Talk:Alexander Hamilton/Archive 1

message: This article was originally written to prove that Hamilton belongs on Mount Rushmore (see comments immediately after this), and it is still a panegyric. Only the Reynolds affair, of Hamilton's several scandals, is even mentioned. The article is also unverifiable, since where each claim is sourced is not mentioned.
Go to the bottom of the Talk:George Washington page and see the ranks for honored Americans. Does Hamilton have a rank anywhere from 20 to 60?? 66.245.115.51 00:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexander Hamilton removed from [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]

message: "Inventing a Nation" by Gore Vidal repeatedly refers to Hamilton as "British Agent Number 7" and talks repeatedly about him passing significant information to the British during early Presidential administrations.  I find the book hard to read and without citations, but a quick scan of the web finds me claims like "Hamilton's diaries were unearthed sometime in the last 20 years and show that he was a paid agent of the British while serving as the US Secretary of the Treasury." and "Hamilton gossiped freely with Beckwith and George Hammond, the first British minister to the United States."  I'd like to know more, and either way the web hits suggest if this is false it would be good to mention to debunk.
This stuff is like the diaries of Adolf Hitler that made so much press but turned out to be forgeries.  That is my opinion of Mr. Vidal's work based on my historic and political science background.  Of course other's disagree, which is why I do not contest the inclusion or allusion to it here on the page at the moment. What can I say?  Hamilton is not here to defend himself and has been under attack by the same forces who represented the same opinion at his time namely: free-trade and laizzee faire(sic) advocates who dominate economic opinion today. --Northmeister 20:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamilton a spy? 

message: I linked the words "Revenue Marine force" to the "Revenue Cutter Service" article. Should the word "force" be capitalized? --NoPetrol 00:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization question 

message: I removed the following sentence: "General James Wilkinson had also approached Hamilton repeatedly with plans for filibuster expeditions along the Spanish frontier." If it's to be mentioned it needs some context. It was previously tacked on to the end of the section on Aaron Burr, and was a glaring non-sequitur. I encourage anyone to expand and re-insert it in an appropriate section. -R. fiend 17:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed sentence

message: While Hamilton did write up reports, did he really argue them personally before Congress? I have heard Chief Justice William Rehnquist say on C-SPAN that Hamilton was not allowed to argue before Congress, and that this set a precedent that made the American government system significantly different in style from the British system, where cabinet members make speeches before the legislature (e.g., some time ago, then National Security advisor Condolezza Rice nearly refused to testify when called before a Congressional subcommittee inquiry into the September 11th attacks). Also, I've read in the biography by John C. Miller "Portait In Paradox" that at least in the case of his Report on the Public Credit that Hamilton was not allowed to argue his report -- the report was read to Congress instead. The book also says that this established a precedent for future American governments. 
I do not know if Hamilton --never-- argued personally before Congress, but perhaps the part that mentions his personal presence on this page could be removed -- it should be sufficient just to say that his reports were magnificent and had tremendous influence, and avoid the question of his personal presence.
Both Hamilton and Jefferson influenced Congress indirectly.  Washington let his cabinet do this as a rule and did not originally call them together as a Group.  Incidently, it was Madison who coined the phrase "Cabinet".  --Northmeister 00:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguing before Congress 

message: This topic has been severely redacted non-neutral editors. There is a current debate over whether Hamilton should be removed from currency for his Federalist beliefs. There is a high profile movement that is attempting to replace Hamilton with Reagan.
As a side note to this issue overall:  Though I admire Reagan for his: patriotism, saving Chrysler-Craftsman-Harley/Davdison etc, having the courage to go against free-trade zealot's in his administration-placing quotas on Japanese cars etc., and for helping us to win the Cold War including proposing the still needed SDI; he does not compare to Hamilton who was instrumental in getting the Constitution passed in New York, was a member of the Constitutional Convention, had served with distinction in the Revolution and helped establish the American System philosophy that built this country into the Arsenal of Democracy capable of defeating the Central Powers in WWI and the Imperial Japanese, Fascist Italy, and Nazis Germany in WWII. Thank God we listened to him and the voices of men like Clay, Lincoln, McKinley and so on to become an great Industrial power with the highest standard of living by 1900 of anywhere in the world.  Hamilton belongs on Mount Rushmore in my opinion for the work he did to make America the great Middle Class country it became and that is now under attack by the same forces or advocates that opposed him way back when. --Northmeister 20:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamilton on Currency 

