Talk:Alexander Hamilton/Archive 2

message: Hamilton had an extraordinary relationship with John Laurens, whom he wrote that he loved. It has been suggested, by Jonathan Ned Katz and others, that this was a homoerotic relationship.  In any case, it bears mentioning here.  
To accuse one of our Founding Fathers of being a homosexual based on assumption routed in a phrase 'loved' is not enough to establish it as fact.  In fact, if you read the letters of our Founders, as I have to do my thesis in college, you would understand that the way men expressed themselves then (and woman for that matter) was quite different than our modern minds would perceive. --Northmeister 00:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actaully Hamilton asked Laurens to find him a wife: [Mitchell p 199]:
Hamilton had commissioned his friend John 
Laurens to get him a wife in South Carolina, and gave specifications of his requirements. ... "She must be young--handsome (I lay most stress upon a good shape) Sensible (a little learning will do)--well bred. . . chaste and tender (I am an enthusiast in my notions of fidelity and fondness) of some good nature--a great deal of generosity (she must neither love money nor scolding, for I dislike equally a termagant and an oeconomist)--In politics, I am indifferent what side she may be of--I think I have arguments that will safely convert her to mine--As to religion a moderate stock will satisfy me--She must believe in god and hate a saint. But as to fortune, the larger stock of that the better." 
  Rjensen 10:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good quote to indicate the times he lived. --Northmeister 18:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamilton used the o in oeconomist Rjensen 20:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Some biographers have suggested a relationship with Laurens, or with Lafayette, before Hamilton's marriage. Hamilton's reputation as a philanderer was almost entirely from some years after that, as far as we can tell.  They find the tone of the correspondence suggestive, even for the Age of Sentiment. I did not write it; but  the present phrasing does have one advantage: Unless "intimate" is taken in a prurient sense, the statement is indisputable: Hamilton and Laurens were intimates and friends. Septentrionalis 17:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with John Laurens 

message: I will add here: I pulled a random history of abolition off the shelf. Basker, ed. :Early American Abolitionists 1760-1820, which contains extensive historical reviews to set context. It mentions Franklin and Jay repeatedly; it mentions Hamilton three times:
*once to say that he, Madison, and Jay wrote the Federalist Papers.
*Twice in identifying Tench Coxe as Undersecretary of the Treasury. 
It doesn't mention his antislavery activity at all. Septentrionalis 19:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hamilton not mentioned

message: As a point of personal privilege, I would appreciate a retraction of the "pro-slavery" personal attack. Quoting Hamilton's views does not mean I approve them. Septentrionalis 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of personal privilege

message: Can anyone source the claim that "many" abolitionists owned slaves. Perhaps many abolitionists were former  slave owners, but it seems like the two are slightly incompatible. That would be like saying "like many vegetarians, he ate meat". savidan(talk) (e@) 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one counts the NYMS as abolitionist, see Chernow, p. 214ff. There was a proposal that they free their slaves, mostly some years in the future, and they voted it down and dissolved the proposing committee (of which Hamilton was a member). Septentrionalis 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: William Lloyd Garrison they were not; Hamilton used his position of Secretary of the Treasury to help track down one of Washington's runaways. (Wills, Negro President, p. 209). (She escaped, I'm glad to say.) Septentrionalis 21:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "like many abolitionists"

message: : He rejected the states-rights, localistic, agricultural orientation propounded by his arch-rival Thomas Jefferson.
I find this inadequate and less than accurate as a description of the difference between their policies; consider Jefferson and the rights of Massachusetts. Arch-rival is melodrama. If I find a better short summary, I will change this. Septentrionalis 21:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jefferson

message: This, however, is an incidental; it does not constitute my objection to the  article, or its tone.  My objections to content are the omissions of 
*The remainder of Hamilton's letter on Laurens' proposal, and the substitution of vague generalities for an actual discussion of what we know.
*Hamilton's projects for the army of 1798.
*The Hammond Affair.
*The gerrymandering of the New York elections of 1800. 
*I do not see any point that tells in Hamilton's favor which has been omitted. If we find one, it can be added. 
I also intend a general fact-checking, beginning with Morison and Commager. The tone has improved but needs work. Does  anyone has a preference which of these should be next? Septentrionalis 02:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: ::Let's give an example of incompetent scholarship that crept into the article. A 1952 article by Larson in William and Mary Quarterly discussed (p 147) whether young Hamilton in fact was given charge of business affairs when the owner (Cruger) was away. The evidence rested on a dozens of letters. Larson said the letters were "baffling" and noted that he was not a handwriting expert and could not verify they were by Hamilton, therefore "for the lack of convincing evidence" he decided they were not by Hamilton andtherefore Hamilton was not really in charge (p 148). .  Since then the experts at the Hamilton papers (Syrett et al see vol 1) confirmed the handwriting, as did Mitchell and most recently Chernow, who conducted extensive research in the West Indies. All biographers now agree that Hamilton did write the letters and that he was in charge of the business. All except one editor who still cites Larson's doubts  and wants Wiki to reflect discredited 1952 speculation. 
Rjensen 02:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the proper wiki process, at last: The statement was originally unsourced; I sourced it when I found it mentioned, and included the author's doubt; Rjensen has come up with better sources. I will check what these citations actually say, and amend accordingly. Septentrionalis 15:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Larsen

