|
|
These forums are being phased out. The new, improved Alexander Hamilton Forum is at americanhistoryforums.com.
Posted by Ned on November 20, 19101 at 23:41:17:
In Reply to: What an excellent example of the competing historical interpretations posted by abhouston@aol.com on November 20, 19101 at 17:44:53:
Thank you.
1. Yes, our sources does seem to be the key difference. I am not familiar with the sources you use that are anti-Burr and that demonstrate his guilt. The only anti-Burr information I know of comes from three original sources: Hamilton, Jefferson, and Wilkinson. Hamilton hated Burr for reasons of personal rivalry and anyway Hamilton is unable for obvious reasons to give any information regarding Burr's activities in the west. Jefferson is, in my opuinion, neither the best judge of character nor particularly honest and hated Burr for political reasons. And Wilkinson was a treasonous scoundrel who was a paid agent of the Spainish at the same time he was Jefferson's top military commander and who admitted to forging some of the doents used as evidence against Burr. Other individuals more reputable than Wilkinson and also involved with Burr in the West did not fell he was guilty of treason including Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay. However, I must say I am not a historian prepared to argue sources with you.
2. I'll skip this point cause I feel its gotten off track. I conceed the point--Adams criticism of Hamilton is a questionable source. Still Adams view of Hamilton was no doubt influenced by Hamilton's actions as mentioned in point 3 below.
3. Lets consider how the terms 'embryonic Caesar' and 'treacherous opportunist who would aggrandize himself at the cost of the country' might apply to Hamilton. First there are the comments of others along this line, but as you don't like Adams as a commentator (and I don't like Jefferson, so I didn't quote his similar remark about Hamilton) we will have to set those aside. You admit that Hamilton had a gigantic ego and that he craved after military glory. As I alluded to before, during the 1790s Hamilton was communicating with the British regarding miltiary action against spanish possessions, he attempted to manipulated the federal government through his friends who were cabinet secretaries (Pickering, McHenry and Wolcott) behind the back of the President, while getting himself placed at the head of the new army (sound very much like an 'embryonic Caesar' to me coming very close to treasonous) and also tried to play games with electoral politics so he could get a candidate elected (Pickney) that he thought would be easier to manipulate but only ended up loosing the election for his own party (personal aggrandisement costing the country in my opinion).
4. The Latrobe quote was not actually specific to the Reynolds thing. Rather Latrobe was making a general comment on Hamilton's personal character. The Reynolds affair and Latrobe's comment support each other -- Hamilton was upstanding in public but weak (for lack of a better word off the top of my head) in private. Hamilton's lengthy diatribe against Burr at the time of the election deadlock in 1800-1801 is interesting when you think how many of the charges apply to Hamilton himself--personal immorality is one such thing.
5. I have not read Broadus Mitchell's treatment. I will look for it.
6. While you are far more informed on the Washington-Hamilton relationship than I, it is nice to note that Washington saw Hamilton as ambitious. Did not Washinton too see that Hamilton needed to be held in check sometimes. As you note in message 520, "Hamilton was an elitist and felt that only some among us were fit to rule" and "Hamilton was overzealous in both his exercise of power and personal gallantry." Again it sounds a little like a Ceasar or a Bonaparte in the making.
I agree with you that his vision was bold and inspired, his intellect awesome, but I don't consider all of the results of Hamilton's ambition to be good public deeds.
7. That is what happened according to Hamilton and might very well be what really happened. If so it speaks poorly for the relationship between the two of them that the working relationship would fall apart over a 10 minute delay caused by the much respected Lafayette. Sounds like that was just the straw breaking the camel's back and that the relationship was already a mess.
Is it not interesting to you that Hamilton was so DYING for a field command, that it so peeved him to be missing out on a chance for peronal glory (putting personal aggradizement before duty to his country)?
READ THE GREAT BOOKS
TERM PAPERS, RESEARCH PAPERS, ESSAYS
DR. ELLIOT'S NORTH AMERICAN GREAT BOOKS TOUR--COMING TO A BOOK
STORE NEAR YOU
[Shakespeare Forums]
[Bible Forums]