|
|
These forums are being phased out. The new, improved Alexander Hamilton Forum is at americanhistoryforums.com.
Posted by ABHouston on November 26, 19101 at 17:33:08:
In Reply to: Re: I like the number items approach posted by Ned on November 20, 19101 at 23:41:17:
Regarding sources, if you discount Wilkinson (one of the primary conspirators), then you'll probably discount Blennerhett too. And what of Burr's messengers Swarthout and Willie? Oh well.
I do have a Burr question. He evidently dined with President Jefferson in October or December 1805. This is very interesting and raises my eyebrow. What do you know about this? Anything you can tell me would be most appreciated.
Now...just because we're moving on multiple fronts, I'll continue to number my responses to keep things straight:
1. You wrote:
"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."
Excellent point! The similarities between Burr and Hamilton are striking (e.g., superior intellects, educated at a VERY young age, volunteered for military duty, preeminent lawyers, political figures). Undoubtedly, Burr's attempt to switch parties and displace Hamilton's remaining influence among the Federalists was one of the reasons Hamilton oppossed Burr. But it is the DIFFERENCES between them that are important here. Hamilton consciously put aside personal fortune to serve the country, as I've already erted and you already agreed. (As an aside, see what he charged legal clients and compare to what Burr charged.)
2. Regarding Hamilton's ambition, you wrote:
"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."
Perhaps we're not taking the same meaning from your words, but my understanding of "Caesar" or "Bonaparte" means a singular person who wishes to supremely rule everything, unchallenged. This is the definition of tyrant without the negative connotation the word currently carries.
Several things. First, Hamilton conceded that only a republic (elected representatives) was suitable to the American temper, and accepted that. It wasn't his ideal form of government, but he agreeably worked under it because he felt it would give us a chance at stability. Second, Hamilton felt that SOME among us were fit, not ONE among us (i.e., not only himself). Who did he support for the Presidency? Washington. Not himself. Hamilton never even considered running for the Presidency. He knew his ideas were unpopular. He was no demagauge riding the wave of popularity, like (Julius) Caesar and Napolean.
I write this to clarify my understanding. If you had different meaning with your Caesar/Napolean simile, then I misunderstood.
3. Regarding Hamilton's resignation as Washington's aide-de-camp, you wrote:
"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)?"
I DO NOT concede that this "relationship was already a mess." Hamilton had the LONGEST tenure as Washington's aide. In his own words, Washington trusted Hamilton to "think and act" on his behalf.
My description IS what happened, unless you'd like to contradict what Lafayette, Hamilton, and Washington all recalled. What I didn't say was that after Hamilton stormed out, Washington waited 15 minutes (for both of their tempers to cool) and sent a message of reconcilliation. Hamilton still wanted a field command above all, so he did not accept the invitation to return as aide.
It DOES seem like a self-centered thing to desire a field command. I don't know of the military experience in your family but pretty much EVERY officer in the military is in it for a command. That's the goal of working up the ranks--command. Officers command the enlisted men. If you'd like to chastise all of them on the "personal glory" argument, go right ahead. Your essment is akin to chastising Pete Sampras for wanting a singles Wimbledon championship more than the Davis Cup championship. Also, Hamlton previously had a small field command (as an artillery Captain) in which he performed very well, and let's recall that we're talking about an exuberant 23 year-old. No one's perfect, especially when still young.
But what happened after this? Well, Washington did finally grant Hamilton a field command at Yorktown. They met again at the Annapolis Convention, and again at the Constitutional Convention. Things were once again warm between them. Read their letters of this time, and the letter accompanying Hamilton's forwarding of the entire Federalist papers to Washington. Then, of course, Washington tapped Hamilton for the key appointed position in the fledgling federal government--heading the largest department, the Treasury. Hamilton acted as Washington's primary advisor not only in areas financial, but also in areas constitutional/legal, military (e.g., neutrality proclamation), protocol, and international. (Remember, the cabinet was not quite departmentalized like it is today).
Washington trusted Hamilton with the capstone of his entire public career--his Farewell Address. This was something that Washington was obsessed with. He would not tap Hamilton to phrase his farewell to the country if he did not trust him deeply. Read the personal letters back and forth that accompany the letter. One book you said you've read is Ellis' "Founding Brothers." Read the Farewell chapter again--it will highlight the trusting partnership between these two men, which is my whole point.
Finally, it was WASHINGTON who set the terms of the raising of the Army for the possibility of war with France in 1798. HE said that Hamilton should be placed in charge as #2, with Washington himself only uming active command if war REALLY broke out. You attribute this solely to Hamilton, which is not accurate.
The relationship between Washington and Hamilton lasted over 20 years, and only ended when Washington died. This was not a precarious, "messy" relationship, as you erted.
4. You wrote:
"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."
I totally agree. I've studied this man substantially. I admire much about him, but his faults are glaring and cannot be ignored. He was human, after all. My contention is that his positive contributions outweigh his faults (some of which are personal rather than public). Same thing with Jefferson, Adams, etc.
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]