The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

This is Week Seven for Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power.

This week's reading assignment is:

Week Seven - December 31st - January 6th -> Chapters TWENTY THREE, TWENTY FOUR, TWENTY FIVE, and TWENTY SIX p. 225 - 271

TWENTY THREE - A New Post in New York, TWENTY FOUR - Mr. Jefferson Is Greatly Too Democratic, TWENTY FIVE - Two Cocks in the Pit, and TWENTY SIX - The End of a Stormy Tour

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book is being kicked off on November 19th. We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.

A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO RANDOM HOUSE FOR THEIR KINDNESS AND GENEROSITY.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Bryan Craig will be moderating this discussion.

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS.

WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Glossary:

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Bibliography:

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in her research or in her notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Table of Contents and Syllabus:

The following is a link to the table of contents for the book and the weekly syllabus:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Book as a Whole Thread:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Welcome,

~~Bryan

by Jon Meacham

Chapter Overviews and Summaries

Chapter Twenty Three: A New Post in New York

Washington offered Jefferson the position of secretary of state, and Jefferson struggled whether to take the post. Madison and Washington told him about his duties, and Washington offered him another job in France. Jefferson decided to become secretary of state. In March 1790, Washington and Jefferson began to meet daily. Jefferson already began to worry about Federalist tendencies, people seeing Washington as a king, Adams saying pure democracy was not possible, and watching Hamilton building a commerce and financial system that mirrored Great Britain.

Hamilton needed Jefferson's help, though. He was trying to get the new government to take over state debt and his bill was opposed in the House. Jefferson did not oppose this, but he wanted something in return for southern support: the new capital on the Potomac River. Hamilton agreed.

Jefferson's daughter, Patsy, got married to Thomas Mann Randolph in February 1790.

Chapter Twenty Four: Mr. Jefferson Is Greatly Too Democratic

In July 1789, there was a war scare as Spain attacked British vessels off of Nookta Sound. Jefferson wanted to avoid a war and would agree to allow British troops to pass through American territory. He wanted to keep the military campaign against the Miami and Shawnee tribes a secret, but Hamilton already told British officials about it. Hamilton's allies began to attack Jefferson as too democratic.

Jefferson was also worried that the new national bank would be partially funded with private funds, leading to speculation, and corrupt Congressmen, because they also investing in it. He also wasn't sure the bank was constitutional. Jefferson did not oppose Hamilton on every issue, but he had a overarching vision of republican government that he saw Adams and Hamilton retreating from that and replace it with more monarchistic tones. When Jefferson and Madison visited New York, they got Philip Freneau to start the National Gazette, a paper for Democratic-Republicans.

Chapter Twenty Five: Two Cocks in the Pit

Jefferson told Washington that the Treasury Department was behind all this dissatisfaction as speculators were moving in. Also, Jefferson feared these speculators would become titled gentry and Washington needed to stay in office. Washington responded that there were desires for a monarchy, but they were merely that. Washington, in turn, asked Jefferson to stay at the State Department.

The Reign of Terror in France divided the U.S. In the past, Americans supported the revolution, but this support was eroding. Jefferson still supported the revolution and he was sad that so many were killed.

Chapter Twenty Six: The End of a Stormy Tour

Jefferson was eager to return home. Politics was getting more partisan as France declared war against Great Britain, and Jefferson believed Hamilton and his allies were trying to get Washington into their camp. Hamilton and Jefferson debated over the actions of Edmond-Charles Genet, the new minister from France. Genet was not cordial and admitted to Jefferson that he possibly was fermenting rebellions in Spanish and British land holdings in America. Genet was later recalled.

Democratic-Republican societies began to form around the country. On December 31, 1793, Jefferson resigned and began to fight the "monarchists" from the outside.

I found it particularly interesting that issue of class, distinction and "dynasties" (for lack of a better word) raised by John Adams in an article in the Gazette of the United States still resonates in modern day political rhetoric. Adams said,"We are told that our friends, the National Assembly of France, have abolished all distinctions. But be not deceived, my dear countrymen. Impossibilities cannot be performed. Hay the leveled all fortunes and equally divided all property? Have they made all men and women equally wise, elegant and beautiful?" (pg 233).

