Talk:Alexander Hamilton/Archive 4

message: Plange suggested we use the word 'eventually' to describe the progression of the name to DR.  You seem to have an objection, but have not stated what the objection is.  Until you do, the dubious label is inappropriate and should be removed.   Skyemoor 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Thomas Jefferson, where the word was suggested. It is not accurate; Democratic-Republican began to be used before Hamilton was shot, and was normal contemporary usage by the time Monroe was President. Septentrionalis 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are spotty references to the use of DRP around the time of Hamilton's fatal duel; what is your support for "normal contemporary usage by the time Monroe was President", especially at the national level?  Skyemoor 00:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED and the Dictionary of American English, to start with; do you have a source which actually says otherwise, and if so, what is it? Septentrionalis 07:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd; above you said that the OED states is was the Democratic Party. You can't have it both ways; which is it?  Still waiting for your evidence.  Skyemoor 02:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED has a quite long entry on Democratic, which cites both forms. Do try looking up a reference once in a while. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eventually

message: Hamilton conceived of the Federalist Papers and orchestrated their creation, recruiting Madison and Jay.  Considering Hamilton also wrote the preponderance of the published tracts (well over 50%) there seems to be no justification to belittle this collective accomplishment by highlighting Madison's contributions here (he has his own Wiki entry, doesn't he?).  While there is not much arguement that Madison's contributions were significant, nor is there much arguement that Hamilton's were at least equally so and, perhaps more poignently, there is still no absolute agreement as to whether is was Madison of Hamilton that wrote some of the most important entries (#51, for example).  Therefore, removal of unjustified and misleading references of Madison in relation to the Federalist Papers that imply some sort of superiority should be removed.Shoreranger 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in part, and disagree in part; claiming that Madison was predominant is a POV; c;aiming that Hamilton was predominant is also a POV; this article should say neither (or both, but the place for that is Federalist Papers, not here). Septentrionalis 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Federalist Papers

message: :Hamilton proceeded to set up an army, which was to guard against invasion and march into the possessions of Spain, then allied with France, and take Louisiana and Mexico. His correspondence further suggests that when he returned in military glory, he dreamed of setting up a properly energetic government, without any Jeffersonians. Adams, however, derailed all plans for war by opening negotiations with France.[21] Adams had also held it right to retain Washington's cabinet, except for cause; he found, in 1800 (after Washington's death), that they were obeying Hamilton rather than himself and fired several of them.[22]
As for this paragraph, I don't think it's POV; the conclusion that Hamilton was considering a bold stroke after his return is Morrison and Commager's, as cited in 21; the reason Adams fired McHenry and Pickering is well-known. I sourced it to ANB, but I do not know of anyone who disagrees (on either point). If Shoreranger has a source, he should add and cite it. Septentrionalis 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1798

message: He admired the the success of the British system,  and strongly denounced the mob rule first arising from the French Revolution, as Hamilton witnessed first hand how instrumental politically, financially, and militarily France had been in the United States securing independence through the American Revolutionary War.
This passage is original research from primary sources, and has the resulting flaws. It suggests, without source, that Hamilton's opposition to the French Revolution arose from its mob rule, which is clearly false: he opposed it before the reports of the May Days of 1793 reached the United States. I do not understand the intended meaning of  "as Hamilton witnessed first hand how instrumental politically, financially, and militarily France had been in the United States securing independence through the American Revolutionary War". As cannot mean "while"; the French instrumentality ended well before Bastile Day, much less "mob rule". Whatever it means, it reads like more unsourced speculation. Septentrionalis 23:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: The article states: "He  worked to defeat both John Adams and Jefferson in the election of 1800 (although he himself didn't run because he was ineligible due to being born outside the US);" 
I'm not disputing whether he should have been president but whether or not he was constitutional barred from the presidency.  I don't think he was barred.
The U.S Constitution, Article Two, 1.5 Clause 5: Qualifications for office, says   "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." 
Was not Alexander Hamilton "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"?  He attended King's College in the 1770's (now Columbia College, Columbia University) and was an officer in the Continental Army. By my count, he would have resided in what became the United States between 15 and 20 years when the Constitution was adopted.
(A Political Scientist 01:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Hamilton Eligible for Presidency? 

