Misplaced Pages

Talk:Alexander Hamilton/Archive 4: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Alexander Hamilton Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:41, 26 June 2006 editRjensen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers227,551 edits coments on Hamilton's as abolitionist← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:53, 5 April 2023 edit undoGnomingstuff (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers48,617 edits rv 2008 vandalism to someone else's comment 
(435 intermediate revisions by 82 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Aan}}
----
{{DelistedGAbecause|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. }}{{facfailed}}
{{oldpeerreview}}
Go to the bottom of the ] page and see the ranks for honored Americans. Does Hamilton have a rank anywhere from 20 to 60?? ] 00:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


===Eventually===
Hamilton is America. He belongs more on Mount Rushmore than Roosevelt or Jefferson. People want to honor those who are excessively naive and can't accept a prophet.
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. ] 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:See ], 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. ] 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::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? ] 00:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:::The ] and the ''Dictionary of American English'', to start with; do you have a source which actually says otherwise, and if so, what is it? ] 07:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::::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. ] 02:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::The OED has a quite long entry on ''Democratic'', which cites both forms. Do try looking up a reference once in a while. ] <small>]</small> 22:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
==Federalist Papers==
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.] 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
: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 ], not here). ] 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
==1798==


:''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. 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.
Until ] set ] as pretty much the patron saint of the ], ] was considered as such. In fact his contributions to economics, especially the United States economy, affected the world eventually. Americans live in a Jeffersonian political system with a Hamilton economy. He might not have been one of the most honorable men, but he is extremely important, nonetheless.


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. ] 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
== Hamilton a spy? ==


== Original Research ==
"Inventing a Nation" by ] 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.


He admired the the success of the British system, ''and strongly denounced the ] first arising from the ], as Hamilton witnessed first hand how instrumental politically, financially, and militarily France had been in the United States securing independence through the ].''
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. --] 20:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


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 ]". ''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. ] 23:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
== Capitalization question ==


== Was Hamilton Eligible for Presidency? ==
I linked the words "Revenue Marine force" to the "Revenue Cutter Service" article. Should the word "force" be capitalized? --] 00:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


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);"
== The Faith-Based Encyclopedia ==


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.
You're on the news: http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html -- ] ] 05:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
:Yes and I added him as an explicit reference to that date. While some of his observations were correct, much of his analysis is misplaced. He is however likely to know what he is talking about in this instance. - ] 14:20, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


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."
::Being a former Editor in Chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica may have introduced a bit of bias in his selection and analysis as well. --] 22:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


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.
:::They're getting ''nervous'' about us. :) -- ] 22:49, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
::::Hate to be glib but the only innacuracy he could nitpick over was a fact no-one knows anyway --] 16:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::I dont think it matters how many perople know that fact, if we get it wrong, then it reflects badly on us, no matter how obscure a fact it is. ] 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::::::Err, the issue is that nobody knows what Hamilton's birth year is, so we ''weren't'' actually wrong... ] ] 07:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


(] 01:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC))
And why the hell is an article in a webzine critical of this very article cited here as a ''reference''? A reference to what? The uncertainty about the year of his birth? That's mentioned on hundred of other sites, and is well-documented. No need to cite this one story. I'm removing it (again). -] 22:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hamilton was born in the "west indies", so he wouldn't have been eligible to be president. Our first few presidents were all born in the colonies, just as prominent founders of the country did not run for president, because they couldn't. --] 23:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The author of that article says "Hamilton himself used, and most contemporary biographers prefer, the latter year" in giving his date of birth. Don't you suppose Hamilton knew how old he was? Why don't we go with what Hamilton said it was, and refer to the other in a footnote? ] 00:38, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


I originally came to post the same question (you beat me to it by about 6 months), I read that same passage in the Constitution today and wondered if Hamilton had been in America long enough to be a naturalized citizen. A solid answer would be greatly appreciated. --Interested High School student
:It still is not clear. Having looked through several Hamilton biographies today it appears that most of the more recent ones had 1755 as the year of birth. According to one biographer he gave contradictory accounts of his age at various points in his life: "He himself, mentioning his age in several connections (each time approxiamtely), in effect assigned different years for his birth". He cites a few statements he made, putting his year of birth between 1754 and 1757, including: "...in a communication to the Christiansted newspaper, April 6, 1771, signed 'A.H.', he gave his age as 'about seventeen' (that is, born 1754)" (Mitchell, p.12-13). So it isn't clear, and I think the way we have it is the best for now. -] 01:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


==Duel with Aaron Burr ==
According to the 1990s version of the encyclopedia Americana whiled Hamilton claimed to be born in 1757 most recent evidence suggests that he was born in 1755.--] 8 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)


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?! (] 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC))


Hello. I am a basic Misplaced Pages user and like to skip through the history pages. As such, I was astonished to find absolutely nothing in Hamilton's executive summary about the famous duel that took Hamilton's life. As a student of history and casual observer of other's historical awareness, I believe the duel to be not only one of the most important parts of Hamilton's life (for obvious reasons) but also the major fact about Hamilton that the widest segment of the world's population knows about or will be looking for at Misplaced Pages. It's as if I arrive at Lincoln's summarizing entry and not know whether or not he died a peaceful death of old age! Aaron Burr's entry surely mentions the fact that he killed Hamilton, so shouldn't Hamilton equally have at least one sentence in his opener mentioning the fact that he was violently killed with a handgun by the then Vice President of the United States???
==References==
Just my opinion. ] 05:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Were any of the biographies or other items listed at the end used as actual references for this article? If they were they should be properly formatted as such. If not, can someone get a hold of these or another authoritative source and fact check this article? The above webpage criticizes the facts and fact checking so far. - ] 14:20, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


I was going to complain about the duel being buried at the end of the article, but User:210.20.86.85 already commented above better than I could. So let me just second User:210.20.86.85's comments. --] 05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
:Well, the article really only attacked one ''factual'' problem (or rather factual controversy not mentioned: uncertainty of his year of birth, which I sort of addressed, but should probably be mentioned specifically (oh yeah, the years he was Sec. of Treasury too, I think; I didn't address that)), and was more of an attack on style and grammar. I did a pretty quick proofread and edit of the article, and there were some pretty egregious grammar, punctuation, captialization, and punctuation problems. Others should probably do the same; my repair was rather cursory. -] 16:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Removing the reference is irresponsible. The information is taken from that article, so leave it as a reference. I'm sorry I put it back in without looking here, but the removal of a valid reference is what should face the burden of proof, not its addition. - ] 17:35, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
:::An authoritative reference should be used, if one is used at all. Tech Central Station is a propaganda source, not a scholarly work. It should not be used as a citation, for any article, for any reason, just as one would not use a National Review or Mother Jones article as a citation.


==Nevis==
::::<s>Yes tech centeral may well be a load of bollocks, but it WAS this that told us we needed to put in 75, so it should be a reference. Now that in no way stops there being futher references to the same fact, but there is no escaping that that WAS the origanal source for reinserting the 75 date. ] 05:29, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)</s> i should have read futher thru the talk page before commenting ] 05:38, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
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.
*] is in the ]; 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. ] <small>]</small> 22:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


See ] for what is considered in or out.
==Removed sentence==
"Immigration", to my understanding, applies from one colonial possession to another, say from India to Canada. If so, then Nevis to New York is just as much so.
If it makes anyone feel better, change "immigrate" to "migrate", but Nevis is still in North America, "perverse" or not.] 04:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
:This is not English. ] 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 ]. 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. ] <small>]</small> 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Nevis is certainly "English" at the time. The point is to make differentiating "British North America" as specifically the 13 colonies, when Nevis was both a British colonial possession and also in North America. See ], specifically:
I removed the following sentence: "General ] had also approached Hamilton repeatedly with plans for ] 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. -] 17:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


"On August 30, 1620, James I of England asserted sovereignty over Nevis by giving a Royal Patent for colonisation to the Earl of Carlisle. However actual European settlement did not happen until 1628 when Anthony Hilton moved from nearby Saint Kitts following a murder plot against him. He was accompanied by 80 other settlers, soon to be boosted by a further 100 settlers from London who had originally hoped to settle Barbuda. Hilton became the first Governor of Nevis. After the 1671 peace treaty between Spain and England, Nevis became the seat of the British colony and the Admiralty Court sat in Nevis. Between 1675 and 1730, the island was the headquarter for the slave trade for the Leeward Islands, with approximately 6,000-7,000 enslaved West Africans passing through on route to other islands each year. The Royal African Company brought all its ships through Nevis."
== Birthyear question ==


There's some doubt as to Hamilton's birthyear (see ). Someone beat me to noting it by a minute or so, but it would be useful if someone could include a new section in the main page noting the sources of the two years.


Again, see ] -- I will save you the effort and quote the most pertinent section here:
The text "While the day and month of Hamilton's birth are known, there is some uncertainty as to the year, whether it be 1755 or 1757. Hamilton himself used, and most contemporary biographers prefer, the latter year." in the article was a direct copy and paste from the article at http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html. Fixed now.


"There are numerous islands off the continent’s coasts: principally, the Arctic Archipelago, the Greater and Lesser Antilles, the Alexander Archipelago, and the Aleutian Islands. Greenland, a Danish self-governing island and the world's largest, is on the same tectonic plate (the North American Plate) and is part of North America geographically. Bermuda is not part of the Americas, but is an oceanic island formed on the fissure of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The nearest landmass to it is Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and it is often thought of as part of North America, especially given its historical political and cultural ties to Virginia and other parts of the continent."
(Someone has reverted this change in wording, perhaps because it was overly verbose and not nearly as elegant as the sentence copied without permission from the critique article. The note still needs to be fixed, therefore.)


See ], since "immigration" seems to be too specific and requires nation-states and may not include migration from one colonial possession to another. No inference of an INS was reasonably infered or in the slightest bit intended.] 21:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
That same critique of Misplaced Pages points out this poor phrasing: "Arguably, he set the path for American economic and military greatness, though the benefits might be argued."
:did[REDACTED] just get pwnd? ] 15:24, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)


Removing revert on these grounds, with correction to "migrate".
:I wrote the original note about the years in question, using my own phrasing and using a separate source. I guess someone thought a word-for-word copy from the critique article was better, for some reason. I reverted it to my wording, which has the advantage of not having to site the mentioned critical article, which seems a sort of asinine thing to link to. If someone wants to site the primary sources of the years in question then they should go ahead, but there is no point in siting another secondary source for general and widely-accpeted information such as this. -] 16:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:And Nevis, unlike ] or ], is not part of the North American Plate; see ]. (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. ] <small>]</small> 20:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


As for the unusual requirement that Hamilton be a bird or a tribe to migrate, again, please see ] to broaden those unexplained limitations, particularly (bolds added):
::] 16:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)]


"Different types of migration include:
:::Quite right. I have to admit my proofreading of my own writing is more lax on talk pages. And it is a little confusing to '''cite''' a web'''site'''. -] 17:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


*Daily human ] can be compared to the ] of organisms in the oceans.
Currently, Mr. McHenry's article is being cited even though his article never actually uses the quoted passage as written between the quotation marks.
*] is mainly related to agriculture.
:now that is fixed. If the source corraborates the data, it should be listed as a reference. ], if you have another reference that supports that also, please cite it properly too, in the 'Reference' section, as is the accepted practice. - ] 17:38, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
*'''Permanent migration, for the purposes of permanent or long-term stays'''.
*Local
*Regional
*Rural to Urban, more common in developing countries as industrialisation takes effect
*Urban to Rural, more common in developed countries due to a higher cost of urban living
*International


Human migration has taken place at all times and in the greatest variety of circumstances. It has been tribal, national, class '''and individual'''. Its causes have been climatic, political, economic, religious, or mere love of adventure. Its causes and results are fundamental for the study of ], of political and social history, and of political economy."
::IMO McHenry's article is pointless to cite as a reference regarding the birth year discrepency. That article is only tangentially concerned with Hamilton and information about the discrepency in birth years in commonly available. If there is a better source that can be readily cited, that is fine, but IMO if we expect every little detail to be substantiated with a citation, then the list of citations will quickly overwhelm the article. ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 17:51, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


