For months now, I've been working my way through Ron Chernow's monumental and magnificent 700 page biography of Alexander Hamilton. It's a very well written and readable book; it's entirely my fault that it's taken me months to get through it. I've one chapter to go and then it's finally finished. I had a basic knowledge of Hamilton's life and some idea of his contributions to the country, largely as a result of the combination of a major in political science and my law school studies, where The Federalist Papers are required reading. However, I had no idea just how important this man really was to the development of this country. Although his birth in the British Virgin Islands excluded him from running for president, you would be hard-pressed to find someone who played a more important role in the early days of this republic than Hamilton. It's pretty clear that Hamilton was the first among equals in George Washington's headquarters during the Revolution and also during Washington's presidency. Hamilton wrote most of Washington's speeches. More importantly, it was Hamilton's brilliance and incredible foresight that led to the formation of the government we have today. As the author of most of The Federalist Papers, Hamilton laid out the roadmap for our form of government. His writings also weighed heavily in the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, and his vision for a strong central government ultimately won out. Had the Jeffersonian view prevailed, this country never could have achieved greatness. Indeed, it likely would have split into two and probably never would have grown. The other area where Hamilton showed incredible vision was in foreseeing the modern American market economy and in putting into place the infrastructure necessary to implement it. Hamilton foresaw the stock markets and the money markets that drive the great engine of American economics. Most interestingly, Hamilton plainly saw that the issue of slavery would have to be settled by arms or else it would tear the Union asunder. He made this prediction about 1800, long before sectional tensions really flared. I found that remarkable. Hamilton was not without faults. He was petty and could never let anything go. He had a tendency to say too much and to be indiscreet, and his refusal to back down ultimately cost him his life. His inability to get along with people like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe ultimately cost him his political career. His view of government and Jefferson's view of government were so diametrically opposed that it was impossible for them to get along, and they became bitter, if not mortal, enemies. Their conflict was as fundamental as the conflict over whose view of government's role would ultimately prevail, and the proof is in the pudding: Hamilton's vision of government remains the standard to this day. At the same time, he was a man of immense--almost inconceivable--restless intellect with a true gift for words. In a day when everything had to be written by hand, I challenge anyone to find someone more intensely prolific than was Hamilton. After reading this book, I come to the conclusion that, among the great men that founded this country, three stand head and shoulders above the rest: Hamilton, Jefferson, and Washington. Washington was first among his countrymen for the role he played, but it's clear that the driving intellects that led to the creation of this republican form of government were Jefferson and Hamilton. That Hamilton's views ultimately prevailed only further demonstrate what a visionary and what a brilliant--albeit ultimately flawed--and unique individual he was. We are fortunate to have had him, even if he did die far too young at the hand of the scoundrel, Aaron Burr. Eric
Eric, The site where the duel between Hamilton and Burr is still a popular place to visit here in NJ. Located in Weehawken, NJ, the small park there offers one of the most pictureque views of New York City from the Jersey side of the Hudson River. Am guessing though, and sadly, that most folks who visit do so for the view and not what actually occurred there. Regards from the Garden State, Steve
Also, the place where Aaron Burr went to hide out can still be seen in New Hope, PA. It's now a bed and breakfast called the Aaron Burr House. The original structure was replaced in the late 1800's but the basement and foundation are original. Aaron Burr is said to have hidden there for over a week. I remember watching a History Channel program about Hamilton and Burr about a year ago or so. If I remember the gist of this program correctly, what Hamilton did to Burr constituted harassment. Burr did his best to ignore Hamilton but there was only so much he could take. Eric, what you said about Hamilton's mouth was very true -- sadly, it did ultimately cost him his life. In his younger days Hamilton was quite the "ladies' man": very good looking and he knew it. His reputation with the ladies was such that it did not go unnoticed by Martha Washington. There was a tomcat that hung around winter quarters one year that she named Hamilton. Linda
Eric, Only reason I ever knew about the park is because it is in the same area where my Mom grew up in NJ. Has been ages since I went there, but IIRC, there is a plaque there that tells just what occurred on the site, and IIRC, the US Flag flies there 24/7 in honor of Hamilton. A lot of people gathered there on 9-11-01 to watch events as they transpired that day 5 years ago. Hope all is well. Steve
Hamilton may be my least favorite founding father. I think a less powerful central government would have been better. And, his economic policies were very bad, in my opinion, especially his policy to have the Central Government take over the States debts, his methods of taxation (which led to the Whiskey Rebellion), his ideas on the formation of a national bank and his general meddling in a rightfully free market. In other words, as Treasurer and advisor to George Washington and others, he managed to get the country off to a very bad economic start.
He managed to get the country off to a great economic start. Hamilton's ideas were outstanding. Jefferson hated them but then Jefferson didn't understand anything about finance. That's why Jefferson died broke and Monticello and all of his slaves sold at auction. Hamilton like all the Founders wasn't perfect and he definitely had a power hungry streak in him later in the 1790s, but when it came to finance he was a genius. Jefferson and Madison along with their Secretary of the Treasure, Albert Gallatin, bankrupted the country three times before Madison and Congress got it through their heads that a central financial policy was in the nation's best interests. The taxation that Hamilton put into effect was mixed. However, taxation put into effect by the Federalists worked fairly well until Jefferson reduced it and made the country reliant on international trade. Once Britain and France resumed the Napoleonic Wars Jefferson's taxation policies crippled the country.