I like this quote, in my opinion, more true of human nature.

One thing that Meachem does not bring up, in his discussion of the possible monarchist tendencies of Hamilton and Adams (perhaps Meachem regards it as obvious) is that the English monarchy at the time was scarcely the same as the French (or other European monarchies, or, indeed, the English monarchy of earlier centuries).

Just what powers did George III have? What powers did parliament have? These are, I think, important questions to understanding the debate between Hamilton and Jefferson.

Peter, I think that's an excellent point that there were major differences between the English monarchy and the French in terms of political power before the French Revolution. Jefferson's Francophile tendencies coupled with his major dislike of the British may have blinded him in certain respects here.

On the last page of chapter 22 ( page 258) the penultimate sentence reads ...'This subtle form of " corruption " troubled Jefferson, who saw it as the means by which Hamilton and his allies could control the general direction of the government.

From Jefferson's autobiography, page 89, he writes.... 'and so the assumption was passed, and 20. millions of stock divided among favored states, and thrown in as pabulum to the stock-jobbing herd. This added to the number of votaries to the treasury and made its Chief the master of every vote in the legislature which might give to the government the direction suited to his political views.'

Hamilton was in control of an enormous sum and without a prescribed method of disbursement, or, at his description. Jefferson had every right to wonder.

Jim
PS I have Jefferson's autobiography in my iBooks library and don't remember where I found it.

Steven wrote: "Peter, I think that's an excellent point that there were major differences between the English monarchy and the French in terms of political power before the French Revolution. Jefferson's Francoph..."

Thanks Steven.
Perhaps you (or some other knowledgeable person on the list) could outline some of those differences?

Jim wrote: "On the last page of chapter 22 ( page 258) the penultimate sentence reads ...'This subtle form of " corruption " troubled Jefferson, who saw it as the means by which Hamilton and his allies could c..."

Interesting, Jim. If you can find the version of the autobiography you are quoting from on goodreads please add it to your post.

I've always found it refreshing that even though they were political rivals, Jefferson and Adams (and Hamilton as well) were still very respectful of each and respected the others end goals, if not the means to get there.

On page 224, Meacham raises the following question about a letter by Jefferson: Did he mean what he said? Was his comment the result of a long and thoughtful process, or perhaps, as Meacham suggests, was “he sharing the churnings of an eager mind in a time of change. The latter possibility is most likely. . . .” In this same section, Meacham refers to Jefferson’s “hyperbole” expressed in another letter which could be read as bloodthirsty. Writing of liberty at the cost of “so little innocent blood” and stating that if the world were reduced to “an Adam and Eve” in every country, “it would be better than as it now is.” (p. 269)

Was Jefferson a man prone to exaggeration? Did he exaggerate to make a point? Without comparison and context we can easily draw an incorrect conclusion about the man.

All too often readers (and writers) of history focus on a single letter or statement and make far too much of it to support a thesis. In this section, Meacham skillfully reminds us that letters can be dashed off in the heat of the moment, reactionary, thoughtless. Imagine someone, 200 years hence, picking apart our emails!

David wrote: "I've always found it refreshing that even though they were political rivals, Jefferson and Adams (and Hamilton as well) were still very respectful of each and respected the others end goals, if not..."

I too like the attitude of agreeing to disagree but still respecting the person. I imagine at times they more than frustrated each other, but still in the end Jefferson and Adams remained even friends.

Joanne wrote: "All too often readers (and writers) of history focus on a single letter or statement and make far too much of it to support a thesis. In this section, Meacham skillfully reminds us that letters can be dashed off in the heat of the moment, reactionary, thoughtless. Imagine someone, 200 years hence, picking apart our emails!"

This is so true. I appreciate Meacham pointing out things that we as readers need to be aware of also.

