|
|
These forums are being phased out. The new, improved Alexander Hamilton Forum is at americanhistoryforums.com.
Posted by abhouston@aol.com on November 20, 19101 at 17:44:53:
In Reply to: Re: Was Hamilton proved right? Still Wrong posted by Ned on November 20, 19101 at 11:43:24:
Your comments are insightful, Ned.
1. The key difference here is our differing interpretations of Burr, and this must stem from our respective knowledge coming from different printed sources, specifically as it pertains to what we know of Burr's activities in the West. I see from another of your posts, that you recommended 3 books to another person, of which I've read 2 (Ellis' "Founding Brothers," and Fleming's "Duel"). These are sources we have in common, and they did inform my opinion of Burr. But my opinion has been further informed from other sources, which I will concede are anti-Burr. To fill in the gaps of doented history, you seem to give Burr the benefit of the doubt whereas I seem to vilify him. You have factual support, and I have factual support. It's great that we can argue civilly.
2. I actually love John Adams (as I said). I tend to view him and his wife as a unit. So did Joseph Ellis. Separating their hatred of Hamilton seems pointless--the hatred stemmed from the same source. Just as you said, Adams sometimes lacked reason. Making that point in reference to Hamilton was my purpose.
3. My previous post is in response to your statement: "Plus the label of 'embryonic Caesar' and 'treacherous opportunist who would aggrandize himself at the cost of the country' applies very nicely to Hamilton!" I've argued against your statement, citing specifics. You've replied back that "aggrandizing himself" did not mean financially, as I thought you meant (uh...okay). So that leaves the fact that he had a gigantic ego, I guess (which is not a flattering thing at all). Well, I've already erted exactly that, so we agree. However, you've NOT detailed examples of Hamilton being a "treacherous opportunist" as you erted.
4. Your Henry Latrobe quotation vis-a-vis the Reynolds Affair is confusing to me: He “went to church from the bed of the wife of his friend.”
I ume I shouldn't take it literary, but Hamilton did not belong to any church in his adult life, and Mr. Reynolds was definitely NOT his friend. He miraculously showed up on the scene AFTER Hamilton & Maria started their affair to immediately demand blackmail. Regardless of what you mean, this shameful affair is definitely a black eye on Hamilton and his family, and I do not ignore it. This is a major fault of Hamilton's character--I consider it paternally unforgivable. However, the light it casts on his personality (to use your words) comes in his PUBLISHED confession of having an affair with Mrs. Reynolds. Rather than suffer a charge that he did a governmental misdeed, Hamilton clarified and admitted to a PERSONAL scandal, hurting his PERSONAL reputation and family. That act is informative, and reflects on his personality. Consider it, and then reexamine the utility (or lack thereof) of Latrobe's quotation.
5. The claims that Hamilton was involved in a plot to have the military seize power and install Washington as king are totally false. See Broadus Mitchell's treatment, noting where Hamilton was at that point of his career in New York.
6. Finally, YES, Hamilton DID have the trust of Washington. Hamilton repeatedly turned to Washington for support. Any Washington or Hamilton biography you pick up will quote Washington as stating that granted that Hamilton had ambition, but it was of the laudable kind that drove men to good public deeds. Case closed. Like any relationship among HUMAN BEINGS, they didn't always see eye to eye. As I've erted elsewhere, Washington was far superior in his patience, his ability to tolerate insults, and his reservation about using military force.
http://classicals.com/federalist/AlexanderHamiltonhall/messages/520.html
7. FYI: Here's what happened leading to Hamilton's resignation from W's staff. Hamilton had been DYING for a field command for a couple of years. He had his friends lobby for him, and also asked Washington, but W's response was that he needed H with him as an aide AND there were older commanders out there. Hamilton was peeved and sensed that his chance for military glory was waning. One day, Washington ped Hamilton on a staircase and asked him to follow immediately; then, Lafayette came by to speak with Hamilton, detaining him for about 10 minutes. When Hamilton finally showed up in Washington's room, Washington was mad that he'd been kept waiting and the 2 had heated words. Hamilton, never a calm dude, was defensive and he resigned. A couple of months later, he was finally awarded a field command, which turned out to be at Yorktown, where he served valiantly. Washington and Hamilton patched things up, and moved on in their professional relationship, as it witnessed in their personal correspondance directly after the War. (Burr only served a few weeks as an aide to Washington, starting in New York in 1776; Washington did not approve of him and the arrangement was quickly terminated).
READ THE GREAT BOOKS
TERM PAPERS, RESEARCH PAPERS, ESSAYS