message: It seems to me poor Hamilton's article is being redacted to a stub, often for modern political reasons. There is so much public domain material available on his life that it is a shame to see the state of this now. Is anyone else in favor of incorporating public domain material to flesh this article out?
I suppose I am making of mess of it as I hesitate to remove the content of others. Maybe we need a Federal system here with checks and balances to reign in the anarchy.
I do think Hamilton's role as chief advisor to Washington during the Revolutionary War should be mentioned since this had a huge effect on the War. Also, Hamilton's command of French made him a chief liason to the French, who in the Revolutionary War were America's chief ally. Really important things are missing.
:Yes, it doesn't mention his revealing cabinet secrets to a hostile ambassador before Jay's trip to England either. Samuel Flagg Bemis:Jay's Treaty was published in 1923, so I think he falls just into the modern copyright limit, but it can be summarized. Septentrionalis 18:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor Hamilton's conduct in the election of 1800, in which he attempted dirty tricks against both candidates. Septentrionalis 21:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include content from 1911 EB and Making of America? 

message: is it just me, or is this page rather highly vandalized?--Alhutch 20:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have added it to Wikipedia:Most_vandalized_pages#History. --Aude 21:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm beginning to think that vandalism on Wikipedia is correlated to junior high school syllabuses. -Willmcw 23:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely would not dispute that.--Alhutch 23:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: This article is about Hamilton and his 1790s conservative policies.  It is not about what policies some conservatives may want to follow today, and the latter POV does not belong.  Bush, by the way, also seems to favor a very strong national economic policy & and national defense in a Hamiltonian way, so to say that ALL conservatives reject Hamiltonian strong national govt in 2005 is simply false. Rjensen 06:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  avoid POV about 21st century conservatism 

message: An editor removed the Quote section from the article, saying they were not Wiki referenced.  Fair enough.  It would be nice, however,if someone with access to the facts could look up the quotes and properly reference/footnote them (and maybe add more if more are found that portray Hamilton's thinking).  The removed quotes follow.  Thanks Hmains 01:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of all quotes 

message: The edition to this page about the Jay Treaty and Hamilton's warning the British about what the American delegations were going to do, smacks of a smear towards Hamilton, relating to a British diplomats personal diary without any other credible evidence to back it up from other sources, including inclusion in most biographies of Hamilton.  That said, the edit did contain a reference (although I haven't read this author as yet), so MY BAD in taking it out. --Northmeister 16:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jay's Treaty Edits

