The story of Partisanship: American beginnings

To live is to experience; to experience is to form opinions; to form opinions is to be biased (Heraclitus - not really; I just made that up, but it sounds like something one of those old philosophers might have written). My bias tends to be that there is often some better middlish ground between dogmatic political positions in a society (always exceptions, of course), and whether there is or not, the best way to communicate a position is through reason and persuasion and not by sloganeering, name calling and demonization. I am somewhat in the minority with this position, and partisans on the right and left continue to believe that they will win unending victory for their side, despite over two centuries of back and forth without victory. While I would like the discussion to be more civil and less destructive, I don't kid myself that this is ever really going to happen, certainly not in my lifetime. Perhaps the best I will ever have is this revolving door of power grabs with intermittent power sharing in between. And over all, I do think we are doing a pretty good job despite our problems.

But, whatever happens, I admit the hypocrisy and ugliness of partisanship has a fascination for me, and I like to whine, scold and opine upon it. I decided to write a few posts on the topic, and this is the first, discussing some of the beginnings of it under our constitution. I have written elsewhere on what I mean by partisanship (again, as opposed to ideology) and will not repeat it here, but I am talking about demonization, character assassination, underhanded attacks and the like. One example might be - it is a matter of ideology whether you believe the health care reform act was a good idea or a bad one. Some conservatives calling end of life counseling the rise of "death panel" or liberals accusing the conservatives of wanting poor people to die faster are examples of partisanship.

Anyway, the best place to start is the beginning, as someone said (I forget who, but someone).

George Washington has a solitary place in American history. Such was his prestige, so forever unique his position as the first executive officer, so lionized by his success in the war, so respected was he for his demeanor and character, that to assail him publicly was just not effective for anyone opposed to him. He was the first and last non-partisan president, at least in the sense that he was the unanimous winner of the electoral college receiving 1 vote from each of the 69 electors his first term and nearly the same his second. Under the system at that time, the electors cast two votes each - John Adams, already a legend himself, became the vice president because he had the next highest amount - only 36 of 69 electors in 1788 - with the nine other candidates splitting the rest. Not that he was really opposed by Adams or any of the others, as they were really running for vice president.

Though federalists and anti-federalists (far fewer) now existed, they really weren't yet parties in the sense that they are today. Washington was a federalist - that is - he was one of those who supported the adoption of the constitution so that they could strengthen the federal government. Still, though he could be described as philosophically a federalist and a whig, it was his intention to be impartial, and to seek some kind of golden mean from what he believed was wise governance.

"To please all is impossible, and to attempt it would be vain. The only way, therefore, is . . . to form such a government as will bear the scrutiny of criticism, and trust to it the good sense and patriotism of the people to carry it into effect . . . ." 

His farewell address (published, not spoken) contained the following, written for him most likely by Hamilton, who finished it for him in 1796 (partially using a Madison draft made in 1792):

"They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of the party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. However combinations and or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp to themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have listed them to unjust domination."

But, this was long after Jefferson and Hamilton had driven him to distraction with their internecine warfare. Both were in Washington's cabinet, the offices established by congress, Jefferson as secretary of state and Hamilton the secretary of treasury until both quit in Washington's second term, Jefferson first. It was to their time as officers that some scholars trace the beginning of American party politics. To do so ignores Madison's opposition to Hamilton's seminal plans in the house and the federalists and anti-federalist battles in the convention when the constitution was hammered out. The central dispute over state rights has never been resolved.

Hamilton and Jefferson were to lead their parties until Aaron Burr, politically enemy of both, but Jefferson's vice president, put Hamilton down in a duel. No doubt, Jefferson was outmatched in the cabinet, and he was perhaps wise to leave. Washington was highly susceptible to Hamilton's energetic persuasion and Henry Knox was almost as much under Hamilton's spell as Madison was Jefferson's ("Knox joined Hamilton in everything" - Jefferson; "Knox as [Hamilton's] shadow, follows the substance" - Madison). Whereas Jefferson was timid in debate, Hamilton was like an unquenchable fire. Hamilton's recent biographer, Ron Chernow, aptly describes him as a "human word machine".