message: Seems to me that this section is a bit sympathetic to Burr and fails to even hint about the wealth of abundant primary sources that demonstrate Hamilton's intent to die at this duel in order to spare Burr's life.  Aside from preparing his Last Will and Testament, Hamilton also wrote to his wife and friends explaining that he would not attempt to kill Burr since it went against everything he believed in.  
This is not to say that there is no current debate among scholars on this topic, but I believe a fairer rendering of this section could be achieved to demonstrate the two views of this duel.  As it currently stands, only one citation exists depicting one view, and that one basically refers to Hamilton as a liar, and this is a comment made by Burr.  How unbiased and POV is that?! (Gaytan 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duel with Aaron Burr 

message: I regret to see that my post here on Nevis did not register. I continue, however, to deprecate Shoreranger's insistence on saying that Hamilton "immigrated" to North America. 
*Nevis is in the Lesser Antilles; it is perverse to call it North America; it may well be closer to South America. 
*Hamilton did not "immigrate"; Nevis was a British colony, just like New Jersey. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not English. North America begins by defining ts subject as a "continent", which means a continuous body of land before it means anything else. The Lesser Antilles are not even on the North American Plate.   The Straits of Cuba are 90 miles wide. As for "immigration", Shoreranger's understanding is both wrong, and insofar as it will suggest that the Thirteen Colonies had an INS to guard against entry from Nevis or Jamaica, very seriously mioleading. Reverting on both grounds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And Nevis, unlike Long Island or Greenland, is not part of the North American Plate; see Caribbean Plate. (I hope Shoreranger is not extending these innovations to Greenland, btw.; saying that Nevis is North America is merely silly; saying Greenland is can be offensive.)  Since Hamilton is neither a tribe nor a bird, he didn't "migrate" either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for another demonstration why Wikipedia should not be used as a reference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No thank you for adding your unsupported falsehoods to Wikipedia. Alexander Hamilton never had an anti-slavery policy for the United States;  he prefered the Union, and supported a gag rule in Congress as the necessary price for preserving South Carolina to the Union (and the Federalist Party, which he did not distinguish from the Union).  Try reading this article before you edit it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nevis

message: So, according to the recent edit, the sentence structure implies that Hamilton personally, himself, alone had a special relationship with the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  I do not think that Hamilton constituted a nation unto himself.Shoreranger 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he did have a foreign policy of his own; but including the Hammond affair in full detail is not what I want to do today. I have inserted a clarification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Special Relationship"

message: "Lie" is a strong word and, when used in the context of anonimity on Wiki, its use as an accusation in edit comments amounts to cowardice in my opinion.  I will not be goaded into sinking to similar depths, but I do recommend that such freely made accusations be avoided and that some Wiki administrator take notice of it when it occurs.  I don't have the time to engage in petty squabbles.Shoreranger 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attacks on Wiki contributors

message: The depiction of the duel is also inaccurate in that it places the shooters to close to each other.  Each walked ten paces-at least three feet from center-which would make a distance of at least 60 feet between them, something not accurately depicted in the illustation, meaning they would have been at least twice as far apart.Tom Cod 05:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Depiction of Duel Inaccurate

message: I found no explicit mention of Hamilton's offspring.  He apparently had 10 children!  I should think that would merit some mention!  I will add something just to remedy that.  Bigmac31 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was married for twenty-four years in a pretechnological age, and his wife loved him deeply. What's the surprise? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only surprise was that there was no mention of it at the time I wrote that, not that he had 10 children. Although in any age that is an impressive number of offspring, IMO. Bigmac31 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamilton's children 