Joanne wrote: "On page 224, Meacham raises the following question about a letter by Jefferson: Did he mean what he said? Was his comment the result of a long and thoughtful process, or perhaps, as Meacham suggest..."

I have read from John Quincy Adams that he did exaggerate
his stories.

David wrote: "I've always found it refreshing that even though they were political rivals, Jefferson and Adams (and Hamilton as well) were still very respectful of each and respected the others end goals, if not..."

You get the most bipartisan work done this way.

What strikes me about these chapters are the parallels to today. Partisan wrangling over debt sounds all familiar.

Ironically, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 9 had praised the new union’s ability “to repress domestic faction,” while Jefferson quipped “if I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." But sure enough we see in these chapters how the country is splitting along party lines. Perhaps James Madison was correct when he said that “[t]he latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man.”

Bryan wrote: "Joanne wrote: "On page 224, Meacham raises the following question about a letter by Jefferson: Did he mean what he said? Was his comment the result of a long and thoughtful process, or perhaps, as ..."

John Quincy Adams wasn't exactly a fan of Jefferson, was he? That doesn't mean he couldn't or didn't accurately evaluate the man. We tend to think of more bombastic men as exaggerators. It would be interesting to hold this lens up to TJ's quotes and ask ourselves, "Do you exaggerate, sir?" And what is the difference between exaggeration, intensity, and passion? On the page, they might read very much alike. Because Jefferson was not a fiery speaker, perhaps he relied a bit on exaggeration to drive home his point.

Logan wrote: "What strikes me about these chapters are the parallels to today. Partisan wrangling over debt sounds all familiar.

Ironically, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 9 had praised the new union’s abili..."

Exactly. Jefferson says "Too many of these stock jobbers and King jobbers have come into our legislature..." (p257 ARC) and then Meacham attributes to him (p261 ARC) .. "a House he believed made up of:
Bank Directors, Holders of bank stock, Stock Jobbers, Blind devotees, Ignorant Persons..., Lazy and good humored persons...".

What would Jefferson think today about the power of Wall Street, big business and special interest lobbyists?

Joanne wrote: "Bryan wrote: "Joanne wrote: "On page 224, Meacham raises the following question about a letter by Jefferson: Did he mean what he said? Was his comment the result of a long and thoughtful process, o..."

This brings back to mind the head and heart letter. He does seem prone to hyperbole.

p. 249
"...his [Jefferson's] passion for the people and his regard for republicanism belonged to a man who also lived with a fear that everything he loved could come undone."

I like the way that Meacham reminds us that it took time for a republican form of government to take firm hold in the United States. The grand experiment could well have ended in failure.

I think this is what drives all these passions, the intensity, because the country is young and the stakes were high.

Today, we see out government as a given. TJ and his contemporaries did not. So, if Jefferson probably saw the Federalists killing the experiment.

Meacham spends considerable effort describing Jefferson's fears of a change to monarchical government.

For those who have read more about this period, I would like to ask: How realistic were these fears? Washington ran for president from a sense of duty, rather than ambition. A monarchy faction could not have placed its hopes in him. The Canadians and British may have dreamed of a European prince taking over the U.S. government, but I can't Imagine the American people putting up with that.

Were there any leaders who really wanted hereditary titles or an hereditary upper house in Congress?

This is an interesting quote from a letter by Adams to his wife:

"'He [TJ] has talents I know, and integrity I believe; but his mind is now poisoned with passion, prejudice, and faction.'" (p. 271)

You can argue with same for many people, I think. What does this say about the relationship between the two men?

Bryan wrote: "This is an interesting quote from a letter by Adams to his wife:

"'He [TJ] has talents I know, and integrity I believe; but his mind is now poisoned with passion, prejudice, and faction.'" (p. 271..."

I think the relationship between TJ and Adams was a complex friendship of sorts. At times perhaps even a love/hate type of relationship, but definitely important to both men (and Abigal Adams also).

I know that David McCullough also referred to this relationship in his book.

John Adams by David McCullough

Ann wrote: "Meacham spends considerable effort describing Jefferson's fears of a change to monarchical government.