And so the two sides battled over a National bank, the public debt, honoring securities, manufacturing and the deal breaker after Jefferson had left office, the Jay Treaty, which was perceived by Jefferson and his followers as foolishly knuckling under to Britain. 

There was no need for Washington to use his cabinet as a council, but he decided to anyway, particularly during a crisis. Almost inevitably, Hamilton would get his way time and again.

Perhaps Hamilton, an unrepentant anglophile, struck first, although it is difficult to tell at this stage. The foreign affairs issue of the day almost always involved Britain, with whom relations were still strained, and France, ostensibly America's ally, who were virtually always at war or near war until the defeat of Napolean in 1815. Jefferson correctly understood that Britain meant to surround the United States by forming agreements with the forming territories on either side (Kentucky and Vermont not yet states) and wanted to negotiate with Spain to cede them Florida and Louisiana (which he accomplished almost by accident when president). Moreover, while Jefferson was a Francophile, he sought a commercial treaty with Britain on even terms and wanted to remain neutral were Britain and Spain to go to war.

But Hamilton, a schemer every bit Jefferson's equal, if not intially superior to him, had already had secret meetings with George Beckwith at the time he first reported a conversation with him in 1790 to Washington and Jefferson. Later, sent by Washington to sound out Beckwith, Hamilton played his own game. We know from Beckwith that Hamilton not only warned him about Jefferson (although not Washington), he also told him he would keep him advised of any developments. It does not appear from what we know that he was playing the double agent on behalf of Washington either.

The same year, at one of the most famous dinners in history, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton worked out some of their difficulties concerning the public debt and funding of the government in Hamilton's favor, in exchange for the nation's capital eventually moving from Philadelphia to a spot on the Potomac River. Not surprisingly, it was representatives from Maryland and Virginia who switched votes, giving Hamilton his way. And Jefferson was pleased for the time. But, by 1792, he declared himself a "dupe" for Hamilton's "schemes," and that he had not fully understood them.

By then, Jefferson and Hamilton were deep in a subtle war under Washington's nose for the direction of the country. Jefferson, the loser in almost every political battle with Hamilton, had also grown colder to Washington. He found his administration too far from his republican principals and did not appreciate his public levees and use of a horse drawn carriage, among other trappings. But, it was Hamilton who really drew his ire. They continued to have to completely different views of Great Britain, and where Jefferson correctly recognized that Britain had no intention of helping America or treating her fairly (although his idea of peaceful coercion would later not only fail, but nearly destroy America when he was president), Hamilton again interferred in foreign affairs, possibly leaking information to Britain's envoy.

It seemed the two could agree on nothing, neither foreign or domestic. By 1792, they had made it a proxy war in the press, Hamilton hiding behind a federalist publication, John Fenno's Gazette of the United States, and Jefferson behind Philip Freneau's National Gazette.

Jefferson here made a crucial mistake. He had borrowed a copy of Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man, which he was in sympathy with, from a printer and decided to drop a note with it stating his pleasure that it would be published against "the political heresies which have sprung up among us".  He was referring to writings of the vice president, John Adams, who was still perhaps his best friend in the world. He told Madison (I believe nothing Jefferson says) that while he would call Adams a heretic to his face, he did not mean to publish, and he did his best to make up with Adams (they would later split for a long time when they competed the second time for the presidency in 1800, but became bosom pen pals again in 1812 until their death on the same day in 1826). But, he could not make up with Hamilton who was in reality the leader of the only party until then - the federalists.  With Freneau's Gazette, the second party, led by Jefferson and seconded by Madison, came to life. Call it the Democrat-Republican party, the Republican-Democrat, the Democrat, or the Republican, as you like.

Meanwhile public attention, thanks to Jefferson's goof (if it was a goof) brought the matter to Washington's attention and the stern president, demanded an explanation. On September 9, 1792, Jefferson wrote a letter to him which is astonishing for its revelation of the bitterness between the two men - as descriptive of Hamilton's nefarious activities as it was of Jefferson's whining impotence in the face of a younger but more energetic enemy. It is too long to include in full here, but as it is one of the most fascinating letters in our history, and shows how even great men, no matter how dignified and worshipped, are subject to vanity and and pride, I will give much of it and highlight the really good stuff:

"When I embarked in the government, it was with a determination to intermeddle not at all with the legislature, & as little as possible with my co-departments. The first and only instance of variance from the former part of my resolution, I was duped into by the Secretary of the Treasury and made a tool for forwarding his schemes, not then sufficiently understood by me; and of all the errors of my political life, this has occasioned me the deepest regret. It has ever been my purpose to explain this to you, when, from being actors on the scene, we shall have become uninterested spectators only. The second part of my resolution has been religiously observed with the war department; & as to that of the Treasury, has never been farther swerved from than by the mere enunciation of my sentiments in conversation, and chiefly among those who, expressing the same sentiments, drew mine from me. . . . That I have utterly, in my private conversations, disapproved of the system of the Secretary of the treasury, I acknolege & avow: and this was not merely a speculative difference. His system flowed from principles adverse to liberty, & was calculated to undermine and demolish the republic, by creating an influence of his department over the members of the legislature. I saw this influence actually produced, & it's first fruits to be the establishment of the great outlines of his project by the votes of the very persons who, having swallowed his bait were laying themselves out to profit by his plans: & that had these persons withdrawn, as those interested in a question ever should, the vote of the disinterested majority was clearly the reverse of what they made it. These were no longer the votes then of the representatives of the people, but of deserters from the rights & interests of the people: & it was impossible to consider their decisions, which had nothing in view but to enrich themselves, as the measures of the fair majority, which ought always to be respected. -- If what was actually doing begat uneasiness in those who wished for virtuous government, what was further proposed was not less threatening to the friends of the Constitution. For, in a Report on the subject of manufactures (still to be acted on) it was expressly assumed that the general government has a right to exercise all powers which may be for the _general welfare_, that is to say, all the legitimate powers of government: since no government has a legitimate right to do what is not for the welfare of the governed. . . . To say nothing of other interferences equally known, in the case of the two nations with which we have the most intimate connections, France & England, my system was to give some satisfactory distinctions to the former, of little cost to us, in return for the solid advantages yielded us by them; & to have met the English with some restrictions which might induce them to abate their severities against our commerce. I have always supposed this coincided with your sentiments. Yet the Secretary of the treasury, by his cabals with members of the legislature, & by high-toned declamation on other occasions, has forced down his own system, which was exactly the reverse. He undertook, of his own authority, the conferences with the ministers of those two nations, & was, on every consultation, provided with some report of a conversation with the one or the other of them, adapted to his views. These views, thus made to prevail, their execution fell of course to me; & I can safely appeal to you, who have seen all my letters & proceedings, whether I have not carried them into execution as sincerely as if they had been my own, tho' I ever considered them as inconsistent with the honor & interest of our country. . .  So that if the question be By whose fault is it that Colo Hamilton & myself have not drawn together? the answer will depend on that to two other questions; whose principles of administration best justify, by their purity, conscientious adherence? and which of us has, notwithstanding, stepped farthest into the controul of the department of the other?

To this justification of opinions, expressed in the way of conversation, against the views of Colo Hamilton, I beg leave to add some notice of his late charges against me in Fenno's gazette; for neither the stile, matter, nor venom of the pieces alluded to can leave a doubt of their author. . . I have never enquired what number of sons, relations & friends of Senators, representatives, printers or other useful partisans Colo Hamilton has provided for among the hundred clerks of his department, the thousand excisemen, custom-house officers, loan officers &c. &c. &c. appointed by him, or at his nod, and spread over the Union; nor could ever have imagined that the man who has the shuffling of millions backwards & forwards from paper into money & money into paper, from Europe to America, & America to Europe, the dealing out of Treasury-secrets among his friends in what time & measure he pleases, and who never slips an occasion of making friends with his means, that such an one I say would have brought forward a charge against me for having appointed the poet Freneau translating clerk to my office, with a salary of 250. dollars a year. . .  I hold it to be one of the distinguishing excellencies of elective over hereditary succesions, that the talents, which nature has provided in sufficient proportion, should be selected by the society for the government of their affairs, rather than that this should be transmitted through the loins of knaves & fools passing from the debauches of the table to those of the bed.