Of course, you are for strong central financial planning, gloine36. And, you think international trade is a bad thing. Go back to your ivory tower and read some textbooks as our country descends into the tyrannical grasp of government dependence funded by heavy progressive taxation that is imposed by the central planners. Rest easy: the IRS has hired the required enforcers for the newest centrally planned scheme called Obamacare. I would block you but then I would miss a truly illuminating incite into the typical leftist mind. Hamilton, would be a finance genius in your way of thinking.
I would suggest you actually read a history book instead of trying to make history fit your own personal politics. I find it interesting that you continually speak out about things like Obamacare which is the law of the land and validated by his reelection by a majority of Americans who voted. It just shows that the conservative view of the nation is a minority view and is being tossed to the wayside by Americans. Keep on crying because that's all you can do about it. As for Hamilton, you need to present some proof to back up what is solely your opinion. You are doing what so many conservatives do with our history. You insert what you want it to be which it most definitely was not.
As I have told you before, I am not a conservative. But, it is clear that you are only concerned with enforcing mob rule, as we have discussed elsewhere. I GET that you feel entitled as part of the mob to enforce your will on others. Will I cry as you do so? Probably, since I care about the state of the economy. As to proof: Where is your proof that Hamilton was a finance genius when the very policies he advocated then did not work and when practiced by the mob embracing them now, are plainly still not working? Just look around for my proof.
I'll keep the list short, but pretty much every single history book written on that period shows Hamilton to be a financial genius. I don't know a single history book that says he wasn't. His theories worked. The argument in that era was over the way they worked because he linked the US economy to the British international trade which was understandable since Britain ruled the waves and was the dominant trade partner for the US. Jefferson opposed it because Jefferson and others hated Great Britain and were Anglophobes who wanted France to be the primary trade partner. I think you need to show some proof from a historian that Hamilton's theories were bad. Good luck finding one because they don't exist.
Two good books on the time in question are Gordon Wood Empire of Liberty and John Ferling A Leap in the Dark. I highly recommend reading them to learn more about that period in time.
I understand completely that the academic world is hostile to those who do not tow the party line of encouraging central planning and mob rule for over a hundred years, now. I won't be looking to the so-called historians of the academic world for accurate information. You, of course, are free to revel in the progressive delusion while their policies plunge us deeper into the economic abyss. No need to recommend your favorites as a recommendation from you would probably dissuade me from ever investigating those particular authors.
I do thank you for your offer of "proof," however. Would not Hamilton's own words and actions speak better of his ideas? That is where I will look for more information, to the source, not the news spinners and group think creators.
Look in a history book because that's where the real information is. We historians teach not to use bias although we also acknowledge its presence. That's why we use peer review. If you ignore the academic world then you have nothing to go by since you're just going by opinion alone. Gee, the economy is getting better. Despite Republican obstruction and inaction I might add. Of course that refutes what you said about us plunging in the economic abyss. Also, the abyss was caused by Republican policies. I understand you may want to ignore that part of reality.
You know, the fear of learning is rooted in a fear of advancement. Those that reject academic teaching basically are rejecting factually based history in favor of popular belief. This is an old conflict that goes back many years. It brings up the question, "What is the truth?" Academic historians discover the truth by reading what the people of the past wrote and build up a base of knowlege gleaned from the primary sources themselves. Even then there are holes in the past due to a lack of sources. Sometimes new sources are found or rediscovered which generate new interpretations. That is why history is constantly in a state of revision. Think of any historical period as a window. If you know nothing about that era you can barely see anything through the window as it is cloudy or opaque. Fleeting glimpses appear but you don't understand them or recognize them. The more you learn the clearer the picture gets. Details add color. You begin to recognize what you see as you learn more about it. Yet, the important thing to remember is that no matter how much you learn you're still looking through a window. You can never experience the past unless you can travel in time. So as you can see a historian will never be perfect because it is impossible. However, when compared with popular belief, the historian is far more accurate. We get our mythology and legends from popular belief. When we begin to examine those myths and legends we find just how distorted they are. People don't like it when their myths and legends are challenged which is what happens with popular belief. However, over time those beliefs fall to the wayside as facts supplant them and the beliefs become recognized as fable.
Ha! Now, you are a psychologist, too! Spare me your diagnosis. I look at history, not biased history text books. We have plenty of direct sources that do not come from your precious textbooks written with all the bias of a John Dewey or worse. Oh yes, you would say, " Yet, the important thing to remember is that no matter how much you learn you're still looking through a window." For, this represents the academically corrupt philosophy of today: that we cannot ever know reality, whether it be the reality of today or yesterday. YOU may look through windows unknowingly, but I will observe what was written by the real men who lived and acted at the time, noting the results of their actions and also continue to use my senses to observe and experience the world as it is today.
I just said that's what we do in looking at primary sources. However, we also put them in the context they were written in, not some make believe fictional world that never existed in order to justify political ideologies of today which is what you are doing. You are using a presentist verson of history which is an utter failure.