] 19:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Very true. It's ridiculous for an article like this to have only a single reference, and for that reference to be an article that basically says "wikipedia is crap". Of the hundreds of facts mentioned in this article, to list one source (let alone the hundreds that could substantiate the year problem) only for this one fact is dumb. If someone wants to cite a source for this, make it the original documents in question. -] 17:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Thank you for another demonstration why Misplaced Pages should not be used as a reference. ] <small>]</small> 20:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for being so liberal with your opinions. Here's to hoping people who care about what Misplaced Pages is trying to acomplish and constructively contribute to that end are ever more successful. Perhaps then you will have less to complain about, if that is possible.] 02:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
::::It is not pointless. It verifies a contended fact explicitly. Until you have a better source properly formatted to verify the fact, please leave this one in. Then please do go get the primary sources and properly format those. McHenry is a relatively respected source, so his article being anti[REDACTED] is completely irrelevant. You say you have another source for it, so add that. A note without a citation to a primary or secondary source is nearly useless from the standpoint of verifying the material in wikipedia. Having a well researched and properly cited project is an important goal. Removing references doesn't help a bit. Add or replace with better references, don't remove them. - ] 19:37, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
::No thank you for adding your unsupported falsehoods to Misplaced Pages. 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. ] <small>]</small> 23:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


=="Special Relationship"==
Usually in situations like this, it's best to just put the more likely year of birth in the first paragraph, and add a footnote about the discrapancy. Either that, or articles would end up becoming something like, "Gracie Allen (born July 26 1895, 1897, 1902 or 1906 ...).--] 03:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
So, according to the recent edit, the sentence structure implies that Hamilton personally, himself, alone had a ] with the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I do not think that Hamilton constituted a nation unto himself.] 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
: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. ] <small>]</small> 05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


==Slavery, again==
==Sources and footnotes==
Hamilton was anti-slavery. There are a number of sources cited for that. Many anti-slavery reps. to Congress went along with comprimises to maintain the Union, that does not make them pro-slavery. Was Ben Franklin pro-slavery, then?] 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:Hamilton was anti-slavery ''in New York'', where almost every prominent man was; only one member of the New York legislature voted against all versions of emancipation in 1785. The difference between Franklin and Hamilton is that Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society petitioned Congress against slavery; Hamilton lobbied, successfully, to have the petition thrown out. ] <small>]</small> 05:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


::Hamilton was anti-slavery in New York, whiere most northern slaves were located, and where pro-slavery forces blocked all emancipation plans until 1799. Hamilton was active for years in fighting the slave trade, which was based in part in his NEw York City. He even crossed very bitter party lines to cooperate with his archeenemy Burr to fight slavery. Franklin was a slaveowner who supported slavery during the Revolution when Hamilton was trying to arm the slaves; Franklin indeed changed late in life and lent his name to other people's petitions but his Pennsylvania had few slaves. Here's Ben explaining away slavery in 1770:
It seems that there is a bit of confusion surrounding the use of footnotes. Let me just point out that footnotes serve two purposes: they can be used to cite sources, and they can be used for further explanation of a point when incorporating it into the main text would be disruptive. The latter is the use here.
:::Franklin, "A Conversation on Slavery" Jan. 26, 1770. in Library of America edition: "New England, the most populous of all the English Possessions in America, has very few Slaves; and those are chiefly in the capital Towns, not employed in the hardest Labour, but as Footmen or House-maids. The same may be said of the next populous Provinces, New-York, New Jersey, and Pensylvania. Even in Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas, where they are employed in Field-work, what Slaves there are belong chiefly to the old rich Inhabitants, near the navigable Waters, who are few compared with the numerous Families of Back-Settlers, that have scarce any Slaves among them. In Truth, there is not, take North-America through, perhaps, one Family in a Hundred that has a Slave in it. Many Thousands there abhor the Slave Trade as much as Mr. Sharpe can do, conscientiously avoid being concerned with it, and do every Thing in their Power to abolish it. Supposing it then with that Gentleman, a Crime to keep a Slave, can it be right to stigmatize us all with that Crime? If one Man of a Hundred in England were dishonest, would it be right from thence to characterize the Nation, and say the English are Rogues and Thieves? But farther, of those who do keep Slaves, all are not Tyrants and Oppressors. Many treat their Slaves with great Humanity, and provide full as well for them in Sickness and in Health, as your poor labouring People in England are provided for. Your working Poor are not indeed absolutely Slaves; but there seems something a little like Slavery, where the Laws oblige them to work for their Masters so many Hours at such a Rate, and leave them no Liberty to demand or bargain for more, but imprison them in a Workhouse if they refuse to work on such Terms; and even imprison a humane Master if he thinks fit to pay them better; at the same Time confining the poor ingenious Artificer to this Island, and forbidding him to go abroad, though offered better Wages in foreign Countries. As to the Share England has in these Enormities of America, remember, Sir, that she began the Slave Trade; that her Merchants of London, Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow, send their Ships to Africa for the Purpose of purchasing Slaves. If any unjust Methods are used to procure them; if Wars are fomented to obtain Prisoners; if free People are enticed on board, and then confined and brought away; if petty Princes are bribed to sell their Subjects, who indeed are already a Kind of Slaves, is America to have all the Blame of this Wickedness? You bring the Slaves to us, and tempt us to purchase them. I do not justify our falling into the Temptation. To be sure, if you have stolen Men to sell to us, and we buy them, you may urge against us the old and true saying, that _the Receiver is as bad as the Thief._ This Maxim was probably made for those who needed the Information, as being perhaps ignorant that _receiving_ was in it's Nature as bad as _stealing_: But the Reverse of the Position was never thought necessary to be formed into a Maxim, nobody ever doubted that _the Thief is as bad as the Receiver_. This you have not only done and continue to do, but several Laws heretofore made in our Colonies, to discourage the Importation of Slaves, by laying a heavy Duty, payable by the Importer, have been disapproved and repealed by your Government here, as being prejudicial, forsooth, to the Interest of the African Company." (end BF 1770) ] 08:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
::::In 1770, Hamilton was a school-boy; and the major opponent of slavery was ], who was widely ignored (except perhaps in Pennsylvania). This is an exercise in irrelevant anachronism. ] <small>]</small> 16:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


==Personal attacks on Wiki contributors==
Inserting a paragraph between the year of birth and year of death at the beginning of the article would be very disruptive, so an explanation is given at the bottom.
"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.] 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


==Depiction of Duel Inaccurate==
People have been very anxious to cite a source, any source, for this, but such mundane facts as years of birth and death (even when they are not known with 100% certainty) do not need to be cited; one can get this information almost anywhere, and to pick one as ''the'' source is pointless.
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.] 05:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


== Hamilton's children ==
: Since McHenry's article is getting fairly wide publicity it makes sense to neutralize his criticism showing that in addition to size and breadth, the wikkipedia also has the advantage in speed over EB and can match it in accuracy. ] 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


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. ] 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
::True, but we already did that without the citation. -] 03:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:He was married for twenty-four years in a pretechnological age, and his wife loved him deeply. What's the surprise? ] <small>]</small> 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:: 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. ] 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


==Verification==
Furthermore, an encyclopedia article does not attempt to argue a point, and has no thesis; it attempts to convey factual information that is widely accepted (contrarily, if we decided to choose one year as the "correct" year of his birth, we would need a citation). Hence sources are not needed for most general statements. If one wants to mention what sources were used in the writing of this article, then that is fine, but I fear it's a bit late. Unless the users who contributed the bulk of the information in this article want to list them now, there is little anyone else can do. To mention what source ''may have'' been used (e.g. the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica) is silly.
'''''20-March-2007''''' (revised 20Mar07): The article ("]") is not presentedly protected from unregistered edits, so verification of tampered details can be an issue. Basic sanity-check facts:


: '''Alexander Hamilton''' (], ]/]<!--Disputed outside WP; see below-->–], ]) was an Army officer, lawyer, ], ] politician, leading statesman, financier and political theorist. One of America's foremost constitutional lawyers, he was a leader in calling the ] in 1787; he was one of the two leading authors of the '']'', the most important interpretation of the ].
:The citation is not showing what source "may" have been used. It is showing the source that was used. ] 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: Hamilton created the ], 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. ] shot him in the lower abdomen during the duel on ], 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. -] 10:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
::Not really. I was the first one to add the note on the birth years, and I verified it with a different source. I don't even remember which one; google had several. The McHenry article first drew my attention to the problem, I did not take his word alone for it. -] 03:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


== hi does any body know where to find a full body portrait of alexander hamilton ==
:::Yes, really. I verified on Nov 17 2004 and deliberately cited the source, disinguishing between your actions and mine. ] 12:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


hi does any body know where to find a full body portrait of alexander hamilton <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:As the discussion here and McHenry's original article all deemed the lack of a citation to be problematic, and the citation of McHenry's article seemed to be also problematic I deliberately looked up Hamilton's birthdate in the 1911 Enc. Brit. in order to be able to cite a respected source for the information. ] 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


==Homosexuality==
This is question on which some sources conjecture. Katz is not the only one; see Flexner on Hamilton and Lafayette. All osurces are guessing; but ir is improper, a violation of ] to invent our own arguments to confute them.


What we know is that Hamilton did not obey the Seventh Commandment, that he had ten (or was it an even dozen?) children and that his circle engaged some remarkably florid correspondence; his letters to Laurens are nothing to his sister-in-law. It is not our business to engage in further speculation; let those who get paid for it do that. It is our business to record the speculation and the refutations as they come out.
(In fact, arbitrarily using the 1911 Britannica for the year dispute is wrong, as it states 1757 as the year of his birth.)


I have tolerated a half-sentence; although it is clear that, technically, mentioning that the letter Katz cites is about a prospective wife for Hamilton is a novel synthesis, and therefore original research. (To my mind, singularly unpersuasive research: if Hamilton were flirting with Laurens, discussions of marriage would fit perfectly; but it doesn't matter.) ] <small>]</small> 04:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:I'm sorry. I'm not getting the point of this last statement, could you explain why the 1757 date should not be used or whatever it is that you are proposing is wrong with it? I fear I must be missing something obvious. Thanks. (1757 is the date most widely accepted by historians (McHenry) and this citation provides a credible source for that number.) ] 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I see that Shoreranger object that this lacks consensus. It does; which is why we attribute it, explicitly, to Katz; it's his notion, although Flexner has a similar interpretation for Hamilton's friendship with Lafayette. ] <small>]</small> 15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::I removed this section, please see ], specifically:
::*If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
::*Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all
::*Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Misplaced Pages is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
::--] 19:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Similar arguments are made by Flexner, one of Hamilton's major biographers. I find in looking for criticisms of this view that a review takes Chernow, another of them to be "coyly hinting" at Laurens and Hamilton being lovers. I wouldn't be at all surprised; Chernow is almost unreadably coy. As far as I recall, the other two or three don't discuss the matter. Mitchell wrote before Kats, in an age where such a suggestion would be unseemly; and McDonald is concentrated on politics and fiscal policy. There is limited secondary literature on this question, but it does seem to split about evenly. ] <small>]</small> 02:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


For what it's worth, I'm writing for the enemy here. There is, and is never likely to be, hard evidence; and Trees' counterargument that this was the style of Hamilton's time is quite sound. (How far it goes is open to question; Franklin and Jefferson seem to have taken such a tone when in France, and when engaged in fairly serious heterosexual flirtation. Hamilton was younger than either of them, but his upbringing was more provincial - I have no idea if he even read Sterne, let alone ''Werther''.) ] <small>]</small> 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::My point was that a previous editor used the EB as a source confirming that the year of his birth was uncertain, when, in fact, it says quite the oppsoite, and gives a year without any mention of uncertainy surrounding it. The alteration of the note (which I think may have been your addition) was better, in that it was used only as a source for the 1757 assertion. Still, as R points out below, using a dated EB as a source when many in depth biographies are mentioned just below does seem a bit silly. -] 03:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:This is interesting, but I still believe that ] directly applies. I'm certainly no historian or Hamiltonian expert, but the info about his sexuality (in the article and provided by you here on the talk page) indicates this view is held by only a small minority of those that are. As it doesn't appear there has been much scholarship around this other than those few people and there isn't really consensus even amongst that handful, an encyclopedic entry isn't the right place to include it IMHO. I also think that this biographical info and interpretation should be moved to the talk page until others weigh in on this and some sort of consensus amongst Misplaced Pages editors is reached. I'm not an "enemy" of including this information, but I am opposed to including it if it isn't a significant viewpoint. --] 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::One and a half of the four major sources, and with the scholarship or the subject divided? I cannot agree that this is a small minority. I agree that the discussion could be shorter than it is; but then again, it was, before Shoreranger troubled these waters. ] <small>]</small> 22:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::: To be honest, you've lost me with the "One and a half of the four major sources." There seem to be many more than four major sources on Hamilton just from the references for this article (understood that Chernow is a prevalent modern one). Also, do you have page numbers/editions/ISBNs for the refs that are cited on this topic (for easier reference)? --] 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Chernow, Flexner, Mitchell, and McDonald are the major current biographies. All are listed in the bibliography, with ISBNs except for Mitchell, who wrote before this became an issue anyway. Chernow supports this by implication; see Trees' review, fully cited. For Flexner on Hamilton and Lafayette, see his index;<s> if I come across a copy, I'll add the page number.</s> p.316. (Other biographies listed, like Brookhiser, use secondary sources; quite frequently they are what some Wikipedian had to hand.) ] <small>]</small> 20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


==1755 or 1757==
:::Yes, I cited 1911 EB as source for 1757. The Biographies are only mentioned and not cited. Please cite one of them if you prefer. I don't have a preference for which reference is cited as long as we cite something. Unfortunately, until somebody goes and looks it up, (Sincerely, Thank you for offerring to do that below, by the way), we don't if any of the biographies deal with the uncertainty. (They may have all done as McHenry says and taken 1757 as the historically accepted date. :-) ) ] 12:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
According the the PBS program ], Hamilton was born in 1755. ] 22:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


:Unfortunately that isn't definitive. <B>]</B> ] <b>] </b> 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Why there is this strong compulsion to cite this one single fact out of the hundreds of facts in this article is beyond me. I notice no one is adding a source that verifies the year of his death. -] 20:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


==Hamilton's religion==
:Because of the wide publicity that particular fact and this article are getting right now it needs to be addressed to reduce any damage from McHenry's criticism. I thought it was also Misplaced Pages policy, ] ] 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The obvious reference here seems to be 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.
] 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 ], the Episcopal ], who declined because he was a duelist, and then from ], a Presbyterian, who declined because Presbyterians did not reserve the Sacrament. ] <small>]</small> 16:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


== Hamilton's Jewish heritage ==
:All facts in the article need to be cited if we want to be the most credible possible.
Why is Hamilton's Jewish heritage (through his mother) not mentioned in this article? --] 06:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


: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. ] <small>]</small> 19:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
:: I agree, but as you note, this is problematic in the post creation phase. ]


::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. --] 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
:This is one particular fact that is in dispute across sources, and is specifically called into question by a recent article, so it is valuable to cite. Again, removing the citation to a valid source adds no value to wikipedia, adding it is better than none. Primary sources would be the best, but again, something valid is better than nothing. I agree the 1911 Brittanica is not the best reference for the date dispute since it doesn't even reference the dispute. Please put back the properly formatted McHenry citation until primary or better sources are found. Or do you not have the better source you claimed you had, ]? - ] 22:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
:::I know of no evidence for this. ] <small>]</small> 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Then, as I understand it, under the conventions of the Jewish faith, Hamilton is not considered Jewish if his mother was not Jewish. As for "heritage" - if one shakes enough branches in a family tree we all have Jewish, Muslim, African, what-have-you heritage. Is an encyclopedia article really the place for "conjecture"?] 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::All facts do not need to be cited. Citing "Alexander Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury" is not the sort of fact that anyone should need to cite. Picking one arbitrary source to mention that is inane. The footnote for such a fact might as well read "1. Every single person on the planet who knows anything about the guy", because, let's face it, it's true. We have tens of thousands of articles on people, and we mention the dates of their births (or approximate dates when the exact date is unknown) without citing sources in every single one of them (maybe there are a handfull of exceptions, I don't know). Are those pages all flawed? I have in my hands the 1957 EB, and about the only times it directly cites a specific source is for direct quotations (which do need citations), although it does have a pretty comprehensive bibliography. So I'll tell you what I'll do. Tomorrow, if I have time, I'll go down to the library and find one of those biographies of Hamilton and I'll bet it will tell exactly what the documents are that give the different dates in question. I'll mention those documents in the footnote, and we'll have a valid and useful citation, as opposed to an arbitrary one that doesn't really explain anything. If someone can beat me to this, that's fine. -] 03:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


==Yorktown==
:::This is an excellent idea. Please do. I support this completely. ] 12:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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. ] <small>]</small> 21:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


The reference to Yorktown only conveyed to me that Hamilton led the last charge in the last significant battle of a very long an bloody war, nothing more. At worst, a biased reading could extract a meaing that Hamilton led the charge that *ended* the war, but no reasonable reading could take away the impression that the entry implied Hamilton "won the war singlehanded". It never seemed to me that there was ever any serious challenge to the idea that Yorktown was the death-knell of significant British military attmepts to destroy the revolution, and that the remaining tiem between Yorktown and the 1783 treaty was due to diplomatic negotiation primarily and not continuing large-scale military hostiltities. Is this not correct? ] 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon this article and the reference to EB felt silly, considering that it appeared right above a long list of biographies which, I presume, all detail the problem with his year of birth. In case none of them cite it, I apologise and kindly ask you to revert me. ] 02:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: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 ]. The British retained more than enough force for another try - if they had chosen to do so. ] <small>]</small> 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


==What does this sentence mean?==
:Lets leave that citation intact to neutralize the effect of McHenry's criticism until R. fiend gets the better citation installed. We don't know what any of those biographies contain and without any citation at all, all the readers visiting the page because of McHenry's widely publicized criticism will have no reason to disagree with him. This way it is partially neutralized until R. Fiend van put better info in place. Thanks. ] 12:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


"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." ] 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I have now fixed the footnote, so it explains why there is descrepency and gives two biographies that each address the question pretty thoroughly, but conclude different years as being the proper one. I hope the matter is settled now. -] 20:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*"unlike ''James'' Hamilton", I presume. ] <small>]</small> 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
==Federalist Papers==
:'' were published in newspapers throughout the states and were influential in New York, and others, during the debates over ratification.


This makes two assertions:
:Yes, excellent work. I take it those two sources at least you have in front of you? For proper form any articles that have been actually used as references for the material in the article should go into a references section and those that haven't should go in something like a further reading section. So I've created the references section. The 'Biographies' section is a bit misleading because those could either have been used in the article or not. If you have them to refer to or they have in fact been used for material for this article please put them in the references section. And yes, ideally all other important or disputable facts in the article should be similarly cited. See ] for more, and also ] for a possibly redundant project focusing on making Misplaced Pages more credible. - ] 21:15, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
*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 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. ] <small>]</small> 02:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
==Reverting==
Hi all, please read ]. Reverting is meant only for dealing with ''vandalism''. '''Not''' for edits you don't agree with or for those that don't make an article clearly worse. Anything but obvious vandalism or clear worsening of an article should be discussed on the talk page '''before''' reverting. - ] 17:15, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


==William S. Hamilton==
:Sorry, but I think you are misrepresenting ]. It states that ''You may wish to revert an article to an earlier version, perhaps because it has been vandalised '''or material has been added or removed inappropriately.''''' I'd say that pretty accurately describes the disagreement over this article. I see no clear consensus here as to what is appropriate in way of citation. Certainly, persistent reversions are a bad thing, but that really has not been much of a problem in this case. Discussion is taking place here and without any clear consensus there is nothing that should preclude anyone from making a good faith edit to the article, so long as it doesn't devolve into an edit war. While you may see the inclusion of a particular citation as appropriate and beneficial, someone else may not share your opinion and feel that it is an inappropriate addition that clearly makes the article worse. So far as I can tell, NO ONE has used the rollback function, which is clearly a tool intended for fighting vandalism, but editing an article to add or remove disputed content is justifiable where there is no clear consensus. ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 18:04, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Hello. I am trying to work on an article on ]. 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? ] 09:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
::Give me a break. For one thing you're ignoring much of the advice in the article "Note that reverts are not appropriate if a newer version is no better than the older version. You should save reverts for cases where the new version is actively worse." Yes the page is not entirely consistent, but are you seriously claiming a properly cited reference makes an article "actively worse"? And yes it was reverted two times without discussion on the talk page. I ''had'' left a message on the talk page noting the citation as soon as I added it. It was reverted without comment on the talk page. That is not a good faith edit. - ] 20:31, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
*Littlefield's paper (in the references) has a good deal on William Hamilton; but does not fully endorse the claim to paternity; I don't think it's available on-line, but I commend it. Most of the Hamilton literature is trash; and on this subject it is likely to be defensive trash (most of the rest of it is polemical muckraking). Unfortunately, ] compels us to respect the opinion of published toadies like Chernow and MacDonald; sources asserting paternity would be welcome. ] <small>]</small> 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
:*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 ] 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. ] 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
::*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'' (), two is by Parker McCobb Reed, ''The Bench and Bar of Wisconsin: History and Biography, with Portrait Illustrations'' (). This 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. ] 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
**Are we, possibly, talking about two different Williams here? The William in this article was a mulatto abolitionist, whose political activity was at least in part on the East Coast. If he was the son of Alexander, he was illegimate.
**The WMH article is talking about Hamilton's legitimate (and quite white) widow, ] (d. 1854); the footnote is about ''her'' son-in-law, Sidney Holley.
**The other two sources agree in talking about William S Hamilton, who came to Illinois about 1817. They are both the sort of local history, compiled from the memory of the subscribers, which were common in the late nineteenth century; they tend to repeat, uncritically, what the subscribers told them. ] <small>]</small> 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
::*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. ] 19:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
::**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, . Also a correspondent of the President of Princeton in 1808, who is certainly not the Midwesterner. ] <small>]</small> 19:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
::** by M. L. Bradbury; ''Journal of the Early Republic'', Vol. 5, No. 2, Religion in the Early Republic. (Summer, 1985), pp. 177-195. ]. ] <small>]</small> 19:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
::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. ] 23:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:::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, () says my William S. Hamilton was Alexander Hamilton's youngest son. ] 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
::::<s>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 ]. But I'll go look up Alexander's children. ] <small>]</small> 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)</s>
::::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). ] <small>]</small> 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
::::*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. ] <small>]</small> 14:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


:::::*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? ] 15:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, R. fiend has made all this moot (thanks). But what you describe as a "properly cited reference" is IMO anything but that. The McHenry piece was laughable as a serious reference and the 1911 EB really did adequately not address the discrepancy in birth dates. so yes, I very honestly think that addition of either of those citations made the page "actively worse". It was reverted two times!!!! OMG such an outrage! Among the worst edit wars ever seen. (Actually I think it was reverted more than twice, but with many intervening edits.) Give me a break. This never got anywhere near being a serious edit war. And there has been rather civil discussion on the talk page througout. I have not seen any recent edits to this article (aside from some obvious vandalism) that would qualify as not being good faith editing. ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 21:01, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
::::::**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. ] <small>]</small> 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)OK, I just wasn't clear, the discussion led me astray. I wanted to make sure, especially after I read the sentence on "William Hamilton" here. Sorry I wasn't of more help on the contentious issue about his son on this page, but you have been most helpful in my endeavor. I had to ensure accuracy and figured this was the best place to do it. Thanks for responding to my original query on your talk page about this thread. I can now write that William S. Hamilton was Alexander's son. I will probably need to note that this is not the son of questionable paternity, which source do you think I should use? ] 16:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
: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 ]. ] <small>]</small> 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
::The footnote was misplaced; Chernow does not mention William Hamilton, just Eliza. I'll find a substitute. ] <small>]</small> 17:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


==Unsourced addition==
::::Relax, I'm not claiming the worst edit war ever. Simply that reverting a non problematic edit multiple times is bad etiquette and not productive. Not being a serious edit war doesn't mean it was a needed revert. If it was put in multiple times by different editors it is not likely to be that bad an edit. Besides, the guy was former editor of EB, a generally respected source. He is likely to have a good idea what he is talking about, and as it turns out he was correct. And yes, it is now moot as to the issue of this specific citation, but not for the issue of unneccessary reverts. Again, I mentioned the citation on the talk page as a made it. Reverting without comment there is the bigger issue of poor ]. I'm really no longer arguing this specific citation, but just trying to help everyone reallize the policy around reverts so we can be more productive, not waste time reverting. - ] 21:27, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
The following was added twice, unsourced to the article, by ]. 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 ], 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 ] named George I. Eacker, after the two had engaged in a bitter quarrel at ] only three years before. ''] 23:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::OK, but it was the citation was also removed by multiple editors, so it was not unproblematic. There was discussion on the talk page throughout this episode as far as I can tell. And if you are referring specifically to my reversion of your edit without my making a`specific comment on the talk page first, well I apologize, but I actually don't feel all that guilty about it. I had been monitoring the discussion here and felt that the re-addition of the citation was not warranted based on the discussion at that time (even though to that point I had not actively participated). I did not feel it was necessary for me to jump in with a "me too" when the substantive points had already been expressed. You yourself said you had re-added the citation without first checking the discussion . I agree that it is always helpful to keep wikiquette in mind while editing, but I don't see that anything that transpired here came close to improper wikiquette. When substantive positions have already been expressed on the talk page, it is quite common to encapsulate the discussion in the edit summaries. ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 22:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


== Newburgh Conspiracy ==
== self-reference and non-reference ==


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.
I removed which violates ] and the McHenry source, which is not a reference without the inappropriate self-reference. ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 17:14, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Someone mentioned Hamilton not honorable. Hamilton may have be the most honorable in a time when scandalmongering was the rule. If you consider his roll in the hay with a deceitful and manipulative woman as proof of his dishonor then perhaps men like Jefferson, Madison and Monroe should have partaken if only to gain some valuable and breathtaking understanding that Hamilton had for the development of his adopted country..