message: Having a category for being shot by a vice president is useless categorization, I removed it. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but the appropriate place to voice that is on the CFD vote of the category. If the category is kept, it should be comprehensive. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that decisions about what categories should appear on this article can be made quite adequately on this article's talk page. CFD is only about whether the category should be kept. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Do you deny that Hamilton was shot by standing VP Burr? Septentrionalis 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *But thanks for discussing it. Septentrionalis 19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Of course not. But I'm also not suggesting that the article deny that fact. The information this category conveys is better provided by adding a link to Whittington in the prose of this article, if it's mentioned at all (when in reality the totally trivial connection between them is probably not worth mention in the context of a 32-kb article about Hamilton). Christopher Parham (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Link to deletion page :Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents --Hansnesse 21:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, I don't really see why that's the case. Whether we have the category, and whether this article is included in the category, are two separate questions. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I am not sure what your arguement is then for removing it, if it is not a general concern that the category is useless (from your first note at the top of this page, an assessment which I agree by the way).  To me, if the category is there by consensus (which will be determined soon), then is clearly should be linked to from this article.  Simply because the Hamilton meets the definition of the category, he should be included.  --Hansnesse 23:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The category shouldn't be on this article because it is useless. The result of the  CFD discussion won't change the fact that it's useless, and even if the category is kept it doesn't prevent me from editing this page to remove a useless category. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If the intention is to link Hamilton to the single other article in the category, we might as well put in a link directly to Whittington -- save the user clicks in getting there. And CFD can look after itself; arguments that we need to tailor our encyclopedia editing in order to protect the quality of our deletion vote are likely to fall on deaf ears, at least in my case. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone else has removed the category from this page.  This is a silly thing to edit war over, so I will not revert the change.  I do find it peculiar, however, that some feel that this category is so damaging to this article that it can't simply stay until the Cfd debate is over.  How is it damaging the article so badly that possible prejudice to the Cfd vote can be dismissed out of hand?  It looks like it will be deleted anyway (though perhaps there are enough keep votes for a "no consensus" conclusion), so this whole discussion might be moot. - Jersyko·talk 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many users find a link by cat easier and more intuitive than a link at the bottom under See also; many feel the reverse. Cats are largely designed for the first reader, who should not be ignored. Jersyko, I'm not sure this form of mild vandalism should be ignored.  Septentrionalis 03:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It has been improperly speedied by MarkSweep, which has the advantage that the common property can be expressed in a less ungainly form. Would there be objection to , which would specify that it does not include shootings in the line of duty? Septentrionalis 02:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would object to such a category. And not just because it makes it sound like the officials may have been acting in, well, official capacity, or at least that's an invited inference. It simply makes no sense to have a category for "shot" or "shooter", since the parties may have been consenting participants in a duel, victims or perpetrators of murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, assault, etc. This is just not a natural category. Its boundaries are ill-defined and we will see constant debates about category membership. Not worth it for something that's of little encyclopedic value. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So waht is the opinion of those who actually edit the article? Septentrionalis 04:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument for keeping the category (I voted weak keep in the recent Cfd) is posted a few paragraphs up.  Wasn't the result of the Cfd vote "no consensus"???  Why was it speedied, with the only speedy criterion cited being WP:SNOW (which isn't even a policy, much less a speedy criterion)? - Jersyko·talk 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: Source needed for sentence "Eliza's sister..." added by anonymous user for clarity of that sentence to put it into context. --Northmeister 19:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to Chernow, pg. 133 - what is the exact quote you are using in context?  The sentence as it is set is not only non-notable for inclusion but out of context for the way it is presented.  Exact quote?  Just to add, the main point I am making is that whether Hamilton fell for Eliza's sister or not is non-notable for this article and should not be there as it is misleading. --Northmeister 20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me see; you have a page  citation from a source which is outrageously biased towards Hamilton, and is testifying against that bias. You reject the claim so sourced. This passes beyond the defensible. Septentrionalis 18:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  Don't put dispute tags on sourced material well established to make a point. I am reasonable, show me how the quote about the sister matters or is notable and I will listen to your argument? --Northmeister 18:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A reference to "Batra and Lind", with no title or page number, and  otherwise unidenrified, is not a source. Using a single (and, if it  supports the text, polemical) source on an extensive and controversial topic is unbalanced. Including 21-century economic arguments in this article is deprecated; and reverting my first edit, identifying Hammond properly, was careless and irresponsible. Septentrionalis 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to clean up the argument regarding his legacy. The previous text wildly exaggerated his influence. Rjensen 22:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source needed