For those who have read more about this period, I would like to ask: How realistic were these..."

Very good question, Ann. Hamilton did think the president should be chosen by electors and granted lifetime tenure. His plan was voted down.

I don't recall any plan to create a hereditary upper house. One plan had the Senators being elected by the lower house (Virginia Plan). I think there was real fear of strong executive power by most Americans at this time, so I'm not sure how well a monarchist plan would do.

Thanks for the information, Bryan. Lifetime tenure could very well have evolved into an hereditary leader.

Meacham points out in his notes that the Federalists, seeing what had happened during the French Revolution, feared anarchy. Jefferson feared the "monocrats" (dictatorship). It reminds me a little of our present day when some opponents of Obama refer to his "socialist" agenda. They were using political labels way back then to tar political opponents.

Reading "John Adams" by David McCullough does indeed give one a different point of view of the Adams/Jefferson friendship. Jefferson was not always kind (in fact rather cutthroat) toward Adams in the political arena. The fact that they both became so close in the last years of their lives is a testament to their greatness. I think Meacham tries too hard at times to justify Jefferson's actions and views rather than letting the reader draw conclusions.

I think you are right, Eileen.

Eileen, good point. Don't forget to add the book and author citations.
by David McCullough

Thanks.

It is interesting about the reputation of Hamilton vs. TJ, they seemed to be the opposite.

In popular perspective, Hamilton ended up with a worse reputation and Chernow had to revive him.

TJ had a great reputation, but with all the recent scholarship on slavery, you see more of his warts.

Just a random thought....

Ron Chernow

Ann wrote: "Thanks for the information, Bryan. Lifetime tenure could very well have evolved into an hereditary leader.

Meacham points out in his notes that the Federalists, seeing what had happened during th..."

If anything, the political labeling and "name-calling" was more vituperative and prevalent than now days. A couple of good books about the 1800 presidential election make note of this.

by John Ferling and also by Edward J. Larson

Thank you, Steven. Newspapers back then were so much more partisan, too. No objective reporting going on there.

Kathy wrote: "David wrote: "I've always found it refreshing that even though they were political rivals, Jefferson and Adams (and Hamilton as well) were still very respectful of each and respected the others end..."

Actually, I don't think that's true of Adams and Jefferson, which hopefully we shall see in later chapters. I don't think it's a spoiler to say they kissed/made up though! I could describe the events that happened, but that might be in a future chapter (been a while since I read the book now)

There was probably a small layer of civility between the two during this time. But they seem to have a true falling out between friends. It is sad. I'm glad they made up, though.

Logan wrote: "What strikes me about these chapters are the parallels to today. Partisan wrangling over debt sounds all familiar.

Ironically, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 9 had praised the new union’s ability “to repress domestic faction,” while Jefferson quipped “if I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."

Yet Jefferson again shows he says one thing and does another. He most definitely stood against the 'Federalists' whom he labeled monarchists. I cannot back up this assertion though, it'd be a spoiler!

Indeed, parties are interesting, because you had these men who felt they should be above party politics; it was not good for the country. However, I think the practical side of politics and building a government, partisanship happened. They accepted it, maybe not publicly at first, but there it was.

Bryan wrote: "Ann wrote: "Meacham spends considerable effort describing Jefferson's fears of a change to monarchical government.

For those who have read more about this period, I would like to ask: How realisti..."
Very good question, Ann. Hamilton did think the president should be chosen by electors and granted lifetime tenure. His plan was voted down.

In the Chernow biography on Hamilton, there is some question as to how much Hamilton really believed in the lifetime tenure. It is speculated that Hamilton also could have played a little devil's advocate, citing something more extreme so people could compromise, we don't want that, but perhaps what was proposed may be a better option, thereby getting back to the desired result of voting yes. Hard to say which is really true though.

Ron Chernow

It seems to me that "faction" of some sort is inescapable in a democracy. The views of people vary on every issue. To repress this would require non-democratic means. Or, as the quip goes

"In a democracy you believe it or not; in a dictatorship you believe it or else!"