message: :Hamilton was a lifelong abolitionist, going on record at age 19 against slavery, even though (like other abolitionists) he owned household servants. He collaborated with Laurens on a proposal to and arm a regiment of blacks under Laurens' command, and emancipate them. Hamilton brought the proposal to Congress, but it was rejected by South Carolina officials.  He refuted arguments that blacks made incompetent soldiers and rejected the dominant racism of the era. He publicly denounced Americans who demanded freedom for themselves but refused to allow it for blacks: "Who talk most about liberty and equality?... Is it not those who hold the bill of rights in one hand and a whip for affrighted slaves in the other?"  quote from Hamilton letter of February 23, 1791; Horton; McDonald, p. 34; Flexner, p. 257-8 
:As Horton, a leading African American historian, observes, Hamilton was moving toward a vision of a multiracial society and matched his actions to his beliefs. In 1785 he helped organize the (New York) Society for Promoting Manumissions. John Jay was president and Hamilton was Secretary; he later became President. This was the second abolitionist society in the country.  It played the major role in abolishing slavery for the 9,000 black slaves in New York State in 1799. Hamilton, Jay and Burr — three of the most powerful men in New York City — organized boycotts to force businessmen and newspapers to end their connection with the international slave trade.  In court, Hamilton argued on behalf of dozens of runaway slaves in pro bono lawsuits. In international affairs Hamilton supported Toussaint L'Ouverture's black government in Haiti after he revolted and overthrew French control.  Horton; Kennedy 97-98  Flexner, p. 39; Littlefield.  
What Jensen's sources actually say:
*Horton:
*:Yet Hamilton did not call for removal of blacks emerging from slavery. He is traditionally credited with envisioning an industrialized, urbanized America, but we might consider that he may have also envisioned a multiracial America. Of all the differences between Hamilton and Jefferson, perhaps their assumptions about the racial future of America were most telling. For a man who had grown up in a black society in the West Indies, a multi-racial New York or a multiracial America was not unimaginable.
*::An argument from silence: Hamilton never said anything for the colonization of freedmen; therefore he might not have minded a multiracial society. A quite possible conjecture; but not what Jensen quotes Horton as saying. 
*McDonald;
*:Much of what he said about slavery at first was patriotic hyperbole, but beneath the talk about evil ministerial designs lay an intense hostility towards slavery in the more conventional sense. (No date is given.)
*::In short, Hamilton is "on the record" as opposing the British; but McDonald sees a deeper sense. 
*:::This appears to arise from a single short paragraph  in the Full Vindication (McDonald gives no examples) which criticizes slavery in a manner not uncommon in the middle 1770's: Slavery was condemned by almost all the leaders of the Revolution. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, slaveholders all, made statements supporting the principle of gradual abolition. (McManus 152). McDonald's view is described in the present text. Septentrionalis 15:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incompetence?

