Prior to the XYZ affair, when he wrote the French about the "awful presidency of John Adams", did this act, combined with his own support of France against the US in the Quasi War, make him a traitor?

His financial support to the anti-Federalist/anti-Adams paper, The Aurora, was suspect, also. He was FUELING American sentiment against the President, while he was VP.

If traitor is too strong a word, was he wrong to support Talleyrand against his own country?

He was correct in despising the reprehensible Alien and Sedition Acts, but did he use all of this to his personal advantage?

The answer to your question is probably yes. Does it matter? Hey, it's ol' ToeJeff, and he have him Sally Sissy to pro-tex.

Jefferson isn't all that different than say, FDR, or Carter, or even Truman.

Um, it only matters if discussing these things is interesting to you, and perhaps puts perspective on modern events, which very much parallel events of that day.

Other than that, no, I suppose it has no value.

Isn't this why we have this board, to discuss history????

BTW, I've always been a huge fan of TJ's. I just find this little tidbit fascinating.

[This message has been edited by janag81 (edited 8/2/2006 10:26a).]

I'm not an expert on the subject, but looking back on political 'behavior' of the period post independence up to ~1845, it's a miracle that this country survived at all. Fragile is the term I would use.
Of course, it nearly didn't....1861-1865.

quote:

---

Prior to the XYZ affair, when he wrote the French about the "awful presidency of John Adams", did this act, combined with his own support of France against the US in the Quasi War, make him a traitor?

---

Adams was pro-British, and Jefferson was pro-French. They weren't the only ones who were split. But after all, it was a "quasi" war, and not a real war. It's hard to commit treason if you're not really at war. This would be akin to a Democrat saying we should be more pro-Iranian. Sure, it's a strong disagreement with the president's plan, and may be a very bad idea, but since we're not at war with Iran, it's not treason.

quote:

---

His financial support to the anti-Federalist/anti-Adams paper, The Aurora, was suspect, also. He was FUELING American sentiment against the President, while he was VP.

---

There's nothing wrong with that. Free speech. Yes, it was a stupid arrangement to have the second-highest vote-getter for president be elected VP, but that was a problem with the system.

The fact that Jefferson gets so much credit and this gentleman

gets so little is one of the biggest tragedies in the recording of American history.

Kramer: "Well I must say, this all sounds capricious and arbitrary."

Dean Jones: "Your fly is undone."


[This message has been edited by bdenby (edited 8/6/2006 8:43p).]

As a libertarian I wish the imbalance of which you speak would've been even greater!

bdenby, that's because this is a DEMOCRACY and a REPUBLIC and not a Monarchy or aristocracy, like Hamilton (ironically himself a ******* of modest birth) would have prefered.

Oh, and another reason is because even the people on his side of the spectrum, like John Adams, hated Hamiltons' guts and thought he was an ass.

(Ba st a rd is a bad word? )

[This message has been edited by aalan94 (edited 8/7/2006 1:18p).]

quote:

---

Oh, and another reason is because even the people on his side of the spectrum, like John Adams, hated Hamiltons' guts and thought he was an ass.

---

Exactly correct.

Hamilton was BRILLIANT in saving our country financially, at perhaps it's most dangerous and critical time. Washington absolutely placed the right man in charge of the National Treasury.

But, he was going to be the aid to GW as commander of the army. GW was basically retired, and would've been commander in name-only. Adams, again from his party, did NOT want Hamilton in there, at least for the reasons given by aalan. He also just flat-out didn't trust his intentions where the republic was concerned.

The more I read about our founding fathers the more it appears that things never change.

I agree about Alexander Hamilton. If it was not for the affair he had while married to Eliza, he probably would have been POTUS someday and history would have treated him kinder.

Ron Chernow's biography on Alexander Hamilton is an absolute must read!!!

chick, I don't know about that. Hamilton was hugely disliked in the south, particularly VA, and his only saving grace was his closeness to Washington. As time faded, however, that diminished.

Bear in mind that population-wise, VA dominated the U.S. and Hamilton would have been hard-pressed to win down there, making a victory difficult. And the south usually voted for VA guys, whereas the North was more fragmented.

You may be right..... I know Chernow mentioned that any chance Hamilton may have had for the Presidency went out the window when his affair was exposed publicly.....

Old book from College days, but Economic Interpretation of the Constitution certainly showed the founders to be human, not the hallowed seers of perfection that many would like to believe.

Jan,

Disappointing. Extremely disappointing. You'll need to come up with much more specific allegations than that. Treason is a very serious charge that warrants very specific accusations as well as evidence.

[edit]friggin' 45 year-old typing....

[This message has been edited by Ag83 (edited 8/8/2006 6:56p).]

ME, disappointing?

You can't see a troll post EVEN WHEN I TELL YOU IT'S one designed JUST for you?