Bryan wrote: "It is interesting about the reputation of Hamilton vs. TJ, they seemed to be the opposite.

In popular perspective, Hamilton ended up with a worse reputation and Chernow had to revive him.

TJ had ..."

It's hard to say if, had Hamilton survived the duel, if his reputation would be better. Hamilton too had his warts! Highly unlikely he ever would have become President. Can't speculate any further though, it'd be a spoiler!

Well said, Marc. I agree, I don't think he could have been elected president. I always wonder a "what if" on that scenario if he survived the duel.

The whole 'citizen Genet' was kinda interesting! I read about him and his faction in the biographies of Washington, Adams, and Hamilton, as well as a history of the French revolution. I don't think what I'm about to say is a spoiler, but a quicky description of the French Revolution could be in order. Note I'm going to restrain myself from commenting about my opinions on TJ!

As we know, King Louis XVI was king during the American revolution. He lent money, goods, and military support (ships, armies, etc.) to help aid the American colonists, likely because he was using the colonists as proxies to fight England. However, post-war, France became even more in debt, and as we now know, America's money wasn't worth squat till after Hamilton's policies as Sec. of Treasury took effect as Shay's Rebellion proved. So France wasn't getting it's return on investment from America, and a series of droughts didn't help. Consequently, prices went up, and some people, with some justification, thought the nobles and clergy were willing to sacrifice the common person so they can live frivolously, expensive castles, expensive clothes, jewelry, etc. Many of the nobles and clergy were exempt from taxes while the common person not only had to pay taxes (which were to help pay down the debt), but then pay higher prices for bread and other goods/services which went up partially due to droughts.

French thinkers took inspiration from America, and agitated for more representation. At this point, things were still peaceful, and factions hadn't fully shown up yet. Just like what we saw in America, most citizens still wanted the Monarchy. It was demanded that power be segregated into three pieces, the nobles, the clergy, and the 'third estate' being 'everyone else' as represented by elected delegates.

things got out of hand after that. The 'third estate' morphed into the 'National Assembly', radicals started to take over, the King partially abdicated relinquished some power to the National Assembly, but kept key powers. Some people thought the King wanted to stifle them militarily through use of mercenaries (a big part of the army at the time), but I think they were just being forced out of a room they shouldn't have been occupying.

So the citizens decided they needed weapons, gunpowder, and ammunition, as well as make a statement, and they stormed the Bastille, which was a mostly-unused prison, it had just a handful of prisoners, but also had gunpowder and cannons. Things got out of control, people died on both sides, and kinda kicked off the bloodbath, which consumed not only the clergy, the monarchy (both King and later Queen), but many of the French Revolutionary leaders themselves. Note many of the French hated Queen Marie Antoinette on the account she was Austrian (harboring sympathy for Austria, which was at times France's enemy), supposedly promiscuous among other such gossip.

We hear about the "Jacobins", which was originally a political club where people got together to talk, meeting in the Dominican convent which was at Rue St. Jacques (in latin, Jacobus), hence Jacobins. It really started someplace else.

Factions started somewhat quickly, with the right-wing, who wanted something similar to the English model. Then there was more a nationalist party (included Mirabeau, who died before the bloodbath really got out-of-hand, otherwise he likely would have been guillotined), then the more extreme radicalists, with Robespierre and Marat being most extreme (part of the Montagnard or 'the mountain' faction, and slightly less radical, the Girondists (of which Citizen Genet was part of). Note the Montagnards themselves split into the Dantonists (Georges Danton leader), Hebertists (Jacques Rene hebert), among others.

As things got worse and worse, the Girondists overplayed their hands, and, coupled with the assassination of Marat by Girondist sympathizer Charlotte Corday (who testified in her trial, "I killed one man to save 100,000" and was quickly guillotined), the Montagnards sparked the Reign of Terror, condemning the Gironists to be executed, coupled with a partial civil war (peasants revolting against the new Revolutionary govt), over 100,000 French died in war, thousands executed, including fellow revolutionaries like Georges Danton and Madame Marie-Jeanne Roland. The reign of terror basically ended with the execution of Robespierre, who tried to commit suicide but only succeeded in shattering his lower jaw with a bullet to his head. Needless to say, he too went to the guillotine.