And so on. It's a great read and I recommend it (you can find it online). Hamilton responded the same day, and if not as long or poetically, with the same argument - it's not me; it's him:

". . . "I do not hesitate to say that, in my opinion, the period is not remote when the public good will require substitutes for the differing members of your administration . . . . I find myself placed in a situation not to be able to recede for the present. . . .

But when I no longer doubted that there was a formed party deliberately bent upon the subversion of measures, which in its consequences would subvert the government; when I saw that the undoing of the funding system in particular (which, whatever may be the original merits of that system, would prostrate the credit and the honor of the nation, and bring the government into contempt with that description of men who are in every society the only firm supporters of government) was an avowed object of the party, and that all possible pains were taken to produce that effect, by rendering it odious to the body of the people, I considered it as a duty to endeavor to resist the torrent, and, as an effectual means to this end, to draw aside the veil from the principal actors. . . .

Nevertheless, I pledge my honor to you, sir, that if you shall hereafter form a plan to reunite the members of your administration upon some steady principle of coöperation, I will faithfully concur in executing it during my continuance in office; and I will not directly or indirectly say or do a thing that shall endanger a feud. . . ."

In other words, he wasn't going to stop unless he believed Washington fixed the problem - which was Jefferson, although he offered himself as a mutual sacrifice, if necessary.  And, he didn't stop. If anything, in typical Hamilton fashion, he got worse. While not the great lyricist that Jefferson was, he could write a compelling argument faster and longer than seemed humanly possible and continued to bash Jefferson in Fenno's Gazette. Jefferson left his counter-attacks to his supporters. He was at his best when pulling strings behind the screen and he did in fact do so. Madison and Monroe came to Jefferson's aid and congress split between the two, and the two parties were solidified.
 
Both Hamiton and Jefferson believed that the union itself was at stake and that the other side would be the reason for its downfall. Partisans almost always believe that. Listen to the rhetoric today. However, at the birth of the union, when there was more grounds to worry, Washington was concerned about that too. But it was the parties warring in the press - the partisanship, and the feelings which it aroused in the public - which he believed might end it, not the competing philosophies.

I leave off here for now and will return to pick up my assault on partisanship in the future. But, if you've read this blog before, you may wonder why I seem to press upon Jefferson's flaws so often and not give Hamilton his due as often, as, at least initially, he was the worse of the two and certainly Jefferson's equal. There are reasons. For one thing, Hamilton finally undid himself. His sexual affair in the midst of his warfare with Jefferson, and his being successfully blackmailed by his lover's husband, came back to haunt him when another Jeffersonian journalist, James Callendar, threatened to out him later in the 1790s, and suspicion came upon his acts as the former secretary of treasury. His defense was interesting to say the least. He deliberately outed his adultery himself in a pamphlet in order to defend himself professionally (and fairly, it appears - he was not corrupt). He obviously considered this so important - and I'm not judging - that it was worth humiliating himself, his wife and family in so publishing. I wrote about his affair and what it wrought on March 28, 2008 in An Early Sex Scandal - another fun with the forefathers post, and it's a fascinating story. In defending himself in this fashion, he destroyed his chances of ever further elective office, had he even wanted it, although he continued to remain politically active, dominated the federalists, and for two years even secretly controlled President Adams' cabinet. But, for the public, he was done.

And while his political philosophy still holds great sway in our country in opposition to that of Jefferson's, particularly through the opinions of the future Supreme Court chief judge, John Marshall, a Hamilton protege, he has not ever enjoyed the fame that Jefferson does. It is Jefferson who is on Mount Rushmore and is undoubtedly ranked higher in America's Olympian pantheon than Hamilton. Both, whatever their faults, were great men in their own way, and perhaps character flaws such as their must often be part of the package.

Both Jefferson were abolitionists in their words, the difference being that Jefferson was a slave owner, did not free most of his many slaves when he could have, even after his death, and acted to continue slavery for the south, despite his own protestations. I do not feel bad about despising this failure, particularly as he himself considered the institution barbaric and he held himself in such high regard.

And, of course, Jefferson did get to be vice president and then president, stabbed President Adams in the back when he was vice president, nearly destroyed the economy of our country while president himself and so mangled relations with Great Britain (policies continued under Madison) that we ended up in another war with them (you can find fault on Britain's side too, of course). I could go on with an impressive list of character flaws, but I've done this elsewhere. Jefferson outlived Hamilton by 22 years, becoming and old man who covered his mistakes and faults under the guise of sage, and left a long history of duplicity and partisanship behind him.

Those wacky forefathers

Our ever lovin’ forefathers really were impressive. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison were among the most knowledgeable persons of the day and each capable of great creativity and staggering output. Undistracted by tv, movies and the internet, they read and wrote more in a year about serious topics than most people today do in a lifetime. Washington, although not as well read or philosophical as the above group, had his own sense of decency and practical philosophy which led to his being the one person almost everyone trusted to be the first president. As was said at one of his many eulogies, he was “first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen”. When his nemesis, King George III of England, heard that Washington was not trying to hold onto his power, he reportedly said “If true, he will be the greatest man in the world.” 

Recently, a friend of mine told me about a documentary he had seen on the Adams-Jefferson relationship which had surprised him concerning their long-standing antagonism. Not surprising, as most people who do not delve into their history probably assume that these great men who formed our country probably were in concert and got along well. We learned nothing in high school that would tell us differently. But it is not so. Although there were great friendships among them, at least temporarily, there was also great rivalry. When you contemplate the animosity between the conservatives and liberals of our times, it will not seem much different than that which existed in the first “Greatest Generation”. Like now, the reasons then were mostly political. 

When Washington took office, there were no parties. In fact, the idea of parties was looked down upon. But during Washington’s governance two parties developed, the Federalists and the Republicans (to make things more confusing, the Republican party was also called at different points in history Democrat-Republicans, federalists, anti-federalists, and Democrats, but I will just call them Republicans here; but that party has no connection with the present-day Republicans, whose first elected nominee was Lincoln). The Federalists were for a strong central government and were usually more pro-British. The Republicans were for a weak central government, strong State governments and were usually more pro-French. For the most part the Federalists controlled the federal government until 1800 when the Republicans took the presidency (Jefferson) and Congress. The Federalist party, which would die out within twenty years, still controlled the Judiciary. The Republicans saw it as a “second revolution” as they believed the Washington-Adams-Hamilton party had strayed from the revolution’s principles. The forefathers I am talking about here broke down like this. George Washington - Federalist John Adams - Federalist Alexander Hamilton - Federalist Thomas Jefferson - Republican James Madison - Republican Aaron Burr - Republican Here is how they got along, at least in a summary fashion: 

George Washington versus John Adams . Well, almost everyone loved or at least respected Washington. But at one time or another, Washington had a falling out or problems with all of the other forefathers above. Just as Washington was the first president, Adams was the first vice president. Adams had been a supporter of General Washington during the revolution and thereafter, and did nothing to work against him while vice president, unlike Thomas Jefferson, who was the secretary of state. However, Washington’s presidency was an experiment, as they were all trying to figure out how the president should act in a republic. Adams, who knew he would likely be the next president, thought that the president should be called “his majesty the president”. This seemed ridiculous to most, and one suggested Adams should be called “his rotundity,” mocking his pomposity and his weight. Unfortunately for Adams, it stuck. Adams continued to fight for the more exalted title, even lecturing the Senate during their debate on it. In doing so, combined with his arrogant posturing, he became “odious” to Washington, who thereafter simply cut Adams off from active participation. Adams’ eight years as VP under Washington was a misery. He wrote “My country has contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived”. George 

Washington versus Alexander Hamilton. Most of the time, these two were extremely close, Hamilton being almost like an adopted son. Yet while the war raged on, Hamilton, a very young man but key Washington aid, and the General had a terrible falling out. The fight was generated by Washington blowing his famous stack when he thought that Hamilton had slighted him by keeping him waiting two minutes while he finished a conversation. Although Washington soon apologized, Hamilton refused to accept it, and resigned. The real reason was that Hamilton wanted to get into the action instead of being a staff officer. Leading troops into combat was where the glory was, and Hamilton was incredibly desirous of glory. He got his wish at the last great battle of the war, Washington seeing to it that he lead the charge at Yorktown. This mended all fences. Hamilton ended up Washington’s secretary of state, and many even thought of Washington as Hamilton’s puppet. 

George Washington versus Thomas Jefferson. The principal drafter of the Declaration of Independence and our third president, Jefferson was one of the greatest backroom plotters of all times. Unfailing polite and mild in debate, he used every deceptive move he could through political operatives and journalists to fight against the Washington administration despite the fact that he was his secretary of state. Hamilton, the Secretary of Treasury, and Jefferson went at each other so hard through their journalistic mouthpieces that Washington had to beg them each to cut it out, which they refused to do. But Washington, not Hamilton, was president, and Jefferson did everything he could to undermine the administration he served, and whose policies he deplored. Jefferson himself wrote in what amounted to a diary, that one day Washington had a temper tantrum about the writings of Jefferson’s mouthpiece in the press, who had insinuated that Washington wanted to be King. Jefferson lost most of his battles while serving as secretary of state, and resigned after a few years. 

George Washington versus James Madison. Only Hamilton was probably tighter with Washington among the forefathers. Madison, much later the fourth president, had a natural connection with Washington as brother Virginians, although Washington was much older than he was. Working in unison since the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783, their friendship was key in getting the constitutional convention held and the constitution adopted. However, Federalist and Republican politics again got in the way. While Washington was president, Madison was a leader in the House of Representative and usually in opposition to the administration. He was essentially Jefferson’s second in command. After fighting a series of proposals made by Hamilton on behalf of the administration, Madison pushed it one too far for Washington, by opposing a treaty with Great Britain (the controversial Jay Treaty). Madison would never again be a guest of Washington at Mt. Vernon. Although Madison still respected the older man, their great collaboration was at end due to their political differences. 

George Washington versus Aaron Burr. Because Burr has been vilified throughout our history for killing Hamilton in a duel and for a military expedition many saw as treason a few years later (he was unsuccessfully tried for it), it is often forgotten that Burr was a great military hero during the war, rising to Colonel as a very young man, and thereafter one of the most influential lawyers and politicians of his day. He was also ahead of his time in his manner of educating his daughter and his beneficent treatment of his slaves (like many forefathers, he was against slavery, but had slaves). Burr had served on Washington’s staff even before Hamilton. It did not last long. Burr longed for military action and, unlike Hamilton, got it. Washington had little use for Burr, refusing him a commission when the war broke out and later passing over him for a commendation, even though Burr was a bona fide war hero at the time. Washington would later speak disapprovingly of Burr’s morals. 

John Adams versus Thomas Jefferson. You cannot do this interrupted friendship justice in a paragraph or two. They started out like gangbusters, serving on the committee to draft the Declaration of Independence together (which Adams later said was mere theatrics for which Jefferson got all the glory). They thereafter served in France together as diplomats and became the closest of friends. After the war, both served under Washington. Adams became a Federalist and Jefferson, the head of the Republican party. After Washington’s two terms, they ran against each other in 1796 election. Adams defeated Jefferson. However, because Jefferson received the second highest vote total, he was Adams’ vice president (that is how they did it at the time) and severely undermined Adams in many ways. He secretly drafted the Kentucky resolutions, which, if made law, would have given the states the right to disobey federal law, and, by using newspaper writers to criticize the president and his administration. Jefferson referred to the Adams Administration as the “reign of witches”. The 1800 election was particularly vicious. Adams had a miserable presidency, partially thanks to Jefferson. He probably never would have forgiven Jefferson, if not for the intercession of a mutual friend, the famous physician and politician, Benjamin Rush, who persuaded Adams to write his former friend. Their voluminous correspondence, occasionally boring, but most often fascinating, lasted from 1812 until 1826, when they both died within hours of each other on the very same day – which also happened to be the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 

John Adams versus Alexander Hamilton. Adams was certainly the more respected of the two as far as the nation was concerned, being deemed the “Atlas of Independence”. He was not only elected the first vice president, but the second president. However, within politics, the wily and less principled Hamilton was far more influential than Adams, who was often described as prickly, acerbic and arrogant. While Adams was left out as vice president for eight years under Washington, Hamilton, in the less glamorous role of secretary of state, ran a huge operation that set the tone for the nations economy, and really became the head of the federalist party. When Adams ran for president in 1796, Hamilton, although in the same party, circulated a tract against him. It was supposed to have remained a secret but was published. If that wasn’t bad enough, Hamilton openly slammed Adams’ character in another publication during the 1800 election. When Adams became president, he nobly but foolishly kept on Washington’s cabinet, all of whom secretly reported to Hamilton. Adams famously referred to Hamilton as "the bastard brat of a Scotch peddler," and it is somewhat hard to blame him. Hamilton frustrated him at every turn. 

Thomas Jefferson versus Alexander Hamilton. This was a heavyweight fight. Both led their parties. Both were devious and underhanded in playing politics. They battled fiercely through surrogates, with Hamilton sometimes writing under pseudonyms, while both served in Washington’s cabinet. During these years Hamilton usually came out on top. Both of them had a strong flirtation with Hamilton’s sister in-law, Angelica Schuyler Church, and some suspect Hamilton of having had an affair with her. Jefferson undoubtedly would have liked to have done so. It is not too much to say that the policies they battled about are to a degree the same fights Republicans and Democrats have today. Late in the 1790s, a Jefferson partisan, who made his living writing scurrilous things about Jefferson’s enemies, hinted strongly that Hamilton had had an illicit affair and behaved improperly when in office. The first part was true, the second false. To stave off the attack, Hamilton published his own pamphlet admitting the sexual affair but defending his conduct as secretary of the treasury. Hamilton also threatened to publish an article on Jefferson’s attempt to steal his best friend’s wife. Ironically, because of his dislike for Adams and Burr, Hamilton helped Jefferson, whom he at least respected, get elected president in 1800. 

Thomas Jefferson versus Aaron Burr. Another great rivalry for which there is just not enough ink. Burr started out on Jefferson’s side helping the Republicans sweep to power. Everyone, including Burr, understood that Jefferson would be president and Burr vice president. But when they surprisingly tied in electoral votes, and it went to the House of Representatives for a decision, Burr would not give in. Eventually, Jefferson, through devious machinations, broke the stalemate, making Burr VP. During the first term (near the end of which Burr would kill Hamilton in a duel) Burr, as President of the Senate conducted the trial of a Federalist judge who Jefferson wanted thrown off the bench. Burr, one of the most experienced trial lawyers in the country, handled the trial firmly but fairly, and the judge was acquitted, to Jefferson’s great chagrin. After Burr left office, he organized a military operation to conquer Mexico and possibly slice off Western states and territories. Jefferson had Burr tried for treason. The judge was another Jefferson nemesis, John Marshall, who was also Jefferson’s own cousin, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Burr was acquitted on all charges, but it essentially ended his entire career. 

Alexander Hamilton versus James Madison. They were buddies during the run up to the Constitution, both working to get the convention started. Hamilton was for an elected and inheritable monarchy, which everyone else was against. He did not think much of the constitution when it was drafted. Still, once it was proposed by the convention, the two worked together on what are now known as The Federalist Papers, a lengthy series of newspaper articles aimed at convincing New Yorkers to ratify. It is still the most quoted political writing by the Supreme Court. Once the government was formed, with Hamilton as Secretary of State and Madison as a leader in the house, their enmity was almost a certainty, and just as Washington and Madison could no longer be friends, neither could Madison and Hamilton. 

Alexander Hamilton versus Aaron Burr. The most complicated of all the relationships and also the most well known, as it ended in a death. Both were young men who rose to prominence during the war. Both were on Washington’s staff, though at different times. Both were brilliant lawyers’ who soon dominated the New York bar, trying case after case together, including the famous Manhattan Well murder trial which has been written about in an earlier posting on this blog. Their lives were intertwined in many ways, Burr even acting as an honest broker when Hamilton was first accused of dishonesty in office. Burr actually interceded to stave off a duel between Hamilton and James Monroe (the fifth president). Then Burr had a duel with Hamilton’s brother-in-law, John Church over the very same Manhattan Well, during which duel Church shot off Burr’s belt buckle or some piece of clothing (I've read more than one version). 

Burr was furious that Hamilton threw his weight behind Jefferson during his and Burr’s standoff for the presidency. Hamilton felt that Jefferson was wrong in his vision for a rural America dominated by individual states, but at least he believed in something, whereas he found Burr completely unprincipled and guided only by self-interest. When it was clear that Burr would not be vice president the second term, he ran for New York’s governor. Hamilton thought he would win. But, when Burr lost, he believed that it was due to Hamilton’s behind the scenes machinations. When Hamilton was reported to have said something exceedingly disparaging to Burr’s character during a dinner party, Burr demanded an apology. Hamilton would not back down, and after the requisite back and forth attempts to forgo the duel with honor, they fought with pistols at Weehawken, NJ, across the Hudson River from NYC. Burr killed Hamilton with one shot, and then fled south for a while, before resuming his office as Vice President. 

Nothing above is meant to argue that these founders were not amazing and brilliant men, about whom we can’t read, write or talk about enough. But, as with all heroic figures, we can't humanize them enough either. As a deisenberg.blogspot.com bonus I offer the following top ten presidents list, which I hope will cause disagreeable comment from you and name calling that would make the forefathers proud. 

10. John Adams (navigated away from war with France, and despite over long vacations, he managed to stave off crises while fending off Jefferson on one side and Hamilton on the other; the two most formidable opponents of the day) 

9 Lyndon Johnson (for the civil rights, not the war) 8 Harry S. Truman (tough time to step in as President, but he did an excellent job and took the heat) 

7 James Polk (you might not like the way he did it, but he greatly expanded this country to its modern continental borders) 

6 Ulysses Grant (a recent spate of biographies convinced me he was a far better president than he is given credit for) 

5 FDR (even if he screwed everything else up as his critics claim, what do you rate for WWII alone – most polls rank him just below Lincoln and Washington) 

4 James Monroe (Although not one of the Olympian like forefathers, he is highly underrated as a president) 3 Theodore Roosevelt (Perhaps the most unique president, he helped establish America as a world power, while working to stave off the worst aspects of our corporate powers) 

2 Abraham Lincoln (If nothing else, for his writing, although you might like him for his success in making certain the Union still stood) 

1 George Washington (Made the mold) I used to have Woodrow Wilson in my list (I believe in place of Adams) and he might pop back in one day. But more research left me unsure whether he was a great president or a horrible one. I have never been an Andrew Jackson fan, and although I admire some aspects of Ronald Reagan, I cannot help but believe his presidency was a seed and a catalyst for the current hostility and paralysis in government today. Feel free to disagree.

Postscript 2023: Reviewing 16 years later, I am certain I would not have the same thoughts about presidents. I would, e.g., no longer have LBJ in there. I will have to do a new one soon.