi ce that I used daily while working on the book. An-gela Mehaff ey and Margot Davis in the Interlibrary Loan Offi ce of the Irvine Sullivan Ingram Library at the University of West Georgia graciously met my frequent requests for books and articles, and Gail Smith in Acquisitions saw to the purchase of some items that were important to my work. Charlie Sici-gnano helped with the accession of digital copies of newspapers. Elmira Eidson and Julie Dobbs helped me out of numerous scrapes with my computer and word pro cessing program. I owe so many debts of gratitude to Catherine Hen-dricks that to list them would double the length of this book.

Pete Beatty helped in many ways to bring the book to completion, all the while listening to my tales of woe about the Pittsburgh Pirates. Th is is my second book with Maureen Klier, who has no equal as a copyeditor, and my fi rst with Nikki Baldauf, an excellent production editor. Geri Th oma, my lit-erary agent, played a crucial role in the conceptualization and conception of this book. Th is is my seventh book with Peter Ginna, a masterful editor who, along with criticism, provides encouragement and a store house of wonderful ideas.

I don’t think Sammy Grace, Simon, Katie, and Clementine care much one way or another about Th omas Jeff erson or Alexander Hamilton, but they en-rich my life, which makes the oft en- trying work of writing a book a bit easier.

And there is Carol, my wife, who has always been supportive of my writ-ing, not to mention understanding and patient.