message: 20-March-2007 (revised 20Mar07): The article ("Alexander Hamilton") is not presentedly protected from unregistered edits, so verification of tampered details can be an issue.  Basic sanity-check facts:
: Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755/1757–July 12, 1804) was an Army officer, lawyer, Founding Father, American politician, leading statesman, financier and political theorist. One of America's foremost constitutional lawyers, he was a leader in calling the U.S. Constitutional Convention in 1787; he was one of the two leading authors of the Federalist Papers, the most important interpretation of the United States Constitution.
: Hamilton created the Federalist party, the first American political party, built up using Treasury department patronage, networks of elite leaders, and aggressive newspaper editors which he subsidized both through Treasury patronage and loans from his own pocket. Hamilton had 10 children.  Aaron Burr shot him in the lower abdomen during the duel on July 11, 1804, and Hamilton died the next day.
Other critical dates/facts should be added briefly above for fact verification, when fixing any future flurry of vandalism reverts.  -Wikid77 10:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification

message: hi does any body know where to find a full body portrait of alexander hamilton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.254.226.232 (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hi does any body know where to find a full body portrait of alexander hamilton 

message: According the the PBS program American Experience, Hamilton was born in 1755. GoodDay 22:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately that isn't definitive. <B> ·:·</B> Will Beback  ·:·  23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1755 or 1757

message: The obvious reference here seems to be  Was Alexander Hamilton a Christian Statesman? by Douglass Adair; Marvin Harvey. The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., Vol. 12, No. 2, Alexander Hamilton: 1755-1804. (Apr., 1955), pp. 308-329. 
JSTOR URL, which argues that in early life he was an orthodox and conventional (but not deeply pious) Presbyterian - or else Knox and Livingston would hardly have sponsored him; from 1777 to 1792, he was completely indifferent, and made jokes about God at the Convention; during the French Revolution, he had an "opportunistic religiosity" using Christianity for political ends, during the Reynolds affair amounting to self-righteous blasphemy. After his misfortunes of 1801, he indeed converted; he did not join any denomination, but led his family in the Episcopal service the Sunday before the duel. Afterwards he requested communion first from Benjamin Moore, the Episcopal Bishop of New York, who declined because he was a duelist, and then from John Mason, a Presbyterian, who declined because Presbyterians did not reserve the Sacrament. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hamilton's religion

message: Why is Hamilton's Jewish heritage (through his mother) not mentioned in this article?  --172.168.94.248 06:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The conjecture that his mother's husband was Jewish (by descent; they were joined in Christian wedlock) is mentioned. His mother, a Fawcett, was certainly not Jewish, and her husband was certainly not Hamilton's father. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I am not saying that Hamilton's mother's husband was Jewish, I am saying that Hamilton's actual mother was a Jew or of partial Jewish descent. --172.145.73.61 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of no evidence for this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamilton's Jewish heritage 

message: Is it really necessary to suggest that Hamilton won the Revolution singlehanded? The war continued for a year and a half after Yorktown, and the British were perfectly capable of another expedition - and Washington guarded against such attempts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not the last significant battle; merely the last significant battle on the North American continent. The article on the War is remiss in omitting the Battle of the Saints. The British retained more than enough force for another try - if they had chosen to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yorktown

message: "Ron Chernow has argued that Hamilton's father was a Nevis merchant named Stephens whose legitimate son continued to sponsor Hamilton in later life, unlike Hamilton, or his legitimate son, Peter."  Shoreranger 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this sentence mean?

message: : were published in newspapers throughout the states and were influential in New York, and others, during the debates over ratification.
This makes two assertions: 
*that the Federalist was reprinted in all the states
**I would regard it as within poetic license to exclude, say, Delaware; but this doesn't say so.
*That this was done curing the debates on ratification.
Shoreranger's source says "They were reprinted in other newspapers in New York state and in several cities in other states". This is much  less than the first, and doesn't assert the second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Federalist Papers

message: Hello. I am trying to work on an article on William S. Hamilton. This article states that he "claimed" to be Alexander's son later in life, I see this is sourced to a 2004 biography. Every single source I have come across, from the 19th century to modern day peer reviewed articles imply that he was his son, does anyone have any additional sources or pointers that might provide some additional clarification? IvoShandor 09:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Okay, that's been my general assessment with a lot of popular biographers of many important historical figures. I am still piecing together information and such for the article but he's next on my list as far as figures related to the Black Hawk War go, which has been a focus of mine of late. Once I complete the article, I will see where the paternity situation stands regarding sources and such and then add whatever is relevant here. We can look at the sources individually, but it seems there are alot that assert the fact that Alexander was his father. IvoShandor 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *So far I have found two books published in the 1880s that assert it to be true, or seem to take for granted the fact that it is, one is by a David W. Lusk, Politics and Politicians: A Succinct History of the Politics of Illinois (Google Books), two is by Parker McCobb Reed, The Bench and Bar of Wisconsin: History and Biography, with Portrait Illustrations (Google Books). This one here from a 1957 issue of the Wisconsin Magazine of History includes a letter from Theodore Rodolf which includes the statement that he met Hamilton's mother in 1841 in New York City, calling her "Alex Hamilton's widow." Apparently Rodolf was a one time political opponent of William S. Hamilton. This is what I have found thus far, I am still pouring over some other stuff via JSTOR and some other databases, I will keep you updated here. Let me know how you think those should be interpretted. IvoShandor 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Hmm, I can't imagine why it'd be in a Wisconsin publication if it was a different William. That article also describes him as "swarthy" but doesn't exactly come out and say mulatto. I suppose it could be a different person. IvoShandor 19:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: **No, all three of your sources appear to be the same person; but is he the William mentioned here? There was also a William S. Hamilton of Louisiana, here. Also a correspondent of the President of Princeton in 1808, who is certainly not the Midwesterner. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: ** British Apologetics in Evangelical Garb: Samuel Stanhope Smith's "Lectures on the Evidences of the Christian Religion" by M. L. Bradbury; Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 5, No. 2, Religion in the Early Republic. (Summer, 1985), pp. 177-195. JSTOR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I just assumed there would be only one William Hamilton that was claimed to be Alexander Hamilton's son. The one I want to write about is William Stephen Hamilton, who sources claim is Alexander's son. Some historical census records may help. IvoShandor 23:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think there is more than one William Hamilton laying claim to the title of Alexander's son? Another source that I have from 2006, (Google Books) says my William S. Hamilton was Alexander Hamilton's youngest son. IvoShandor 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that; after his son Phillip was killed in a duel in 1801, there was another son Philip, born 1802. Since your new source suggests William was born in 1802, I smell a Duke of Bilgewater.  But I'll go look up Alexander's children.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not the youngest, the next to youngest son, born August 4, 1797. Hendrickson, Rise and Fall of Alexander Hamilton, p. 188, lists Alexander's nine children: The youngest was the second Philip, born 1802, six months after the death of his oldest son (there was also a daughter b. 1799). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *The abolitionist, William Hamilton, made speeches in New York in 1809 and 1827. Definitely a different man; and he does not appear to have used an initial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *So W.H. is not a son? Am I clear on this? Rise and Fall, this book confirms that William Hamilton was not a son of Alexander? IvoShandor 15:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: **There are two men involved. William S. Hamilton, who went to Illinois, is Alexander's son; but not his youngest son (it is possible he outlived his younger brother, but not by 1832). William Hamilton was black, and stayed in New York. He claimed to be Alexander's illegitimate son; whether this is correct is disputed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably Chernow, or Littlefield if you can find it. But it may be simplest to cite the birthdate and paternity from Hendrickson, above; and link to the dab page William Hamilton. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnote was misplaced; Chernow does not mention William Hamilton, just Eliza. I'll find a substitute.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: William S. Hamilton