message: Alexander Hamilton to John Jay
14 Mar. 1779 (Papers 2:17--18) 
Col Laurens, who will have the honor of delivering you this letter, is on his way to South Carolina, on a project, which I think, in the present situation of affairs there, is a very good one and deserves every kind of support and encouragement. This is to raise two three or four batalions of negroes; with the assistance of the government of that state, by contributions from the owners in proportion to the number they possess. If you should think proper to enter upon the subject with him, he will give you a detail of his plan. He wishes to have it recommended by Congress to the state; and, as an inducement, that they would engage to take those batalions into Continental pay.
It appears to me, that an expedient of this kind, in the present state of Southern affairs, is the most rational, that can be adopted, and promises very important advantages. Indeed, I hardly see how a sufficient force can be collected in that quarter without it; and the enemy's operations there are growing infinitely serious and formidable. I have not the least doubt, that the negroes will make very excellent soldiers, with proper management; and I will venture to pronounce, that they cannot be put in better hands than those of Mr. Laurens. He has all the zeal, intelligence, enterprise, and every other qualification requisite to succeed in such an undertaking. It is a maxim with some great military judges, that with sensible officers soldiers can hardly be too stupid; and on this principle it is thought that the Russians would make the best troops in the world, if they were under other officers than their own. The King of Prussia is among the number who maintain this doctrine and has a very emphatical saying on the occasion, which I do not exactly recollect. I mention this, because I frequently hear it objected to the scheme of embodying negroes that they are too stupid to make soldiers. This is so far from appearing to me a valid objection that I think their want of cultivation (for their natural faculties are probably as good as ours) joined to that habit of subordination which they acquire from a life of servitude, will make them sooner bec[o]me soldiers than our White inhabitants. Let officers be men of sense and sentiment, and the nearer the soldiers approach to machines perhaps the better.
I foresee that this project will have to combat much opposition from prejudice and self-interest. The contempt we have been taught to entertain for the blacks, makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason nor experience; and an unwillingness to part with property of so valuable a kind will furnish a thousand arguments to show the impracticability or pernicious tendency of a scheme which requires such a sacrifice. But it should be considered, that if we do not make use of them in this way, the enemy probably will; and that the best way to counteract the temptations they will hold out will be to offer them ourselves. An essential part of the plan is to give them their freedom with their muskets. This will secure their fidelity, animate their courage, and I believe will have a good influence upon those who remain, by opening a door to their emancipation. This circumstance, I confess, has no small weight in inducing me to wish the success of the project; for the dictates of humanity and true policy equally interest me in favour of this unfortunate class of men. 
Horton is right; this is enlightened for 1779; if not quite politically correct now. So what is all this fuss about? Septentrionalis 00:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Hamilton actually said

message: Historians agree that Knox educated Hamilton: 
*Chernow p 35: Knox threw open his library to Hamilton, encouraged him to write, and prodeed him towards scholarship
* Mitchell: An immediate sympathy sprang up between them. Both had the taste for study and literature in a community more given to 
ledgers and litigation. Alexander's gifts were obviously to be his reliance, and probably from the first Knox was alert to contrive means of fulfilling the boy's ambitions. Plausibly, a further influence of Knox was on Hamilton's noticeable early piety We may think that Hugh Knox influenced Alexander to support the cause of the American colonies....The evidence points to Hugh Knox as proposer and organizer of the plan to send Alexander to America. Mitchell 1:33-34
* McDonald: "An immediate sympathy sprang up between them. Both had the taste for study and literature in a community more given to 
ledgers and litigation. Alexander's gifts were obviously to be 
his reliance, and probably from the first Knox was alert to con- 
trive means of fulfilling the boy's ambitions." p 33
* Miller p 6 " Hamilton's [hurricane] letter left no doubt that he had faithfully absorbed the religious instruction of his Presby
terian spiritual guide. "
*These are not independent: Chernow cites Mitchell; McDonald copies him. I will check whether he used quotation marks. Jensen's citation of McDonald is a slip of the editor. 
*More importantly, none of them them say, or mean,  "teaching". Miller concludes what is doubtless true, that Hamilton was a member of Knox's congregation. 
Please quote sources for statements they actually assert. Septentrionalis 15:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quibble quibble. Indeed it was Mitchell who wrote "An immediate sympathy sprang up between them. Both had the taste for study and literature in a community more given to ledgers and litigation. Alexander's gifts were obviously to be his reliance, and probably from the first Knox was alert to contrive means of fulfilling the boy's ambitions." p 33   Pmanderson seems to think teaching = sitting in a classroom. That is not how teaching works of course. It is the interaction of student and teacher that matters, and historians agree Knox had a major intellectual and moral influence. Rjensen 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who wish to publish conjectures should do so under their own names; Wikipedia should stick to the accurate, the consensus, and the verifiable; and it would be nice to keep to things for which there is actual evidence. Knox was his clergyman, his "friend and patron". To suggest, as Jensen has been trying to do, that Knox conveyed some esoteric doctrine, is to go beyond the evidence. Knox's sermons were neither abolitionist nor revolutionary; he specifically avoided discussing the powers of the temporal magistrate, even when drawing the parallel between him and the Christian householder. Septentrionalis 16:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Conjecture? Nonsense. Our job is to go with the scholars--Mitchell, Syrett, McDonald, Miller, Chernow. When they say XXX we report XXX and do not try to refute their conclusions, as Pmanderson repeatedly tries to do.  Thus to quote McDonald p 10 regarding Knox: "His influence upon Hamilton, during the few months he had him under his direct tutelage, was considerable, especially in focusing and reinforcing his moral sense. Knox inspired Hamilton with a religious piety that lasted for some time, impressed upon him the dangers of drinking to excess, and taught him to abhor slavery as the wellspring of many other evils. Most immediately important, however, was the orientation of  Knox's faction of the Kirk: in a manner of speaking, the fifteen-year‐old Hamilton fell in with a group of revolutionaries"   That's history, that's what we report. Rjensen 16:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If "tutelage" = "education", it's McDonald's conjecture.  It's unsupported by his (secondary) source, by argument, or by evidence.  It should be mentioned; but it should be given no more weight than a single evidence-free conjecture deserves. A special section on McDonald's Hamilton may be warranted, since it seems to differ from everyone else's; but if so, we should report what he said.  And its status as McDonald's opinion should be indicated. Septentrionalis 17:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Struck; the other paragraph appears to represent consensus of authorities. Septentrionalis 01:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes Knox taught Hamilton 