message: Pmanderson, you've once again removed material without warrant, that was sourced well. STOP! --Northmeister 22:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On this matter, I agree with Rjensen, as follows. Septentrionalis 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Lind is a source but not a very solid one. He's a popular writer--not a scholar or historian--and his ideas have not been widely accepted by scholars. This is an encyclopedia that is based on consensus scholarship. Lind is mostly interested in "Hamiltonianism" that is, ideas of OTHER people that were somewhat similar to Hamilton--but not actually Hamilton's. That is interesting material but does not belong in a biography.Rjensen 22:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lind is published credible source. Not widely accepted by scholars, on Hamilton? How so? Lind, is speaking of those who took up Hamilton's ideas. The section in the biography speaks of Hamilton's influence on the United States economy.  Lind is not the only author who has spoken of this influence. Are you denying Hamilton's influence?  By not mentioning this, or deleting it, you are basically saying he had no influence. Further, if you feel I am to POV, then let me know where, and offer improvements to my text, not wholesale deletion. YOu know I am willing to work to improve any POV I've let creep into my edits. Work with me. --Northmeister 23:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Lind is NOT well-sourced. He's a popular polemical writer, not a historical scholar. His ideas are offbeat and exaggerated and not part of the consensus. Please read some serious books before editing the history of ideas.  (Lind has books out on Vietnam, Bush (a nasty attack), Lincoln, the Alamo, the living wage, and predictions for the future. Wiki has to do better--start with the bibliography. For history of economic ideas, Dorfman's 5 volumes explain Hamilton's influence in great detail. Lind never even read it. Rjensen 23:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be condescending. You should start with actual history.  Lind, is a credible source - by wiki standards. --Northmeister 23:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki has higher standards. The point is that other historians do not buy his off-beat ideas--which rely on sweeping generalizations that he made up himself, and there is no reason for Wiki to promote them when there are so many good scholars out there. Rjensen 23:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read his "Hamilton's Republic" and I didn't find it either off-beat, but rather well sourced, accurate, and containing passages from the actual authors themselves. You are skirting the issue about Hamilton. What I wrote is accurate, not only by Lind (I admit I rushed the sourcing, but if you want more I will surely provide it) but by others. You are essentially in whole-sale denial of Hamilton's importance to American economic history. I may have written to POV, that I admit, if you think so, and I approve of any efforts to improve my editing or to challenge what I put in.  They way it was done with complete deletion was un-called for.  I am not doing anything more today, but I will not let this go. If it is sources you wish, you'll get them, even though if your familar with US history and economics at all, you should know better than to challenge this influence. So be it. --Northmeister 23:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What was Hamilton's influence. That's an interesting question but Lind is not the patient scholar who can tell us. His "book" consists of excerpts from politicians with a running commentary and little or no regard for the large scholarly literature.  Lind could care less about scholarship--he writes polemics full of exaggerations. What was H's influence on Clay and Calhoun? Lind gets Clay wrong and misses Calhoun. Lind misses Gallatin and the debate over the Bank in 1816. He misses Hammond's great book on banks and politics. What was H's influence on Hamilton and the Civil War era? Lind invents an influence where it did not exist. He does that by talking about Hamilton-like ("Hamiltonian") ideas that in fact did not represent an influence by Hamilton himself. Lind picks up (from Huntington) the point that AH was influential on Croly, Roosevelt and Lodge, but misreads the Progressives policy. For example Lind misses Hamilton's influence on banking history, and wants instead to talk about tariffs, a much less important issue in economic history. All in all, he does a mediocre/poor job. Rjensen 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with some your commentary above. Though, you are right Lind speaks of the Hamiltonian influence based on Hamilton's economic philosophy.  To completely discredit Lind, is wrong in my opinion and is based on your POV on economic history. Your statement about tariffs is absolutely misleading and wrong per economic history, especially of the USA.  What we are speaking of is Hamilton's influence per banking, per tariff's, per subsidies etc. The three Reports of Hamilton had a major impact US economic thinking - more so than Smith's Wealth of Nations. To deny Hamilton's place in the economic history of the USA is intellectual madness. --Northmeister 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of well sourced material from several authors

message: The top of this page shows that this article was rejected as a Featured Article candidate, by Peer Review, and as a Good Article. The reasons are largely the same: this is a piece of advocacy of Hamilton. (It is also riddled with non-consensus and off-topic claims about twentieth and twenty-first century economics, but that is a separate problem.) 
One of the things that prevents the improvement of this article is the systematic reversion of any and all material critical of Hamilton. It is not the business of Wikipedia to make nominations for Mount Rushmore. A list of these efforts, past, present, and to come, should be kept here. 
Angelica Church is not the most serious of these; but that makes the situation even more serious. Septentrionalis 14:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias and suppression

message: If this continues, I will raise the question of whether this unencyclopedic article is in fact any improvement over starting over. 
*Suppression of the full discussion of Negro equality in his letter to Jay about Laurens' project. 16:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is to be done?

message: Can you please provide references concerning Alexander Hamilton being persecuted by James Madison? James Madison was a Federalist. He was a proponent of strong federal govenment. Please don't confuse this whole issue with unsupported assertions. Thanks. Katy
::Madison was a close ally of Hamilton in 1787-88, but they broke and became political enemies in early 1790s. The story is covered by all bios and Sheehan, Colleen. "Madison V. Hamilton: The Battle Over Republicanism And The Role Of Public Opinion" American Political Science Review 2004 98(3): 405-424. Rjensen 10:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: James Madison