Shortly after Robespierre's execution, France was lead by the 'Directors', which eventually lead to the rise of Napolean, bringing the French Revolution to a close.

Gouverneur Morris, American minister Plenipotentiary to France, witnessed much of the Reign of Terror, being he had a front row seat in Paris. Anyhoo, Citizen Genet couldn't go back to France without the risk of losing his head (Reign of Terror was still in effect when Genet was recalled).

Christopher Hibbert

Note the book doesn't mention 'citizen genet' at all! But he was a Girondist.

Genet Affair:

On May 18, 1793, President George Washington received the French minister to the United States, Edmond Charles Genet. Known as "Citizen Genet," the minister had come to the United States to try to gain U.S. support for France. He arrived in the country in April 1793 and journeyed to Philadelphia, stopping to celebrate along the way with adoring, supportive crowds.

France and the United States had maintained friendly relations since signing an alliance in 1778. When the French Revolution turned violent in 1792, however, many Americans re-evaluated that friendship. Republicans, including Thomas Jefferson, sympathized with the revolution, seeing it as an emulation of America's own freedom struggle. Alexander Hamilton and his fellow Federalists feared that the chaos and violence would spread to the United States and destroy the young republic. When revolutionary France and Britain went to war in early 1793, Washington declared the United States neutral, warning Americans to avoid aiding either side in the emerging European conflict. However, this proclamation of neutrality only deepened domestic partisan divisions over the tenor of Franco-American relations.

Edmond Charles Genet arrived in the United States in April 1793 with instructions to persuade the President to observe the 1778 treaty by supporting the French war effort. Twisting Washington's definition of neutrality, Genet immediately set to work attempting to use American commercial ports as French military bases. He cultivated support against neutrality and tried to stir up agitation in the western United States against the Spanish territories of Louisiana and Florida. Even Jefferson, initially a supporter of Genet, tried to restrain the Frenchman, but to no avail. When Washington refused to cooperate with Genet's schemes, Genet threatened to appeal directly to the American people.

Washington and Hamilton believed Genet's activities constituted a threat to the stability of the American republic. Hamilton and other Federalists worked to discredit Genet, and Republicans tried to distance themselves from him. In August 1793, Washington and his cabinet unanimously agreed to request that France recall Genet. However, a new government had come to power in France during Genet's absence, and it had decided that his actions were hurting its cause and called for his arrest. Fearing for the Frenchman's safety, Washington allowed Genet to remain in the country as a private resident; he lived in New York until his death in 1834.

Genet's activities in 1793 sharpened the existing divisions between Federalists and Republicans, adding to the growing political partisanship that marked the 1790s. As the American citizenry became further politicized, President Washington's ability to promote consensus quickly eroded and his ability to govern was compromised. Washington's second term stalled under intense partisan political turmoil, one of the reasons he happily retired to Mount Vernon when his presidency ended.
(Source: http://millercenter.org/president/eve...)

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond-C...
http://countrystudies.us/united-state...

Monarchy was the system these people grew up under. The old way is usually considered the "right" way especially under times of stress. I certainly think as the newer players came on the stage the "monarch party" thinking disappeared as the newer players hadn't grown up under that system.

cliques form as part of human culture. It probably is part of our tribal heritage. Politics is no different. If all the present "differences" between the parties were resolved, they would find new ones to demonize the other party about.

Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson is available by download from http://www.e-booksdirectory.com/detai...

Patricrk wrote: "Monarchy was the system these people grew up under. The old way is usually considered the "right" way especially under times of stress. I certainly think as the newer players came on the stage th..."

If men were angels, we would not need government (or politics).

Thanks for the link. Don't forget to use proper citations:

Thomas Jefferson