message: The incident in which Hamilton saved the Tory President of Columbia from a patriot mob by oratory is accepted by McDonald (p.14), Mitchell (I 75), Chernow (63), and Flexner (78).  Flexner even answers the objection that Cooper wrote a poem about the incident and didn't mention Hamilton. 
Yet Rjensen deleted this consensus statement If we are bound to follow the consensus of the authorities, why? 
I await an explanation, with interest.  Septentrionalis 21:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Myles Cooper

message: On the other hand, Jensen ignores the clear text of historians on a far more important issue: Mitchell distinguishes quite clearly between Hamilton's "ideal" government, the parliamentary monarchy, and his requirements for the "republican experiment". (Howe's paper addresses only the latter, and doesn't narrate the quarrel before 1792.) The present text of the intro is incompatible with this distinction. Septentrionalis 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Monarchy

message: I must congratulate Jensen on depending on Rob Weston's paper. The journal says that it was written by an undergraduate; and the paper argues, quite plausibly, that Hamilton was ambivalent about slavery. Citing for other views takes ingenuity. Septentrionalis 23:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Weston does have an excellent idea on how to express the several points of view involved here.Septentrionalis 23:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weston

message: Happy Hamilton's semi-birthday, everybody! Septentrionalis 21:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And on a lighter note

message: A fuller account would read: 
:New York, like other states, had its legislature choose its Electors for President, and the legislative election of April 1800 had been largely fought on the issue of whether Federalists or Democratic-Republicans would be chosen; and Aaron Burr won them, by letting the Federalists announce their candidates first. Few prominent Federalists chose to leave New York to spend three months in Albany, but Burr had arranged for the most eminent Jeffersonians to stand, including George Clinton and Horatio Gates. 
:In May, immediately after the election, Hamilton and his father-in-law wrote John Jay, who had left the Supreme Court to be Governor of New York, suggesting that the outgoing Federalist legislature be recalled, and pass a bill, dividing New York into districts to vote for Electors directly; he enclosed a map of the proposed  districts, five or six of which could be counted on to pick Federalist Electors; which might well be enough to decide the election for the Federalists. Jay endorsed Hamilton's letter: "Proposing a measure for party purposes, which it would not become me to adopt", and did not reply.
I think a shorter version will suffice. Septentrionalis 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Gerrymandering of New York

message: SB Johnny has made a proposal to settle the RfC related to this article at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Rjensen#Keep_it_here.... Septentrionalis 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in the RfC, I find Septentrionalis version strange and inaccurate. Rjensen's version should be restored.Ultramarine 02:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain your grounds; so far these edits look like an unjustified piece of meat-puppetry. Septentrionalis 12:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Rjensen and will take a look at related articles also.Ultramarine 15:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Ultramarine actually finds something to say about Alexander Hamilton, he is of course welcome to join the discussion. Septentrionalis 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen has stated the problems very well already.Ultramarine 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us be more precise. Do you agree with everything Rjensen has said? If not, what would you disagree with? What would you add? Septentrionalis 13:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related RfC

message: It would on the whole be helpful if Rjensen would consult the listed references for statements. McManus spends some time describing the British efforts to enourage slaves to run away from their masters and fight for the British on the promise of freedom; more than he does on the Continental enlistments. I don't see why Rjensen disbelieves this; the danger of their doing so is cited in Hamilton's letter. Furthermore, since the injury was to colonials and rebels out of the King's protection, the British had every reason to do so. (I have seen no source on what they did with runaway slaves belonging to Tories; presumably it depended on the political influence of the owner.) Septentrionalis 13:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Freeing slaves

message: Sergeant's plan made be found in full at Taylor:Adams Papers 4:454-5. It has large similsrities to Laurens':
*Sergeant wanted to enlist, arm, and free slaves.
*He asserted their equality with whites, when out of "their Condition as Slaves that stifles every noble Exertion."
*He answers objections, including ones Hamilton doesn't address:
**How do we compensate their masters? (take their price out of their pay).
**How do we trust slaves with weapons? (make sure they are outnumbered; once they're free, it won't be a problem.)
**What do we do with them afterward? (there's room on this continent for a free black settlement.)
*He wanted Congress to do this; that's why he sent it to Adams. 
**It was shot down because South Carolina would never go along (only faster).
Regards Septentrionalis 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some incidental notes