message: I have already discussed this in the sections immediately preceeding; but perhaps I should be more explicit. The following paragraph is one of the few genuinely sourced sections in  the article, and it represents the statements of Samuel Flagg Bemis, a Republican supporter of Hamilton, and a real historian, as accurately as I can in a few words. It was repeatedly deleted without discussion by an editor of whom I had previously had a favorable opinion.
:before John Jay was sent to England to negotiate Jay's Treaty, President Washington discussed with his cabinet whether it would be useful to join the Armed Neutrality against England if the United States could not get reasonable terms. They decided it was not; but to keep this secret. Hamilton revealed this information to George Hammond, the British Minister to the United States. (Jay in fact bluffed in London, threatening to join the Neutrality if the United States' terms were not met, but as the British knew he was bluffing, this tactic failed.). Bemis, Jay's Treaty. For Hamilton's "amazing revelation" to Hammond, see pp.26-8
Although every element of this is from Bemis, and repeated by later historians, I am not inflexible about the phrasing; if the deletion had been brought here and discussed, as a serious editor would have done, that would have been simple. 
The following recent  sentence also strikes me as simply bizarre;if it is intended to suggest the Federalists only struck back, it is false: 
Hamilton vehemently denied these charges; he made sure the Federalist newspapers were equally nasty in their attacks on the Jeffersonians.
Fenno was publishing, and publishing bile, before there were any Jeffersonian newspapers. . 
This article has always been a panegyric  and a whitewash; it failed FAC, PR, and GA for that reason.  If it is to be kept so, the least Wikipedia can do is admit it. These pervasive omissions, and assorted errors, should also be noted. 
However, I would rather clean up the article than mark it as one of the several examples where Wikipedia has failed to write decent political articles. 
Septentrionalis 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whitewash!

message: Rjensen must be quoting from memory; an always dubious practice. What Chernow actually says about Hamilton's activities at the Manumission Society is as follows, by page:
*The society was formed Jan. 25, 1785, by nineteen men, of whom Hamilton was not one. He attended the expanded second meeting. (214)
*Hamilton was one of the members of a committee (November 1785) that proposed that the society themselves gradually emancipate their slaves, mostly between seven and thirty-five years thereafter; Hamilton's share in the report is unclear, although Chernow does not let this stop him calling it Hamilton's. (The general meeting voted it down anyway.) 215
*He was elected to the standing committee to lobby for an end to the slave trade out of New York. This is the only mention of office within the Society. 215
*He signed the petition against the slave trade (March 1786). So did most of New York politics, including Federalists and anti-Federalists alike. 216
*He attended a meeting of the society in August 1787 and one in 1788. 239
*He was on retainer as lawyer for the society from 1788 until his death 239, 581
*He was mentioned by the Society as buying a slave for his sister-in-law. 581
Out of these slender materials, the text has erected the following: 
:He opposed slavery and as as secretary of the Society for the Promotion of the Manumission of Slaves was one of the three or fourn most prominent Founding Fathers in the abolitionist movement.
This comprises a partial truth and several falsehoods. He was not secretary. It is fairly clear that not all members of the Society were abolitionists, as opposed to meliorists. He was not third or fourth most prominent even in New York; Jay, Burr, Troup, and Smith were clearly before him, even by Chernow's account. There were strong and successful abolitionist movements in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, which included Franklin and Adams.Septentrionalis 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Chernow actually says

message: What does Horton's article actually say? The copy in my local research library has been stolen. Septentrionalis 20:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamilton  was among more than thirty New Yorkers who, in January 1785, formed the New-York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and Protecting Such of Them as Have Been,or May be Liberated. With John Jay as its president and Hamilton as secretary, this organization sought to end slavery ... and so on, about the activities of the Society. 
This is not an independent source, as its notes demonstrate. 
*It cites Brookhiser, p.176 (rectius 175-6)
**Brookhiser calls Hamilton "chairman of the Ways and Means Committee" which reported that the society should free their own slaves. This is the special committee of November 1785 above, which Chernow says not only had its report rejected, but was summarily dissolved.
***Chernow also mentions "ways and means", IIRC not capped.  
***Reading Brookhiser alone, the translation to "secretary", while unwarranted, would  not be unreasonable. 
*Brookhiser, like Horton, has missed Chernow's first meeting. This "founding" meeting is Chernow's second meeting, as the numbers in attendance show. Brookhiser is more precise, and says Hamilton + 31. Septentrionalis 23:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abolitionist?  I would say so -- Henry Ward Beecher did little more than speak at manumission society meetings for most of his career, and that was later in the day.  Prominent as an abolitionist?  That does not seem supported by Rjensen's own source.  The most prominent Founding Father to be an abolitionist?  I would certainly give priority to Benjamin Franklin, and I would hate to try to justify ranking Hamilton above Jay, or even Burr, in the era.  I'm not sure the assertion is worth the effort. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And whether or not we three editors would conclude so, most prominence is a novel synthesis. When I return to this shortly, I intend to insert the facts, and let the reader make his own judgment about prominence. That the New York Society was any more prominent than the Pennsylvanian is another matter which WP should not be deciding for the reader. Septentrionalis 21:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Horton

message: Madison said the people who took government paper during the war deserved 100% repayment, and people who later bought the paper at a discount (say 12%) should be repaid not 100% but the discounted price of 12c. Hamilton responded that it was fraud to repay your debts at 12 cents when you could pay 100%. Here's Madison's key letter: 
:Madison To Edmund Pendleton. NEW YORK, March 4, 1790. "The House of Representatives has been chiefly employed of late on the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury.... The plan which it proposes is in general well-digested, and illustrated and supported by very able reasoning. It has not, however, met with universal concurrence in every part. I have myself been of the number who could not suppress objections. I have not been able to persuade myself that the transactions between the United States and those whose services were most instrumental in saving their country did, in fact, extinguish the claims of the latter on the justice of the former; or that there must not be something radically wrong in suffering those who rendered a bona fide consideration to lose 7/8 of their dues, and those who have no particular merit towards their country to gain 7 or 8 times as much as they advanced. In pursuance of this view of the subject, a proposition was made for redressing, in some degree, the inequality. After much discussion, a large majority was in the negative."  Rjensen 22:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: James Madison and Thomas Jefferson strongly opposed Hamilton's financial plans, arguing that a bank was unconstitutional, that the original debt holders often sold their certificates and the new owners --who mostly lived in the North--did not deserve full payment.
*Well, I should not edit from memory either.
*Nevertheless, this is another exercise in selective quotation. 
**It dates from March 1790; and there was a period when everybody, including Jefferson, approved Hamilton's plans. Quotes from this honeymoon do not represent the grounds and nature of Madison's opposition, nor Jefferson's.
*I trust that when I return to this sentence, it will no longer suggest that only the Jeffersonians could be seen as acting in a sectional interest. 
*The artful phrasing, which glides over the fact that many of the beneficiaries of Hamilton's measures were oligarchs from Charleston, is unacceptable. Septentrionalis 20:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pmanderson does not like scholars (or Hamilton), but he is unable to cite any scholar supporting his extreme personal views. That's just POV and has no place in Wiki. Rjensen 21:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, my views are middle of the road; they have not changed much since I was a member of my college's conservative debating society. My view of Hamilton is this side idolatry, but this page has already stated his good points; somewhat to excess. The text on Madison's views was from memory; but everything said in this section of the talk page is from Morison and Commager, p. 286-296 (1967 edition). Septentrionalis 23:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the reference.  Mentioning it sooner might have avoided needless friction. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is massive documentation in articles and books by Horton, Litelfield, Kennedy and McDonals--all fully cited; Pmanderson has been erasing these and ridiculing abolitionists. Nasty to have to deal with proslavery editors in 2006. Rjensen 22:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do Wikipedians have to make such leaps of illogic?  The world is not divided into those who worship <fill in name of person> and those who hate <fill in name of person>.  Frankly, I am getting quite weary of people who cannot envision good-faith reasons for disagreement.  Do you have evidence that Septentionalis is actually in favor of any form of slavery, or are you just lashing out in frustration in response to his going over-the-top with "whitewash"?  On this page, he has argued that Hamilton was too wishy-washy to be termed an "abolitionist" -- hardly a pro-slavery stance.  As for your edits, Horton (the one source that is FUTON) does not support all of your glowing language, such as the comparison of Hamilton to other Founders.  I will reserve judgment until I get a chance to hit the library on the weekend of the 4th and check other sources.  (Appropriate timing, somehow.)  Robert A.West (Talk) 22:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hamilton was, Chernow writes, more fluent in French than Thomas Jefferson, the great Francophile. 
Charnow may well say this, sneer and all; but Wikipedia should not. Septentrionalis 00:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madison on debts 1790 

message: Substituted at 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment