|
|
These forums are being phased out. The new, improved Alexander Hamilton Forum is at americanhistoryforums.com.
Posted by Ned on November 20, 19101 at 11:43:24:
In Reply to: Was Hamilton proved right? YES. posted by ABHouston on November 16, 19101 at 16:52:15:
You want to compare Burr and Hamilton based on something that Burr never did, nor even considered. You ask me to “Compare Hamilton's overzealous pursuit of UNION vs. Burr's plans to break up the nation”. Since I do not believe that Burr planned to "break up the nation" and that there is no historical evidence that he planned to do so, how can I make this comparison? Did I at any time argue that “the latter was better than the former”? Why are you attributing things to me I have not said?
Burr certainly conducted meetings in and about the West but did they had nothing to do with a breaking up the nation. It was Marshall's wisdom, not a blunder at all, that he saw the Burr trial for what it was: Jefferson's effort to take down a political enemy in spite of the Constitution or evidence of an actual criminal act. Some federalists went along because they hated Burr for killing Hamilton, others did not go along and so Burr was acquitted.
Are you aware that in the 1790s Hamilton had correspondence with the British secret service regarding coordinated action in the West. Just like Burr, Hamilton was not interested in breaking up the United States—both of them had their sights set on Spanish territories. Hamilton's actions in this regard are equivalent to Burr.
You obviously dislike John Adams as much as Hamilton did. My reference was to statements made my Abigial not John. Some of John Adams statements are lacking in reason, but you seem incapable of seeing some of Hamilton's remarks in the same light. Still, since you dislike Adams so strongly, there are other sources for comments on Hamilton like those of Abigail: Noah Webster warned Hamilton that his ambition, pride and temper might turn him into "the evil genius of this country". You ask that I not accept Jefferson’s stereotype of Hamilton--I do not, as I rely on the opinion of others besides Jefferson. In a similar way I ask that you not accept the the stereotype of Burr that is based on the opinions of Hamilton and Jefferson.
Aggrandizing oneself at the cost of the country does not necessarily involve ones personal fortune. It was never part of the treason charge against Burr that he acted to improve his personal fortune. Likewise, Hamilton sought fame and power not personal fortune. I never claimed that Hamilton personally profited from his role as Treasury Secretary so I see no point in discussing such issues as the Reyonolds’s affair except in so far as they cast light on Hamilton’s personality such as how Henry Latrobe would say that he “went to church from the bed of the wife of his friend.”
Did Hamilton have the eternal trust of Washington? It should be remembered that Hamilton resigned from his position as aide to Washington during the war because he and Washington quarreled. The exact nature of the quarrel is unclear, though Hamilton made sure his side of the story was widely circulated after requesting that Washington keep the matter private. Some also claim that Hamilton was behind the Newburgh conspiracy that intended to use the army to take over the government. Washington liked Hamilton and recognized Hamilton's great intelligence and talents, yet there relationship was not without tensions, particularly during the war. (In an interesting parallel, Burr resigned his position as military aide to Washington after a similar quarrel.)
READ THE GREAT BOOKS
TERM PAPERS, RESEARCH PAPERS, ESSAYS