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.
==Proper form for the references==
], if you still have the sources in front of you can you add the publisher, date, and location information to the references? They look a little anemic at the moment. Thanks - ] 17:53, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
:They do, but sorry, I used a university library that I could not sign the books out of, so I photocopied the relevent pages, and unfortunately I didn't consider the title pages. I actually expected they'd be included in the biographies section, and was surprised to find they weren't. I'd think that information must be available on the internet somewhere. If not, next time I'm down that way I'll see if I can find the information, but I don't think I'll make another special trip. If I still have the photocopies, which I think I do, I can be specific about the pages at least. -] 18:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::I'm sure you can find them online, at the publisher's site or amazon perhaps. I looked at one time, but I did not know which version/year you used. If you're not positive either, a trip to check the book again would be ideal. - ] 18:53, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
:::You know, I'm going away for the holidays and am not going to get to that library before the new year. If you have the info on the books you might as well include it, regardless of the edition. I'm sure all editions include the facts I cited; they don't differ that much. -] 21:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::::Is the university library catalog online? If so all of this (except ISBN) should be there. ] 17:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


] 19:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
== New photo? ==
: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? ] <small>]</small> 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


I would really like to hear people knowledgeable about Hamilton weigh in on the Newburgh situation. Also, to PmAnderson: I don't have a problem including your statement as long as you rephrase it to reflect the reality of the subject. Your source may well say something to that effect, but everything I have ever read that is currently respected historical reference contradicts your assertion that Hamilton was involved in any way at all in plotting a coup. Please read my explanation and respond here.
I am new to Misplaced Pages, and I hope not to bring any wrath upon myself, but I would like to suggest that the portrait of Hamilton be replaced. I think is much more flattering, though I admit I know nothing of the comparative accuracy of the two.


] 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
== The Reynolds Affair ==


==GoldenMean==
Alexander Hamilton wrote the confession of his own accord. He gave a copy to each James Monroe, Abraham Venable, and Frederick Muhlenberg. Hamilton believed that Monroe was ultimately responsible for leaking the information to the press and never forgave him.
Has been revert warring because of what he can't believe, above.
*
*
*, a direct revert.
Sorry, the generation of 1776 was human; Hamilton as much as any of them. ] <small>]</small> 22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


It is unacceptable for you to rename my discussion topics from their original names seen below, and stick them under a subheading of my name as if you started the discussion about me, when in fact I began the discussion topics because I wanted other people to weigh in on the subjects. And to crown it with your groundless charge again---people, the info was moved, not removed, and I put it in exactly the spot PmAnderson asked. PmAnderson, please knock it off and just deal with the genuine issues of content. Pretty please. ] 09:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
== Arguing before Congress ==


] 09:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
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.


=== Hamilton's Religion ===
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.


I removed the blatant unsourced editorialization within the religion section that accused Hamilton of ""opportunistic religiosity", using Christianity for political ends, during the Reynolds affair amounting to self-righteous blasphemy". There is no source for that at all. I added the cn tags for the portions of the section that could be sourced. Hamilton was a very religious figure in his own way, particularly towards the end of his life, as I added and tried to source in my edits.
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". --] 00:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


I am restoring most of my edit that merged duplicated material concerning the specifics of Hamilton's last rights/communion fiasco into the paragraph on the duel and death. It was almost verbatim twice in the article. It could be moved from the duel section to the religion section, but it shouldn't be listed twice. I also sourced a part of last rights sentences, so if you want to move it into one section or the other, great. Thoughts?
== Hamilton on Currency ==


] 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
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.
:The entire section is and was a summary of Adair and Harvey's paper, as clearly cited. They agree that in the last years of his life, after Philip's death and the end of Hamilton's political career, he did become a Christian - as is stated. As for verbatim tear-jerking quotations from Chernow's book, the fewer of them the better, especially if he does indeed lie by omission, suppressing the Presbyterian minister.


:Please read the footnotes and the sources cited in them before you edit again. ] <small>]</small> 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
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. --] 20:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


I have already recently reread all the sources except the article (I don't have JSTOR access anymore) but I will take your word for its content. If you want to summarize their paper, more clearly note it as a summary of that paper. e.g. "So and so claimed...." It is somewhat 'weasel wordy' and ambigously cited as it was (I don't know if you wrote that or not--if you did PmAnderson, it was not a personal attack). I don't object to the inclusion of the info that he became a true believer at all, just the non-NPOV and unsourced stuff. I think there should be a lot more about his religion, just that it should be sourced. Rewrite the religion in a clear and sourced way, that's fine--just stop blanking me, and keep the summary NPOV, and free of editorializations. The strongly-worded editiorialization and unsourced material is what I objected to, and what I (and I would hope, everyone) will always object .
== Include content from 1911 EB and Making of America? ==
] 21:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
:That would be justified if the conclusions are disputed, but I do not see that they are. There is a multitude of really bad Hamilton literature; much of it evades the question by emphasizing the piety of Hamilton's last years; but that's not the same thing. If you have positive assertions of Hamilton's faith between 1776 and 1801, cite them by all means. ] <small>]</small> 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


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?


Also, PmAnderson, in case you missed it: This info ALL exists in the Duel/Death section conveying the exact same material (and I believe, with the same source). This duplication of info predates my involvement in this article. I have not removed it, I merged it into its location in the Dueling section. Again, IT ISN'T GONE. It's in the Dueling/Death section.
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.
] 21:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
:But it should be under Hamilton's religion; not all of his contemporaries would have turned to a Presbyterian, even as second choice. GoldenMean's text gives a much firmer denominational commitment than the facts will warrant. ] <small>]</small> 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


The blanked text is:
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.
:In his early life, he was an orthodox and conventional, though not deeply pious, Presbyterian; had he not been, 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. In this period, he asserted the truth of the Christian revelation; one of his letters suggested a Christian Constitutionalist Society. He did not join any denomination, but led his family in the Episcopal service the Sunday before the duel. Afterwards he requested communion both from the Bishop of New York and (when he declined) from a Presbyterian minister.<:ref>The whole paragraph summarizes Adair and Harvey: "" ''passim''. </ref>
Please observe the wording of the footnote, as adjusted after GoldenMean's second blanking. All of this, including the argument about Knox, is from Adair and Harvey. Nevertheless, GoldenMean has added citation tags, while removing the citation. ] <small>]</small> 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Again, it was moved, not blanked, and its back now, and the duplicate is gone from the 'Duel' Section, where I had initially moved it. It was initially unclear to me that whole 'religon' section was actually just a summary of one journal article. I most seriously objected to the part saying Hamilton's religion "amounted to self-righteous blasphemy". But that's mercifully gone now, and rightly so. In any case, Pmanderson's grievance in the religion section would seem to be resolved since I have decided not to substantially edit the two tagged sections, just to ask people what they think, and to contribute--this, combined with good faith on Pmanderson's part should stop any budding edit war.
: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. ] 18:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
::Nor Hamilton's conduct in the election of 1800, in which he attempted dirty tricks against ''both'' candidates. ] 21:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


That brings me to my grievance: I have labeled the religion section as factually disputed, though perhaps NPOV would have been a better tag. The wording of that section, except for the part at the end, is, according to Pmanderson a summary of one journal article. This summary terms Hamilton's religion as "opportunistic" and "using Christianity for political ends". Perhaps that is the case, but for such contentious accusations, I would think other sources and examples would be required, such a characterization comes off as (indirect) editorializing.
== Relationship with John Laurens ==
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.


The religion section has a lone footnote referring to the journal article, but obviously one article that contains controversial claims shouldn't be summarized and passed off as a self-sufficient, balanced Misplaced Pages subsection. That seems like a 'weasel words' way around evidence or citing the more commonly-accepted, balanced secondary sources that thought biographies are supposed to be largely based on to avoid too much original research, or information of questionable veracity from infiltrating wikipedia.
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. --] 00:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


For example: if a journal article said "Hamilton was a deceptive, treasonous weasel who worshiped the devil with gusto, it would not be OK (to my way of thinking) to summarize that article, and place it in Hamilton's Misplaced Pages article under the 'religion' section as if it were an established fact in such a way as: "Hamilton was a well-known liar and devil worshiper." That statement would then be properly annotated, but does that make it OK as info for the article? I use an over-the-top example, of course, but what do others think?
I agree in saying that it is worth mentioning, even if it is noted to not be positively true. It seems fairly likely through the excerpts of letters I've read that his rleationship with Laurens was at the very least more than platonic. Also, being a homosexual isn't necessarily a bad thing. "To accuse one of our Founding Fathers of being a homosexual," isn't to say that he was a bad man. --]
:: Actaully Hamilton asked Laurens to find him a wife: :
<blockquote>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."
</blockquote> ] 10:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


] 08:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Good quote to indicate the times he lived. --] 18:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
:Find a reliable source who says something else about Hamilton's faith between 1777 and 1801; I looked, and I was unable to. That's the Wiki method. Adair and Harvey have been cited some 200 times; this is no random journal article. ] <small>]</small> 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


===Newburgh===
I removed the o that was attached to economist in the above quote. I hope that I was correct in doing so and it wasn't a quaint spelling of economist that I don't recognize.
In this case the blanked text is as follows:
:he was one of the civilians took part in the ], in which a number of Continental officers plotted to mutiny and march on Congress to set up a stronger government. Washington wrote him a strong letter of rebuke for "playing with such incendiary matters as an army."<:ref>Garry Wills, ''Cincinnatus'', p.6. ''American National Biography'', "Alexander Hamilton".</ref>
::The quotation is from Wills; the facts from both. Please note that the ''ANB'' life is by Forrest McDonald, one of the four important biographers mentioned above. ] <small>]</small> 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I have added the standard modern history of the politics of the Continental Army. If necessary, I will go find Richard Kohn's ''Eagle and Sword'', which did the primary research; but I trust this will suffice. ] <small>]</small> 02:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


::::Hamilton used the o in oeconomist ] 20:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
== Redundancy? ==
Is it just me or does this article restate many of its points almost to a cut and copy effect? For example, "Later he secured a field command, through Washington, and won laurels at Yorktown, where he led the American column in the final assault on the British works. In 1780 he married Elizabeth, daughter of General Philip Schuyler, and thus became allied with one of the most distinguished families in New York." and further down the page "Leaving Washington's staff, Hamilton took command of an infantry regiment that participated in the siege of Yorktown, and led the assault that captured Redoubt #10. After the war he served as a member of the Continental Congress (from 1782 to 1783), and then retired to open his own law office in New York City. He married Elizabeth Schuyler (known as Eliza), heiress of a wealthy and influential New York family, on December 14, 1780"


Pmanderson, thanks for trying to clarify your addition to the 'Newburgh' section.
==George Washington's son?==
Wasn't there a rumour going around during Hamilton's lifetime, that he (Hamilton) was a (bastard) son of Washington's? ] 13:18 (AST), 30 October 2005.


TO EVERYONE ELSE: I think this section could REALLY use some extra eyes, ANY eyes. I don't care if you worship Hamilton, think he's Satan, or anything in between. I would REALLY appreciate attention to the 'Newburgh' section by anyone who would consider their knowledge of Hamilton or early American history at least 'decent' and can source their additions. Right now it just isn't quite accurate or NPOV. I have been blanked over and over, and attacked over and over, and I'm sick of it. Have fun, and improve the article.
That is dishonorable to the Father of our Country and the Father of American economics to call him a bastard child of Washington without evidence. I've heard of no such rumor. Washington was fond of Hamilton and considered him like a son. Hamilton was Aide'de'Camp(sorry on Spelling my weak point) to Washington and grew to know each other during the Revolution or War for American Indepedence. --] 00:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


If you enjoy this topic you may find the following letters interesting and/or helpful. They are the April 4, 1783 letter of Washington you quote indirectly about "playing" with the army comments (the 'incendiary' part is actually a slight misquote of a cited source in the paragraph as I write this).], and the two letters (sent simultaneously) from Hamilton to which Washington's April 4th letter was a response. Hamilton sent Washington a letter on (March) 25th which introduced and enclosed another writing on the situation of the unpaid soldiers/Newburgh Conspiracy ](The second, attached letter Hamilton mentions in his first letter can be read by clicking the hyperlinked 1 on the web page containing Hamilton's first letter--it says how on the webpage).
:Hamilton was a bastard, and we don't know who is father was. Our job is not to "show respect" by omitting negative information. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If we have sufficiently notable sources for the existence of a rumor then we might want to include it. -] 19:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Where I am coming from: Every book I have ever read on the period mentioning Hamilton essentially seems to agree that Hamilton's willingness to let Congress believe the soldiers were closer to armed insurrection as a means getting them their back pay was a bad idea. Further, they seem to agree that Washington thought it was important to keep even a bluff of a military uprising out of the whole situation, and told Hamilton of this (much to Washington's credit). But they also generally agree (and Hamilton states this clearly in his correspondence) that Hamilton was working against the actual threat of armed uprising, and that both men wanted to get the soldiers some form of back pay without violence.
Hamilton wasn't a 'bastard' as you say. His father was James Hamilton and mother Rachel F. Lavien. If you don't know standard history you shouldn't be editing historical pages like this and the ] page. --] 00:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
*"Alexander Hamilton, 1755–1804, American statesman, b. Nevis, in the West Indies was the illegitimate son of James Hamilton (of a prominent Scottish family) and Rachel Faucett Lavien (daughter of a doctor-planter on Nevis and the estranged wife of a merchant). Orphaned and impoverished at around the age of 12, the brilliant, ambitious youth went to the North American colonies late in 1772 and studied (1773–74) at King's College (now Columbia). In the troubled times leading to the American Revolution, he wrote articles and pamphlets espousing the colonial cause so well that the works were popularly attributed to John Jay." --] 00:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Finally, I REALLY would like to get other peoples' input on this paragraph's accuracy. ANYTHING. This has gotten way too personal. If anyone else reading this has access to these books, or access to JSTOR, take a whack at the section, only good can come from it. I am going to stay out of this article, except to label it as disputed just so that more people will have a look the Newburgh section, contribute based on reliable sources and historical consensus. Sorry for the long response. Thanks for reading. Good luck.
:What is your definition of "bastard"? Here is what one dictionary says:
:*''bas·tard (băs'tərd) n. A child born out of wedlock.''
:"Illegitimate" and "bastard" are synonyms. -] 23:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


] 04:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
:Point made. I stand corrected. Modern English has made a perjoritive out of that word. In any case he wasn't Washington's son. --] 04:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:No, what it needs is an editor whose standards of judgment are not, as GoldenMean's are, "If I can't imagine a Founding Father doing such a thing, it can't have happened."


:It would also help if he had consulted ''any'' of the secondary sources cited, of which the present text is a precise and careful summary; instead of, as he has, done original research in primary sources. ("Incendiary" was Wills' word, not Washington's - such slips happen; but the present text hass collated with Lender et al. and with the indicated text of Washington's letters).] <small>]</small> 14:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
::If you were there, then I'd take your word for it. Minus an eyewitness, we have to depend on sources. -] 05:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Ok, enough personal attacks. Stop insulting me, labeling me, and insisting to me and everyone else what my motives ''really'' are. Stop ascribing to me quotes of things I didn't say or do,, or things that are vaguely ad hominem, or less than on-the-level. Stop altering the talk page to portray yourself in a more favorable light/alter peoples' perception of events or their order. People can read just fine.
== vandalism ==


I know you have good intentions for the article, ok? I know your[REDACTED] technocratic skills dwarf my own. But the issue has always just been the veracity of the material as detailed by the ''consensus'' of something resembling ''mainstream historical writing''. Please, stop saying I don't consult sources, I do, I have, I will continue to. That will be the case no mater what you say. That I quote Chernow a lot is just a result of the fact that I own it, and its one of the newest, most widely acclaimed and exhaustive (818 p.) Hamilton bios. I know you hate the book, but it is a very credible, widely accepted source, though not the only one of course. I object to parts of those two paragraphs because of what I have read, not because of what I want to/not to believe. I will give them more time to be looked at, changed. We can resolve this fairly, I know it.
is it just me, or is this page rather highly vandalized?--] 20:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


] 03:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
:I agree and have added it to ]. --] 21:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
:Chernow? I applaud your tenacity at wading through 800 pages of such prose as ''Had he'' ''presented himself as a Jew, the snobbish Mary Faucette would certainly have squelched the match in a world that frowned on religious no less than interracial marriage.'' (This takes the stereotype of the irreligious eighteenth century to new depths.) More serious is the oleaginous apologetic on at least 700 of those pages. No wonder you have presented the appearance of a hagiographer; you've been reading one. (I of course accept your word that you do not so intend; although I can only judge by your edits.)


:Chernow's popularization received, and deserved, appalling reviews in the professional press; we cite one of them (on the question of Hamilton's homosexuality). But provide a citation of a source which gives a different account of Hamilton's religion in middle life, or his involvement at Newburgh, and we will include them also; as it is, I can only follow the consensus of the sources I've seen.
::I'm beginning to think that vandalism on Misplaced Pages is correlated to junior high school syllabuses. -] 23:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


:I have been patient, and waited for Labor Day, on which most editors concerned with this article will be busy. But there is a limit; edits based on (and sourced to) mainstream sources should not be tagged indefinitely on the basis of "I don't believe it" and "I read it somewhere". ] <small>]</small> 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I definitely would not dispute that.--] 23:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
==Hamilton's reputation==
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. ] <small>]</small> 18:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Agreed, wholeheartedly. ] 17:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
== avoid POV about 21st century conservatism ==


==William S. redux==
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. ] 06:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
] has been created, following the ]. 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. ] 07:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


== Possible vandalism. ==
Not sure of the discussion but as per Bush, not true. Bush is a Free Trader, Hamilton was for the tariff and a protectionist. If you read the report on manufactures its program called for government intervention in the economy to stimulate manufacturing, Bush's system rooted in the policies of free trade and hands' off to business has lead to a situation of decline in manufacturing where our workers cannot compete with low wage China for example. On National Defense, your right. But then again, Hamilton wouldn't lie to the American people to start a war. --] 00:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Could anyone confirm if is vandalism? Thanks. ] 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
== Removal of all quotes ==
: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. ] <small>]</small> 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


==Artillery company==
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 ] 01:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
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. ] <small>]</small> 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


==Heroes==
x=Quotations=x
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. --] (]) 11:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

*I am quite certain that was vandalism. ] (]) 17:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last.... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government."
], ]]

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." 1787 after the ]

"We forgot." - upon being asked why there was no mention of God in the Constitution.

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

On ], ] at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the ], through the merits of the ]. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."

*Quotations should be put on , not in the article. --<b>]</b> <small>]</small> 01:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

==Jay's Treaty Edits==

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. --] 16:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
*Bemis's source is Hammond's official correspondence with the British Government.
*Bemis's book is still the standard work on Jay's Treaty, which is why I cite him rather than the more recent historians, who also cite him.
*I knew the Hamilton hagiography industry had produced some dishonest (and execrably written) books, but I didn't realize it was that bad. ] 04:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There are scholars that dispute this, but I will not contend this, as you have clearly cited your source. Good work at cites, even if I disagree with the factualness of Bemis premise and the origin of the correspondence and its intention. --] 04:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

==Category==

Having a category for being shot by a vice president is useless categorization, I removed it. ] ] 07:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

: 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. ] - ] 18:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

::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. ] ] 19:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
::*Do you deny that Hamilton ''was'' shot by standing VP Burr? ] 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
::*But thanks for discussing it. ] 19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
:::*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). ] ] 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiments of Christopher Parham; the category has no place in Misplaced Pages (although it is pretty funny). However ''if'' there ''must'' be a category as such, it should be included in this article. I suggest we wait for the MfD is complete before removing it, and take specific discussion of validity of the category to the MfD page. --] 21:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
:Link to deletion page ] --] 21:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
: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. ] ] 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
::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. --] 23:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
:::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. ] ] 01:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This is the argument that I posted in the Cfd for my weak keep vote: this is something that a researcher might want to know someday (or even right now). It IS interesting to know the company that Mr. Whittington is in. While there are other ways for researchers to find such information, it's nice to have it in simple category format. Furthermore, removing this article from the category now, with an ongoing Cfd vote, could prejudice the vote, as Mr. Whittington would be the only member of the category otherwise. If the category is kept, it would appropriate to discuss whether to remove Hamilton from it then, but not with an ongoing Cfd vote. I am replacing the category for now. - <font color="#013220">]</font>&middot;''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' 23:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
: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. ] ] 01:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
::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. - <font color="#013220">]</font>&middot;''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
:::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. ] 03:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Just letting people know I have closed out the CFD with no consensous. I personally wanted the category gone, but the numbers simply were not there. Sorry folks. Whether this article stays in or out of the category is now up to you folks here on this article. OTOH, I would not be surprised to see the category up for CFD again before too long. Contentious categories that reach no consensous have a way of coming up again and again. - ] 14:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
: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 {{cl|People shot by government officials}}, which would specify that it does not include shootings in the line of duty? ] 02:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
::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. --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
:::So waht is the opinion of those who actually edit the article? ] 04:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
::::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 ] (which isn't even a policy, much less a speedy criterion)? - <font color="#013220">]</font>&middot;''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

==Source needed==
Source needed for sentence "Eliza's sister..." added by anonymous user for clarity of that sentence to put it into context. --] 19:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

: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. --] 20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::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. ] 18:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:::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? --] 18:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
::::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. ] 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I tried to clean up the argument regarding his legacy. The previous text wildly exaggerated his influence. ] 22:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

==Removal of well sourced material from several authors==
Pmanderson, you've once again removed material without warrant, that was sourced well. STOP! --] 22:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:::On this matter, I agree with Rjensen, as follows. ] 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::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.] 22:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:::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. --] 23:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

::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. ] 23:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Don't be condescending. You should start with actual history. Lind, is a credible source - by wiki standards. --] 23:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

::::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. ] 23:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::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. --] 23:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. - I do like how you moved the material, and some of the edits you made - however. :) --] 23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

::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. ] 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:::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. --] 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

==Bias and suppression==
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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] 14:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

===Suppressions===

*''Hamilton grew extremely close to Eliza's sister Angelica Church, who was married to a ].''
**Removed as unsourced, despite clear indication of source on this talkpage. (Chernow's biography, p. 133)
*Identification of George Hammond as British Minister to the United States (and so a diplomatic representative of a hostile power); not a minister of religion.
*Mention of the decision to keep the information Hamilton gave to Hammond secret; revealing it to the British weakened Jay's hand even further, and it is this aspect which (rightly) shocked Bemis.

===What is to be done?===
If this continues, I will raise the question of whether this unencyclopedic article is in fact any improvement over starting over. ] 14:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

==James Madison==
Can you please provide references concerning Alexander Hamilton being persecuted by James Madison? '''James Madison <u>was</u> a Federalist.''' He was a proponent of strong federal govenment. Please don't confuse this whole issue with unsupported assertions. Thanks. ]
::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. ] 10:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

==Deletion==
This paragraph is unacceptable; leave such rhetoric to Chernow's turgid hagiography:

:''He also, Chernow argues, came by his lifelong hatred of slavery there. His Caribbean homeland kept an enormous slave population down by iron laws and exemplary acts of terror. Hamilton knew slavery close up. That knowledge, not materialism, underlay his later barely-veiled contempt for the supposedly idealistic agrarian theories of the Jeffersonians. Hamilton knew their ideal society was built on the very real backs of black slaves. He rightly saw modernity and capitalism dooming that system.