message: The following was added twice, unsourced to the article, by User:MAtchley911. I am moving it here.
Historians have speculated for decades about Hamilton's mental state at the time of the duel. A growing number have speculated that it was actually Hamilton, not Burr who in fact pursued the duel.      With Hamilton going as far to make accusations of a possible sexual relationship with his daughter Theodosia Burr, something Hamilton knew tho be ludicrous, but cruel enough in nature as to demand Burr's attention.  As the theory goes by 1804, Hamilton was semi-suicidal.  He was no longer the once authoritative power-broker of the previous decades, he was also encountering various financial difficulties that left him teetering towards bankruptcy, as well as emotional trouble with his mentally unbalanced daughter, and most compelling; his eldest son Phillip, had been killed in a duel with a prominent Democrat-Republican named George I. Eacker, after the two had engaged in a bitter quarrel at Park Theatre only three years before. IvoShandor 23:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced addition

message: It simply is not accurate to say Hamilton was a member of the 'Newburgh Conspiracy'.  I have read a fair amount of secondary and primary bios and other books on this.  No Hamiltonian or Revolutionary War scholar would say that Hamilton took part in "a number of Continental officers plotted to mutiny and march on Congress to set up a stronger government". The pages that you refer me to in the Chernow bio (yes I have read them--have you?) do deal with the discontent of unpaid soldiers and officers, as do many other biographies.  The Chernow bio also states in several ways that Hamilton mediated the dispute and get the long unpaid soldiers some measure of the compensation they were promised.  Hamilton and was in fact on a commission that heard the Newburgh soldiers' grievances. He also corresponded with Washington on the subject.  In his correspondence with Washington--as all of these bios note--Hamilton points out that he certainly did NOT want armed overthrow of the government.  What Chernow's bio, other bios, and the actual primary sources all bear out was that Hamilton counseled Washington do let Congress be a little bit afraid that those officers were willing to march on Congress if they were not paid as a BLUFF.  Washington did not support this.
Accusing a Founding Father of trying to overthrow the government in a coup against all available credible historical info is something that deserves to be removed.  It is demonstrably false. It is NOT censorship.  Please don't start an edit war. I just want this article to be properly sourced.  All major sources secondary and primary bear out what I have just said.
GoldenMean 19:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such touching faith. He planned to march on Philadelphia after victory in 1798, as Morrison and Commager say. In your reading (did you really read all of the couple dozen volumes cited as references?), did you include that?  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newburgh Conspiracy 

message: The claim that Hamilton's reputation was obscured in the nineteenth century is very longstanding in the article, but I'm not convinced. Whigs and their heirs continued to praise him; most of the reason he seems unmentioned is that the only Whig we read is Lincoln. While I'm about it, I removed the claim that Lodge and Roosevelt were opponents; they were allies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hamilton's reputation

message: William S. Hamilton has been created, following the discussion on this page. Any additional input from anyone would be appreciated. It is still a work in progress (pretty rough, needs copy edit and expansion etc etc, so be nice). I added a sentence to the page here about him in the "Family life" section. I didn't add a footnote or anything since the article on William is pretty well referenced. If you want a note, you can steal one from the William S. article or just use the Hendrickson book. IvoShandor 07:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: William S. redux

message: Could anyone confirm if this edit is vandalism? Thanks. Aowpr 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a recurrent problem: is Jay one of the chief authors of the Federalist Papers when he wrote only six of them? "Two" is probably better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandalism. 

message: The following passage: he raised his own artillery company of sixty men in 1776, a company which is the only unit from the Revolutionary War still in service with the American Army. Drilling them, selecting and purchasing their uniforms with funds he helped raise, and winning their loyalty, they chose the young man as their captain seems unnecessarily fulsome, and the claim that it is the only Revolutionary unit still serving (a NY artillery company?) is unsourced, and has been tagged since May. I have trimmed; if someone can source the claim, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Artillery company

message: From the first paragraph - "he was and is widely acknowledged to be the sexiest of the Founding Fathers" - this article is about making a hero. Heroes belong in mythology, not history.  --Kjb (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heroes