Chapter VIII

The Moral Issue Between Jefferson and Hamilton

It is not sufficient to say that Hamilton and Jefferson differed merely in policy.
They were separated by a deeper gulf — that of temperament, training, and moral vision.
Jefferson, the philosopher, reasoned from the ideal; Hamilton, the statesman, reasoned from the real.
The one trusted to the instincts of mankind; the other relied upon discipline, order, and law.

Simpkins writes that Hamilton “was a moral man in the highest sense of the word,”
though the slanders of political enemies long obscured his character.
He maintained his faith in republican institutions and in the justice of the people
so long as those institutions were guided by virtue and intelligence.
“His confidence in man,” the author notes, “was not the blind faith of the visionary,
but the reasoned confidence of one who had measured the frailties and the greatness of human nature alike.”

Jefferson, meanwhile, is praised for his devotion to liberty and humanity,
though the author contends that his philosophy “often dissolved into theory,
while Hamilton’s hardened into fact.” Each represented one half of the American mind —
Jefferson, the dream of freedom; Hamilton, the structure of government.
Together, they preserved the balance between Washington’s prudence and Franklin’s wisdom,
ensuring that idealism would not perish in the presence of power,
nor power in the presence of idealism.

Simpkins concludes:

“Hamilton’s policy has survived because it was just;
Jefferson’s memory endures because it was pure.
Both were patriots of the highest order,
and in their union — of reason and faith —
the Republic found its immortality.”

“It was not in their agreement but in their opposition
that the founders wrought the perfection of our liberty.” — Jere T. Simpkins