NOw, that's disappointing.

Ag83, aalan94, and anyone else:

3GA has graciously allowed me to possibly coach the UIL History team this year (it's usually her job), because the book they are covering is "1776", ironically enough (since I just read this book, and two others on the American Revolution).

I've also read "John Adams" this summer and a book called "Revolutionary Mothers".

I want a good audio book on Thomas Jefferson and perhaps one on Alexander Hamilton (for my own use).

But, I need audio books, because frankly, I teach WORLD history in my regular job, and don't have time to actually read the printed word. That's usually a summertime thing for me (I do grade essays and such throughout the year, so that takes a lot of my free time).

So, based on that, any recommendations?

I've never listened to an audio book in my life, but I'll do a little research and let you know if I find anything that sounds promising.

What about a book called "Thomas Jefferson", by Appleby?

Never mind searching...I can do that. I was just hoping you could give me some suggestions that might be on audio book, in addition to a hardback you would've read.

I've read three Jefferson biographies and one Hamilton, and I can't remember any of their titles at the moment. One I read of Jefferson was by Saul K. Padover (I have this freaky photographic memory of authors, but not titles). That one, if I recall, was fairly good. It was also not incredibly long. The most recent one I read was vastly long, and would not suit your purposes.

[This message has been edited by aalan94 (edited 8/9/2006 5:39p).]

I realize that Hamilton was by no means popular, even as you said, with those in his own party.

I would only like to see Hamilton get some credit for the fiscal decisions he made that pretty much ensured our solvency and future of the nation. I will admit that all I have read has a Federalist or Washington bias, and obviously is not kind to Jefferson. That being said, Jefferson seems to get a lot more credit than many founders who may have done more.

As Chick said, Hamilton was fighting an uphill battle, including his questionable parentage, West Indian upbringing, and the affair.

Kramer: "Well I must say, this all sounds capricious and arbitrary."

Dean Jones: "Your fly is undone."

Jefferson's popularity was hard to comprehend to Adams, who said that in the debates prior to the drafting of the decl. of ind. he was almost silent. Then he wrote the document and got all the praise.

The key issue here is that the people are more responsive to symbolic acts and romantic portrayals of history. The people who do the nuts and bolts work are often ignored. Hence, George Marshall, who was a logistical genius in WWII, is given less credit than the man who was the public front of the war, Eisenhower. What Marshall is more known for is the Marshall Plan, which captures the imgaination a little better than logistical decisions like how many of which kind of tank you're going to build.

I disparage (not the best word, because I respect him) Hamilton for his political ideas, which I think leaned heavily towards aristocracy. But you're right, he was a very capable fiscal mind, and on that point, I'm glad he won the argument over the Jeffersonians, who lived in a barter and cash-starved economy and therefore had a primitive view of economics.

I guess I would say that even your enemies (politically) can be useful if put in the right positions. Alexander Hamilton was the right man for the treasury. I don't believe he would have been a good man for POTUS. Same could be said, for example, about Henry Kissenger (ignoring for a moment the fact that he wasn't born in the U.S. and therefore couldn't be POTUS) or Condi Rice.

I personally love Condi, but I suspect that she would be way out of her element on domestic issues.

Sensible point / counter point makes the History board great.

Thanks Alan, totally agree with the point about POTUS suitability.

Kramer: "Well I must say, this all sounds capricious and arbitrary."

Dean Jones: "Your fly is undone."

kjaneway said:

---

Prior to the XYZ affair, when he wrote the French about the "awful presidency of John Adams", did this act, combined with his own support of France against the US in the Quasi War, make him a traitor?

His financial support to the anti-Federalist/anti-Adams paper, The Aurora, was suspect, also. He was FUELING American sentiment against the President, while he was VP.

If traitor is too strong a word, was he wrong to support Talleyrand against his own country?

He was correct in despising the reprehensible Alien and Sedition Acts, but did he use all of this to his personal advantage?

---

It's also my understanding that TJ wrote the French before the meeting letting them know that a treaty to end the Quasi-War would be detrimental to the French and allow the British to win. Apparently he suggested that they delay any agreement.

TJ had decent ideas on the future of the nation, while Hamilton had decent ideas on the solvency of currency on the nation. We're the rules reversed, the nation would've been screwed in less than a decade. But overall, I'm glad that Hamilton never became president - the main would've become an aristocracy quickly. The Articles of Confederation were somewhat weak, but the way that the country should've overall been run, with stronger local government than federal. The cities should be able to dictate their expectations in line with state laws, and the states in line with overarching federal laws. Federal laws should be limited to what is explicitly in the constitution, with state laws (seen as constitutional) taking place where federal doesn't.

Unfortunately, it truly seems that federal laws through alphabet soup agencies keep overreaching actual limits imposed by the constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights.