|
|
These forums are being phased out. The new, improved Alexander Hamilton Forum is at americanhistoryforums.com.
Posted by ABHouston on November 27, 19101 at 17:28:24:
In Reply to: Re: By the numbers posted by Ned on November 27, 19101 at 15:02:03:
We agree on much. Thanks for clarifying.
Some concluding points:
1. You hold that there was not sufficient evidence proving Burr did anything wrong, and thus Hamilton's attack was unwarranted. I am of a different opinion. From what I've read, the evidence is compelling, but not all of it was allowed (see Marshall's convoluted handling of Willie's knowledge of the ciphered letter), and I feel that Burr's deeds after Hamilton's death fulfilled Hamilton's foul opinion of him. We will not convince each other otherwise, so I respectfully agree to disagree, as many before us have done on this very issue.
2. You wrote: "I wish in future that you would refrain from making what appear as underhand remarks about my family."
This is what I wrote that prompted your response: "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."
This is not an underhanded remark, and no insult was meant. I merely prefaced my remarks by stating that I did not know whether or not you or your family had military experience that would inform our discussion about the desire to obtain a command. From your response, it sounds as though your family did have relevant experience, so my preface proved useful. It was not meant to be inflammatory, insulting, or pedantic, only qualifying.
3. I disagree that Hamilton was a "demagauge riding the wave of popularity" vis-a-vis the Whiskey Rebellion. Firstly, the suppression of the Rebellion WAS NOT POPULAR. Sentiment was on the side of the rebel farmers/brewers, and the governmental show of force was VERY UNPOPULAR among the people.
4. I totally agree that Hamilton's little tiff with Washington, after which the former resigned as aide-de-camp, represents a fault in Hamilton's character. My points were that Hamilton was an impetuous 23-year old at the time, and the rift between the two was quickly repaired, allowing them to enjoy a more fruitful and trusting partnership in their subsequent careers. You've agreed to this, so we're on the same page.
READ THE GREAT BOOKS
TERM PAPERS, RESEARCH PAPERS, ESSAYS