|
|
These forums are being phased out. The new, improved Alexander Hamilton Forum is at americanhistoryforums.com.
Posted by Ned on November 27, 19101 at 15:02:03:
In Reply to: By the numbers posted by ABHouston on November 26, 19101 at 17:33:08:
1. So we have agreed that Burr and Hamilton has similarities. Hamilton had oppossed Burr long before Burr attempted to run for Governor in 1804. The defining split was probably 1792 when Burr defeated Hamilton's father in law to win a U.S. Senate seat from New York. It is not clear to me at all that Hamilton sacrificed more personal wealth for the public good than Burr. Burr's public service (including service in the army, as New York State Attorney General, member of the New York State embly, U.S. Senator and the Vice President) was at least as long as Hamilton. Is it such a big deal that Hamilton was a bargain rate lawyer--compare Burr's charges to other lawyers: his rates were normal, Hamilton's were low.
2. I used Ceaser and Bonaparte in the way I understood Hamilton to use it in reference to Burr, and Jefferson or Adams to use it when speaking of Hamilton. Ceasar and Bonaparte were military officers who used moments of crisis in domestic affairs to seize power and make themseleves emperor. They possessed an abundance of ambition, ego and zealousness in the exercise of power. I think Hamilton did exhibited certain aspects of the "demagauge riding the wave of popularity" such as personally leading troops against the Whiskey rebels.
3. According to the books I have read, it was Hamilton's version of the story that was circulated. He asked Washignton to keep the situation private then proceeded to circulate his version of events causing Washington to express amazement at why.
In my opinion your Pete Sampras ogy is totally wrong: it is not a valid comparison. Lets stick with the actual situation as I think it is simple enough: H's position is as aide to the general. Put he wants a different so he lobbys behind the scenes through politically connected friends and he pesters his boss. His boss, the general-in-chief, feels that H should be kept where he is becuase he is performning a valuable public service better than he feels he could elsewhere. So H sulks and gives less to doing his public duty in his igned role until he gets want he wants.
The people who have served in my family have achieved positions of command through the recongition of duty performed not through pulling strings and throwing tantrums. I wish in future that you would refrain from making what appear as underhand remarks about my family.
I need no convincing as to the on going relationship of Hamilton and Washington. Nor to Hamilton's role in the cabinet, nor the nature of the cabinent. I raised the Hamilton-Washington rift as an example of the imperfectness of Hamilton's character and relationships. While Washington specified to Adams that Hamilton must be appointed his #2 in the Army in 1798, I suspect (and am not alone in this) that Hamilton was behind the scenes on this one.
4. In conclusion, I agree with your contention that Hamilton's positive contributions outweigh his faults. This whole discussion began becuase you quoted Hamilton's attack on Burr, which I see as one of Hamilton's faults.
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]