Regards. ] 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
::why is it unacceptable? It speaks directly and accurately to a major issue, citing a leading scholar. Something like it has to go back in. ] 21:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Leading scholar?? Chernow?? Have you looked at his notes? He doesn't rely on primary sources<ref>His Hamilton MS is presumably real; but he cites it relatively rarely, and when he does, he neglects other material altogether</ref>. (despite his publisher's puffing), nor on secondary sources, but on partisan popularizations. Something on Hamilton's views on slavery should certainly be included; but it should be specific, and rely on actual citations from Hamilton's writings. This conjecture is not it; this is piffle; and "supposedly idealistic" is partisanship. ] 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

===Whitewash!===
{{guerrilla-mediation-request}}
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 ], 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 ], President Washington discussed with his cabinet whether it would be useful to join the ] 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.).<ref> Bemis, ''Jay's Treaty''. For Hamilton's "amazing revelation" to Hammond, see pp.26-8</ref>

<references />

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages has failed to write decent political articles.
] 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

===slavery===
The following sentence appears to be unsupported, and incredible:
:(From the discussion of the Constitutional Convention): '' Finally, Hamilton strongly advocated the abolition of ]''
Mitchell's discussion of Hamilton, slavery, and the Convention consists of a half-sentence (and index entry) suggesting Hamilton's support for the 1808 compromise that postponed the discussion of the slave trade for twenty years. This was probably statesmanship; any discussion of abolition at the Convention, on the other hand, might have destroyed it. But it does not support the sentence now in the aricle. ] 20:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

::Hamilton was a longtime opponent of slavery. Elkins & McKitrick (p 99) write that during the revolution ''Hamilton and his South Carolinian friend and fellow-aide, John Laurens, both of whom detested slavery, devised a scheme for enrolling South Carolina slaves in the army, and in urging it upon John Jay, thePresident of Congress. Hamilton wrote: "An essential part of the plan is to give them their freedomwith 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 totheir emancipation." The South Carolina legislature, as mighthave been expected, would not hear of it.''
Biographer Forrest McDonald says:
:In one crucial respect, however, his attitude never changed: he always championed liberty and abhorred slavery. Much of what he said about slavery at first was patriotic hyperbole, but beneath the talk about evil ministerial designs lay an intense hostility toward slavery in the more conventional sense. In support of Laurens's plan to recruit several battalions from the slave population in South Carolina, Hamilton wrote a strong letter to Jay, then president of the Continental Congress. Renouncing the bigotry that prevailed in regard to blacks, which "makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason nor experience," he argued the egalitarian position that "their natural faculties are probably as good as ours" and the culturally deterministic position that their intellectual shortcomings stemmed only from a "want of cultivation." It was an essential part of Laurens's scheme, he said, "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." Thus from "dictates of humanity and true policy equally," Hamilton was an abolitionist, and on that subject he never wavered. ] 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::And Laurens' reasons for doing this are perfectly clear: to secure an army for South Carolina (and a command for himself, but that is a laudable ambition). Freeing the slaves you arm gives them an incentive ro fight on your side; and is invariable in the classical instances, with which both men were familiar. To call this evidence of abolitionism is to call Sextus Pompeius an abolitionist. ] 23:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::Nonsense, we are talking about Hamilton here. And we have solid statements by leading scholars. ] 23:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::::And Hamilton's reasons for supporting his friend are equally clear; and equally laudable. ] 00:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::As one recent historian notes:
::::"The Manumission Society was a a "real working organization" it circulated petitions, awarded prizes for tracts which it printed and distributed, sponsored lectures and orations, and, most important of all, exposed violations of the laws against the slave trade by placing watchers to report purchases and to spot ships known to participate in the trade. Its lawyers, such as Hamilton and Burr, processed thirty-six cases of unlawful enslavement as legal counsel for blacks.... Burr, Hamilton, and Jay in organizing "boycotts against merchants and newspaper owners involved in the trade. . . . The Society had a special committee of antislavery militants who visited newspaper offices to remind publishers of the unwisdom of accepting advertisements for the purchase or sale of slaves. Another committee kept a list of persons who either participated in or invested in the slave trade . . . and urged members to boycott anyone listed." ] 00:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Does he cite any examples of Hamilton actually doing anything, as Mitchell cites for Burr, Sands and "others"? ] 00:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


:In one crucial respect, however, his attitude never changed: he always championed liberty and abhorred slavery. Much of what he said about slavery at first was patriotic hyperbole, but beneath the talk about evil ministerial designs lay an intense hostility toward slavery in the more conventional sense. In support of Laurens's plan to recruit several battalions from the slave population in South Carolina, Hamilton wrote a strong letter to Jay, then president of the Continental Congress.'' Renouncing the bigotry that prevailed in regard to blacks, which "makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason nor experience," he argued the egalitarian position that "their natural faculties are probably as good as ours" and the culturally deterministic position that their intellectual shortcomings stemmed only from a "want of cultivation." It was an essential part of Laurens's scheme, he said, "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." Thus from "dictates of humanity and true policy equally," Hamilton was an abolitionist, and on that subject he never wavered''

The first sentence of this paragraph is mere conjecture; the remainder is selective quotation. For both parts, we should describe points of view, rather than quoting them (especially one-sidedly). ] 00:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:''Finally, Hamilton strongly advocated the abolition of ].

This sentence remains unsourced. If it refers to Laurens' troop, it is redundant, and does not belong in the discussion of the Constitutional Convention. If not, what is the evidence for it? ] 01:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
====What Chernow actually says====
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.] 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
====Horton====
What does Horton's article actually say? The copy in my local research library has been stolen. ] 20:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
*(Whatever it says, it can hardly justify the present text; Hamilton cannot have been ''prominent'' by virtue of an office unknown until two years ago.) ] 21:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Jensen has provided this link. from an exhibition catalog. This is the wiki spirit. The claim of fact about the Manumission Society is as follows:

: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. ] 23:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Horton's other points of fact seem to be:
#Hamilton grew up among slaves.
#Hamilton denounced George III's government of the Colonies as slavery.
#He regarded slavery as evil.
#He argued that the capacity of blacks was equal to whites
#he opposed the colonization of freedmen.
#He supported relations with Haiti.
Do these make an abolitionist? Horton himself remarks that he shared #3 with Jefferson; IIRC also 1,2, and in due course 4. ] 00:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

::Abolitionist? I would say so -- ] 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 ], 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. ] (]) 02:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:::And whether or not we three editors would conclude so, ''most prominence'' is a ]. 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. ] 21:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

On another note, it is not serious to remove tags when edit-warring over a controversial matter unless there is an overwhelming likelihood that the edit will resolve the controversy. ] 21:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

==The Hamilton literature==
"The long tradition of Hamilton biography has, almost without exception, been laudatory in the extreme...The result has been to depict an almost spotless champion...Those little satisfied with this reading of American history have struck back by depicting Hamilton as a devil...." The author of this excepts himself, of course; but we need not.

Nevertheless, this is the state of play; and the only safe course here is to mine both sides for facts, and ''report'' the views when necessary. Departing from this is more damaging to this article than the suppressions.

Laudation of Hamilton is not evidence of seriousness; all too often, it is evidence of solemnity and self-importance. ] 01:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:I see that this article included an estimate of Chernow's book as unusually well-written. This is manifestly improper. Even among the wilderness of trash on Hamilton, it is also false.

::''Had he '''' presented himself as a Jew, the snobbish Mary Faucette would certainly have squelched the match in a world that frowned on religious no less than interracial marriage.''

:This occurs on page 10; and the illiteracy and conjecture seen here continue throughout the book.
:*It is news to me that the early eighteenth century ''frowned on religious marriage''. A competent writer would have recast.
:*The evidence given for Mrs. Faucette's character consists the fact she appealed to the chancellor of the Leeward Islands for her separation decree. Who else, pray? ] 15:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:::More to the point, the references section is part of the article, and NPOV and NOR apply to it as much as to any other section. Offering an unsourced (and therefore probably personal) opinion on the merits of a book is as improper when the book is a source as when the book is the subject of the article. ] (]) 16:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I intended ''manifestly improper'' to cover that; but thank you for making an unfortunately necessary point explicit. ] 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

== Madison on debts 1790 ==

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." ] 22:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The text here is:
:''] and ] 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. ] 20:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::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. ] 21:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::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). ] 23:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Thank you for the reference. Mentioning it sooner might have avoided needless friction. ] (]) 00:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::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. ] 22:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::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.) ] (]) 22:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
If "whitewash" is deprecated, I will reconsider it. But I used it to describe, for example, the excision of the Hammond affair (well-sourced); and the addition of such sentences as this:
:''Hamilton was, Chernow writes, more fluent in French than Thomas Jefferson, the great Francophile.
Charnow may well say this, sneer and all; but Misplaced Pages should not. ] 00:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

== historians agree AH was leading abolitionist ==

Hamilton has often been described as one of the 4-5 most prominent abolitionists among the Founding Fathers (along with Jay and Franklin). For example the main scholarly study is ''The Transformation of American Abolitionism: Fighting Slavery in the Early Republic by Richard S Newman'' (2002). on p 18 he says the NYC group was along with the Phily group the “most visible” in the country. He specifies Jay and Hamilton (along with Franklin and Rush) as the prominent statesmen who endorsed abolition. The same argument appears in ''William Jay, and the Constitutional Movement for the Abolition of Slavery'' by Bayard Tuckerman, (1893) P 23 which lists the five outstanding antislavery figures of the late 18th century, including Hamilton as one of the five. Likewise Horton (2004) and Littlefield (200) agree. ] 22:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:I've read Horton, who is writing a tertiary source. I do not see ''this'' claim. My eyes may be glazing; please quote the exact words to which you give this sense. If the present text said that Hamilton was a ''prominent statesman who endorsed abolition'' I would still edit for redundancy and so forth; but it does not: it says he was prominent ''as an abolitionist''; a statement unsupported by even his most fervent biographers. I have limited WP time at the moment (as may be obvious); but I will consult the others as soon as I can.

:The dispute over accuracy and PoV was not originally over slavery; no edit over slavery will completely settle them. I hope a statement of the facts, without peacockry, will settle the matter ''on that issue''; but please do not remove the tags.

:As an instance of PoV editing, I protest the suppression of the following passage:

::''He argued that the blacks were not as stupid as generally believed (and if they were, it didn't matter: "{", if their officers weren't Russians.) Some biographers have acclaimed the liberation of those given muskets as abolitionism; Hamilton argues for it by pointing out that the British were already offering freedom to slaves who ran away and fought for them. <ref>McDonald, p. 34; Flexner, p. 257-8</ref>

This is both sourced, and (as the link will show) factual. The excuse for this suppression was that it is a pro-slavery PoV. If so, Hamilton was a peculiar abolitionist, for it is Hamilton's, and the quote is from him. I await an explanation that is consistent with Misplaced Pages policy.

The present text in the intro is as follows:

:'' He opposed the slave trade and negotiated the deal that abolished the international trade in 1808. During the Revolution he urged Congress to enlisted slaves in the army (and then free them). As a lifelong opponent of slavery and top official of the country's leading abolitionist society he was one of the most prominent Founding Fathers in the abolitionist movement.

My objections to this are as follows:
*I see no evidence that he negotiated the slave-trade clause.
**Neither Chernow nor Mitchell suggest any such thing.
*The clause did not abolish the slave-trade, and we should not say it did.
**Garry Wills, ''Negro President'' 56-9 quotes Madison, Micholas, and Governoeur Morris as expecting the Southwest and the 3/5th clause would give the South an electoral majority. So this is not merely a point of detail.
*The sentence on the Revolution is misleading: it was one abortive project, to raise three or four batallions for one emergency, and it wasn't Hamilton's idea. If we were discussing ], this phrasing and placement would be proper.
*That he was a ''lifelong'' opponent of slavery is conjecture. There is no evidence either way before the Revolution, as Horton, and others state.
*That he was ''top'' official is peacockry,even in describing the Society secretary; Jay was President. Unless there is evidence elsewhere, it is unsupported by reliable sources; it is a slip of Horton in reading Brookhiser.
*That the New York society was "the leading" is peacockry; it is not even supported by Jensen's own summary above.
*The remainder of the sentence is either original research or (in the lead) undue weight given to a minority view; what even Chernow does not assert is not consensus. ] 00:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

::1. Slave trade at Constutional convention. Pmanderson is right (I misread Mitchell 1: 411); the clause was an agreement to abolish the International slave trade in 1808, which happened on schedule.
2. Garry Wills etc: Hamilton lost out on the 3/5th rule.
3. Hamilton was a top aide to Washington and he made a formal proposal to Congress involving abolition (with Laurens). That is important to show AH’s dedication to abolition from early on.
4. Lifelong opponent is true enough. He was on record opposing slavery at age 15 – how young does one have to be? Horton p 19 quotes Hamilton attacking slavery in print at age 19
5. Top official–he was the #2 official after Jay.
6. New York and Philadelphia were the 2 leading abolitionist societies. (See the standard history by Newman p 18)
7. Prominent among Founding Fathers: not original research–comes from Newman book ] 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:53, 5 April 2023

This is an archive of past discussions about Alexander Hamilton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 8

Eventually

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Federalist Papers

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)

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)

1798

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. 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.

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)

Original Research

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)

Was Hamilton Eligible for Presidency?

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))

Hamilton was born in the "west indies", so he wouldn't have been eligible to be president. Our first few presidents were all born in the colonies, just as prominent founders of the country did not run for president, because they couldn't. --69.248.90.249 23:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I originally came to post the same question (you beat me to it by about 6 months), I read that same passage in the Constitution today and wondered if Hamilton had been in America long enough to be a naturalized citizen. A solid answer would be greatly appreciated. --Interested High School student

Duel with Aaron Burr

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))

Hello. I am a basic Misplaced Pages user and like to skip through the history pages. As such, I was astonished to find absolutely nothing in Hamilton's executive summary about the famous duel that took Hamilton's life. As a student of history and casual observer of other's historical awareness, I believe the duel to be not only one of the most important parts of Hamilton's life (for obvious reasons) but also the major fact about Hamilton that the widest segment of the world's population knows about or will be looking for at Misplaced Pages. It's as if I arrive at Lincoln's summarizing entry and not know whether or not he died a peaceful death of old age! Aaron Burr's entry surely mentions the fact that he killed Hamilton, so shouldn't Hamilton equally have at least one sentence in his opener mentioning the fact that he was violently killed with a handgun by the then Vice President of the United States??? Just my opinion. 210.20.86.85 05:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to complain about the duel being buried at the end of the article, but User:210.20.86.85 already commented above better than I could. So let me just second User:210.20.86.85's comments. --Billgordon1099 05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevis

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.

See North America for what is considered in or out. "Immigration", to my understanding, applies from one colonial possession to another, say from India to Canada. If so, then Nevis to New York is just as much so. If it makes anyone feel better, change "immigrate" to "migrate", but Nevis is still in North America, "perverse" or not.Shoreranger 04:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Nevis is certainly "English" at the time. The point is to make differentiating "British North America" as specifically the 13 colonies, when Nevis was both a British colonial possession and also in North America. See Nevis, specifically:

"On August 30, 1620, James I of England asserted sovereignty over Nevis by giving a Royal Patent for colonisation to the Earl of Carlisle. However actual European settlement did not happen until 1628 when Anthony Hilton moved from nearby Saint Kitts following a murder plot against him. He was accompanied by 80 other settlers, soon to be boosted by a further 100 settlers from London who had originally hoped to settle Barbuda. Hilton became the first Governor of Nevis. After the 1671 peace treaty between Spain and England, Nevis became the seat of the British colony and the Admiralty Court sat in Nevis. Between 1675 and 1730, the island was the headquarter for the slave trade for the Leeward Islands, with approximately 6,000-7,000 enslaved West Africans passing through on route to other islands each year. The Royal African Company brought all its ships through Nevis."


Again, see North America -- I will save you the effort and quote the most pertinent section here:

"There are numerous islands off the continent’s coasts: principally, the Arctic Archipelago, the Greater and Lesser Antilles, the Alexander Archipelago, and the Aleutian Islands. Greenland, a Danish self-governing island and the world's largest, is on the same tectonic plate (the North American Plate) and is part of North America geographically. Bermuda is not part of the Americas, but is an oceanic island formed on the fissure of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The nearest landmass to it is Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and it is often thought of as part of North America, especially given its historical political and cultural ties to Virginia and other parts of the continent."

See human migration, since "immigration" seems to be too specific and requires nation-states and may not include migration from one colonial possession to another. No inference of an INS was reasonably infered or in the slightest bit intended.Shoreranger 21:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing revert on these grounds, with correction to "migrate".

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)

As for the unusual requirement that Hamilton be a bird or a tribe to migrate, again, please see human migration to broaden those unexplained limitations, particularly (bolds added):

"Different types of migration include:

  • Daily human commuting can be compared to the diurnal migration of organisms in the oceans.
  • Seasonal human migration is mainly related to agriculture.
  • Permanent migration, for the purposes of permanent or long-term stays.
  • Local
  • Regional
  • Rural to Urban, more common in developing countries as industrialisation takes effect
  • Urban to Rural, more common in developed countries due to a higher cost of urban living
  • International

Human migration has taken place at all times and in the greatest variety of circumstances. It has been tribal, national, class and individual. Its causes have been climatic, political, economic, religious, or mere love of adventure. Its causes and results are fundamental for the study of ethnology, of political and social history, and of political economy."

Shoreranger 19:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for another demonstration why Misplaced Pages should not be used as a reference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being so liberal with your opinions. Here's to hoping people who care about what Misplaced Pages is trying to acomplish and constructively contribute to that end are ever more successful. Perhaps then you will have less to complain about, if that is possible.Shoreranger 02:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No thank you for adding your unsupported falsehoods to Misplaced Pages. 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)

"Special Relationship"

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)

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)

Slavery, again

Hamilton was anti-slavery. There are a number of sources cited for that. Many anti-slavery reps. to Congress went along with comprimises to maintain the Union, that does not make them pro-slavery. Was Ben Franklin pro-slavery, then?Shoreranger 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton was anti-slavery in New York, where almost every prominent man was; only one member of the New York legislature voted against all versions of emancipation in 1785. The difference between Franklin and Hamilton is that Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society petitioned Congress against slavery; Hamilton lobbied, successfully, to have the petition thrown out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hamilton was anti-slavery in New York, whiere most northern slaves were located, and where pro-slavery forces blocked all emancipation plans until 1799. Hamilton was active for years in fighting the slave trade, which was based in part in his NEw York City. He even crossed very bitter party lines to cooperate with his archeenemy Burr to fight slavery. Franklin was a slaveowner who supported slavery during the Revolution when Hamilton was trying to arm the slaves; Franklin indeed changed late in life and lent his name to other people's petitions but his Pennsylvania had few slaves. Here's Ben explaining away slavery in 1770:
Franklin, "A Conversation on Slavery" Jan. 26, 1770. in Library of America edition: "New England, the most populous of all the English Possessions in America, has very few Slaves; and those are chiefly in the capital Towns, not employed in the hardest Labour, but as Footmen or House-maids. The same may be said of the next populous Provinces, New-York, New Jersey, and Pensylvania. Even in Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas, where they are employed in Field-work, what Slaves there are belong chiefly to the old rich Inhabitants, near the navigable Waters, who are few compared with the numerous Families of Back-Settlers, that have scarce any Slaves among them. In Truth, there is not, take North-America through, perhaps, one Family in a Hundred that has a Slave in it. Many Thousands there abhor the Slave Trade as much as Mr. Sharpe can do, conscientiously avoid being concerned with it, and do every Thing in their Power to abolish it. Supposing it then with that Gentleman, a Crime to keep a Slave, can it be right to stigmatize us all with that Crime? If one Man of a Hundred in England were dishonest, would it be right from thence to characterize the Nation, and say the English are Rogues and Thieves? But farther, of those who do keep Slaves, all are not Tyrants and Oppressors. Many treat their Slaves with great Humanity, and provide full as well for them in Sickness and in Health, as your poor labouring People in England are provided for. Your working Poor are not indeed absolutely Slaves; but there seems something a little like Slavery, where the Laws oblige them to work for their Masters so many Hours at such a Rate, and leave them no Liberty to demand or bargain for more, but imprison them in a Workhouse if they refuse to work on such Terms; and even imprison a humane Master if he thinks fit to pay them better; at the same Time confining the poor ingenious Artificer to this Island, and forbidding him to go abroad, though offered better Wages in foreign Countries. As to the Share England has in these Enormities of America, remember, Sir, that she began the Slave Trade; that her Merchants of London, Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow, send their Ships to Africa for the Purpose of purchasing Slaves. If any unjust Methods are used to procure them; if Wars are fomented to obtain Prisoners; if free People are enticed on board, and then confined and brought away; if petty Princes are bribed to sell their Subjects, who indeed are already a Kind of Slaves, is America to have all the Blame of this Wickedness? You bring the Slaves to us, and tempt us to purchase them. I do not justify our falling into the Temptation. To be sure, if you have stolen Men to sell to us, and we buy them, you may urge against us the old and true saying, that _the Receiver is as bad as the Thief._ This Maxim was probably made for those who needed the Information, as being perhaps ignorant that _receiving_ was in it's Nature as bad as _stealing_: But the Reverse of the Position was never thought necessary to be formed into a Maxim, nobody ever doubted that _the Thief is as bad as the Receiver_. This you have not only done and continue to do, but several Laws heretofore made in our Colonies, to discourage the Importation of Slaves, by laying a heavy Duty, payable by the Importer, have been disapproved and repealed by your Government here, as being prejudicial, forsooth, to the Interest of the African Company." (end BF 1770) Rjensen 08:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
In 1770, Hamilton was a school-boy; and the major opponent of slavery was John Woolman, who was widely ignored (except perhaps in Pennsylvania). This is an exercise in irrelevant anachronism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Wiki contributors

"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)

Depiction of Duel Inaccurate

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)

Hamilton's children

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)

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)
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)

Verification

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, 1755/1757July 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)

hi does any body know where to find a full body portrait of alexander hamilton

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).

Homosexuality

This is question on which some sources conjecture. Katz is not the only one; see Flexner on Hamilton and Lafayette. All osurces are guessing; but ir is improper, a violation of WP:SYNTH to invent our own arguments to confute them.

What we know is that Hamilton did not obey the Seventh Commandment, that he had ten (or was it an even dozen?) children and that his circle engaged some remarkably florid correspondence; his letters to Laurens are nothing to his sister-in-law. It is not our business to engage in further speculation; let those who get paid for it do that. It is our business to record the speculation and the refutations as they come out.

I have tolerated a half-sentence; although it is clear that, technically, mentioning that the letter Katz cites is about a prospective wife for Hamilton is a novel synthesis, and therefore original research. (To my mind, singularly unpersuasive research: if Hamilton were flirting with Laurens, discussions of marriage would fit perfectly; but it doesn't matter.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that Shoreranger object that this lacks consensus. It does; which is why we attribute it, explicitly, to Katz; it's his notion, although Flexner has a similar interpretation for Hamilton's friendship with Lafayette. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed this section, please see WP:UNDUE, specifically:
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
  • Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all
  • Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Misplaced Pages is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
--Roswell native 19:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Similar arguments are made by Flexner, one of Hamilton's major biographers. I find in looking for criticisms of this view that a review takes Chernow, another of them to be "coyly hinting" at Laurens and Hamilton being lovers. I wouldn't be at all surprised; Chernow is almost unreadably coy. As far as I recall, the other two or three don't discuss the matter. Mitchell wrote before Kats, in an age where such a suggestion would be unseemly; and McDonald is concentrated on politics and fiscal policy. There is limited secondary literature on this question, but it does seem to split about evenly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm writing for the enemy here. There is, and is never likely to be, hard evidence; and Trees' counterargument that this was the style of Hamilton's time is quite sound. (How far it goes is open to question; Franklin and Jefferson seem to have taken such a tone when in France, and when engaged in fairly serious heterosexual flirtation. Hamilton was younger than either of them, but his upbringing was more provincial - I have no idea if he even read Sterne, let alone Werther.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting, but I still believe that WP:UNDUE directly applies. I'm certainly no historian or Hamiltonian expert, but the info about his sexuality (in the article and provided by you here on the talk page) indicates this view is held by only a small minority of those that are. As it doesn't appear there has been much scholarship around this other than those few people and there isn't really consensus even amongst that handful, an encyclopedic entry isn't the right place to include it IMHO. I also think that this biographical info and interpretation should be moved to the talk page until others weigh in on this and some sort of consensus amongst Misplaced Pages editors is reached. I'm not an "enemy" of including this information, but I am opposed to including it if it isn't a significant viewpoint. --Roswell native 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
One and a half of the four major sources, and with the scholarship or the subject divided? I cannot agree that this is a small minority. I agree that the discussion could be shorter than it is; but then again, it was, before Shoreranger troubled these waters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, you've lost me with the "One and a half of the four major sources." There seem to be many more than four major sources on Hamilton just from the references for this article (understood that Chernow is a prevalent modern one). Also, do you have page numbers/editions/ISBNs for the refs that are cited on this topic (for easier reference)? --Roswell native 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Chernow, Flexner, Mitchell, and McDonald are the major current biographies. All are listed in the bibliography, with ISBNs except for Mitchell, who wrote before this became an issue anyway. Chernow supports this by implication; see Trees' review, fully cited. For Flexner on Hamilton and Lafayette, see his index; if I come across a copy, I'll add the page number. p.316. (Other biographies listed, like Brookhiser, use secondary sources; quite frequently they are what some Wikipedian had to hand.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

1755 or 1757

According the the PBS program American Experience, Hamilton was born in 1755. GoodDay 22:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that isn't definitive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton's religion

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)

Hamilton's Jewish heritage

Why is Hamilton's Jewish heritage (through his mother) not mentioned in this article? --172.168.94.248 06:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
I know of no evidence for this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Then, as I understand it, under the conventions of the Jewish faith, Hamilton is not considered Jewish if his mother was not Jewish. As for "heritage" - if one shakes enough branches in a family tree we all have Jewish, Muslim, African, what-have-you heritage. Is an encyclopedia article really the place for "conjecture"?Shoreranger 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yorktown

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)

The reference to Yorktown only conveyed to me that Hamilton led the last charge in the last significant battle of a very long an bloody war, nothing more. At worst, a biased reading could extract a meaing that Hamilton led the charge that *ended* the war, but no reasonable reading could take away the impression that the entry implied Hamilton "won the war singlehanded". It never seemed to me that there was ever any serious challenge to the idea that Yorktown was the death-knell of significant British military attmepts to destroy the revolution, and that the remaining tiem between Yorktown and the 1783 treaty was due to diplomatic negotiation primarily and not continuing large-scale military hostiltities. Is this not correct? Shoreranger 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

What does this sentence mean?

"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)

Federalist Papers

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)

William S. Hamilton

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)

  • Littlefield's paper (in the references) has a good deal on William Hamilton; but does not fully endorse the claim to paternity; I don't think it's available on-line, but I commend it. Most of the Hamilton literature is trash; and on this subject it is likely to be defensive trash (most of the rest of it is polemical muckraking). Unfortunately, WP:NPOV compels us to respect the opinion of published toadies like Chernow and MacDonald; sources asserting paternity would be welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • Are we, possibly, talking about two different Williams here? The William in this article was a mulatto abolitionist, whose political activity was at least in part on the East Coast. If he was the son of Alexander, he was illegimate.
    • The WMH article is talking about Hamilton's legitimate (and quite white) widow, Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton (d. 1854); the footnote is about her son-in-law, Sidney Holley.
    • The other two sources agree in talking about William S Hamilton, who came to Illinois about 1817. They are both the sort of local history, compiled from the memory of the subscribers, which were common in the late nineteenth century; they tend to repeat, uncritically, what the subscribers told them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
    • 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)

(unindent)OK, I just wasn't clear, the discussion led me astray. I wanted to make sure, especially after I read the sentence on "William Hamilton" here. Sorry I wasn't of more help on the contentious issue about his son on this page, but you have been most helpful in my endeavor. I had to ensure accuracy and figured this was the best place to do it. Thanks for responding to my original query on your talk page about this thread. I can now write that William S. Hamilton was Alexander's son. I will probably need to note that this is not the son of questionable paternity, which source do you think I should use? IvoShandor 16:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

Unsourced addition

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)

Newburgh Conspiracy

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)

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)

I would really like to hear people knowledgeable about Hamilton weigh in on the Newburgh situation. Also, to PmAnderson: I don't have a problem including your statement as long as you rephrase it to reflect the reality of the subject. Your source may well say something to that effect, but everything I have ever read that is currently respected historical reference contradicts your assertion that Hamilton was involved in any way at all in plotting a coup. Please read my explanation and respond here.

GoldenMean 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

GoldenMean

Has been revert warring because of what he can't believe, above.

Sorry, the generation of 1776 was human; Hamilton as much as any of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is unacceptable for you to rename my discussion topics from their original names seen below, and stick them under a subheading of my name as if you started the discussion about me, when in fact I began the discussion topics because I wanted other people to weigh in on the subjects. And to crown it with your groundless charge again---people, the info was moved, not removed, and I put it in exactly the spot PmAnderson asked. PmAnderson, please knock it off and just deal with the genuine issues of content. Pretty please. GoldenMean 09:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

GoldenMean 09:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton's Religion

I removed the blatant unsourced editorialization within the religion section that accused Hamilton of ""opportunistic religiosity", using Christianity for political ends, during the Reynolds affair amounting to self-righteous blasphemy". There is no source for that at all. I added the cn tags for the portions of the section that could be sourced. Hamilton was a very religious figure in his own way, particularly towards the end of his life, as I added and tried to source in my edits.

I am restoring most of my edit that merged duplicated material concerning the specifics of Hamilton's last rights/communion fiasco into the paragraph on the duel and death. It was almost verbatim twice in the article. It could be moved from the duel section to the religion section, but it shouldn't be listed twice. I also sourced a part of last rights sentences, so if you want to move it into one section or the other, great. Thoughts?

GoldenMean 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The entire section is and was a summary of Adair and Harvey's paper, as clearly cited. They agree that in the last years of his life, after Philip's death and the end of Hamilton's political career, he did become a Christian - as is stated. As for verbatim tear-jerking quotations from Chernow's book, the fewer of them the better, especially if he does indeed lie by omission, suppressing the Presbyterian minister.
Please read the footnotes and the sources cited in them before you edit again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already recently reread all the sources except the article (I don't have JSTOR access anymore) but I will take your word for its content. If you want to summarize their paper, more clearly note it as a summary of that paper. e.g. "So and so claimed...." It is somewhat 'weasel wordy' and ambigously cited as it was (I don't know if you wrote that or not--if you did PmAnderson, it was not a personal attack). I don't object to the inclusion of the info that he became a true believer at all, just the non-NPOV and unsourced stuff. I think there should be a lot more about his religion, just that it should be sourced. Rewrite the religion in a clear and sourced way, that's fine--just stop blanking me, and keep the summary NPOV, and free of editorializations. The strongly-worded editiorialization and unsourced material is what I objected to, and what I (and I would hope, everyone) will always object . GoldenMean 21:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be justified if the conclusions are disputed, but I do not see that they are. There is a multitude of really bad Hamilton literature; much of it evades the question by emphasizing the piety of Hamilton's last years; but that's not the same thing. If you have positive assertions of Hamilton's faith between 1776 and 1801, cite them by all means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Also, PmAnderson, in case you missed it: This info ALL exists in the Duel/Death section conveying the exact same material (and I believe, with the same source). This duplication of info predates my involvement in this article. I have not removed it, I merged it into its location in the Dueling section. Again, IT ISN'T GONE. It's in the Dueling/Death section. GoldenMean 21:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

But it should be under Hamilton's religion; not all of his contemporaries would have turned to a Presbyterian, even as second choice. GoldenMean's text gives a much firmer denominational commitment than the facts will warrant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The blanked text is:

In his early life, he was an orthodox and conventional, though not deeply pious, Presbyterian; had he not been, 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. In this period, he asserted the truth of the Christian revelation; one of his letters suggested a Christian Constitutionalist Society. He did not join any denomination, but led his family in the Episcopal service the Sunday before the duel. Afterwards he requested communion both from the Bishop of New York and (when he declined) from a Presbyterian minister.<:ref>The whole paragraph summarizes Adair and Harvey: "Christian Stateman?" passim. </ref>

Please observe the wording of the footnote, as adjusted after GoldenMean's second blanking. All of this, including the argument about Knox, is from Adair and Harvey. Nevertheless, GoldenMean has added citation tags, while removing the citation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, it was moved, not blanked, and its back now, and the duplicate is gone from the 'Duel' Section, where I had initially moved it. It was initially unclear to me that whole 'religon' section was actually just a summary of one journal article. I most seriously objected to the part saying Hamilton's religion "amounted to self-righteous blasphemy". But that's mercifully gone now, and rightly so. In any case, Pmanderson's grievance in the religion section would seem to be resolved since I have decided not to substantially edit the two tagged sections, just to ask people what they think, and to contribute--this, combined with good faith on Pmanderson's part should stop any budding edit war.

That brings me to my grievance: I have labeled the religion section as factually disputed, though perhaps NPOV would have been a better tag. The wording of that section, except for the part at the end, is, according to Pmanderson a summary of one journal article. This summary terms Hamilton's religion as "opportunistic" and "using Christianity for political ends". Perhaps that is the case, but for such contentious accusations, I would think other sources and examples would be required, such a characterization comes off as (indirect) editorializing.

The religion section has a lone footnote referring to the journal article, but obviously one article that contains controversial claims shouldn't be summarized and passed off as a self-sufficient, balanced Misplaced Pages subsection. That seems like a 'weasel words' way around evidence or citing the more commonly-accepted, balanced secondary sources that thought biographies are supposed to be largely based on to avoid too much original research, or information of questionable veracity from infiltrating wikipedia.

For example: if a journal article said "Hamilton was a deceptive, treasonous weasel who worshiped the devil with gusto, it would not be OK (to my way of thinking) to summarize that article, and place it in Hamilton's Misplaced Pages article under the 'religion' section as if it were an established fact in such a way as: "Hamilton was a well-known liar and devil worshiper." That statement would then be properly annotated, but does that make it OK as info for the article? I use an over-the-top example, of course, but what do others think?

GoldenMean 08:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Find a reliable source who says something else about Hamilton's faith between 1777 and 1801; I looked, and I was unable to. That's the Wiki method. Adair and Harvey have been cited some 200 times; this is no random journal article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Newburgh

In this case the blanked text is as follows:

he was one of the civilians took part in the Newburgh conspiracy, in which a number of Continental officers plotted to mutiny and march on Congress to set up a stronger government. Washington wrote him a strong letter of rebuke for "playing with such incendiary matters as an army."<:ref>Garry Wills, Cincinnatus, p.6. American National Biography, "Alexander Hamilton".</ref>
The quotation is from Wills; the facts from both. Please note that the ANB life is by Forrest McDonald, one of the four important biographers mentioned above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I have added the standard modern history of the politics of the Continental Army. If necessary, I will go find Richard Kohn's Eagle and Sword, which did the primary research; but I trust this will suffice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Pmanderson, thanks for trying to clarify your addition to the 'Newburgh' section.

TO EVERYONE ELSE: I think this section could REALLY use some extra eyes, ANY eyes. I don't care if you worship Hamilton, think he's Satan, or anything in between. I would REALLY appreciate attention to the 'Newburgh' section by anyone who would consider their knowledge of Hamilton or early American history at least 'decent' and can source their additions. Right now it just isn't quite accurate or NPOV. I have been blanked over and over, and attacked over and over, and I'm sick of it. Have fun, and improve the article.

If you enjoy this topic you may find the following letters interesting and/or helpful. They are the April 4, 1783 letter of Washington you quote indirectly about "playing" with the army comments (the 'incendiary' part is actually a slight misquote of a cited source in the paragraph as I write this).to Washington - April 4, 1783 Letter to Hamilton], and the two letters (sent simultaneously) from Hamilton to which Washington's April 4th letter was a response. Hamilton sent Washington a letter on (March) 25th which introduced and enclosed another writing on the situation of the unpaid soldiers/Newburgh Conspiracy (The second, attached letter Hamilton mentions in his first letter can be read by clicking the hyperlinked 1 on the web page containing Hamilton's first letter--it says how on the webpage).

Where I am coming from: Every book I have ever read on the period mentioning Hamilton essentially seems to agree that Hamilton's willingness to let Congress believe the soldiers were closer to armed insurrection as a means getting them their back pay was a bad idea. Further, they seem to agree that Washington thought it was important to keep even a bluff of a military uprising out of the whole situation, and told Hamilton of this (much to Washington's credit). But they also generally agree (and Hamilton states this clearly in his correspondence) that Hamilton was working against the actual threat of armed uprising, and that both men wanted to get the soldiers some form of back pay without violence.

Finally, I REALLY would like to get other peoples' input on this paragraph's accuracy. ANYTHING. This has gotten way too personal. If anyone else reading this has access to these books, or access to JSTOR, take a whack at the section, only good can come from it. I am going to stay out of this article, except to label it as disputed just so that more people will have a look the Newburgh section, contribute based on reliable sources and historical consensus. Sorry for the long response. Thanks for reading. Good luck.

GoldenMean 04:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, what it needs is an editor whose standards of judgment are not, as GoldenMean's avowedly are, "If I can't imagine a Founding Father doing such a thing, it can't have happened."
It would also help if he had consulted any of the secondary sources cited, of which the present text is a precise and careful summary; instead of, as he has, done original research in primary sources. ("Incendiary" was Wills' word, not Washington's - such slips happen; but the present text hass collated with Lender et al. and with the indicated text of Washington's letters).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, enough personal attacks. Stop insulting me, labeling me, and insisting to me and everyone else what my motives really are. Stop ascribing to me quotes of things I didn't say or do,, or things that are vaguely ad hominem, or less than on-the-level. Stop altering the talk page to portray yourself in a more favorable light/alter peoples' perception of events or their order. People can read just fine.

I know you have good intentions for the article, ok? I know your[REDACTED] technocratic skills dwarf my own. But the issue has always just been the veracity of the material as detailed by the consensus of something resembling mainstream historical writing. Please, stop saying I don't consult sources, I do, I have, I will continue to. That will be the case no mater what you say. That I quote Chernow a lot is just a result of the fact that I own it, and its one of the newest, most widely acclaimed and exhaustive (818 p.) Hamilton bios. I know you hate the book, but it is a very credible, widely accepted source, though not the only one of course. I object to parts of those two paragraphs because of what I have read, not because of what I want to/not to believe. I will give them more time to be looked at, changed. We can resolve this fairly, I know it.

GoldenMean 03:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Chernow? I applaud your tenacity at wading through 800 pages of such prose as Had he presented himself as a Jew, the snobbish Mary Faucette would certainly have squelched the match in a world that frowned on religious no less than interracial marriage. (This takes the stereotype of the irreligious eighteenth century to new depths.) More serious is the oleaginous apologetic on at least 700 of those pages. No wonder you have presented the appearance of a hagiographer; you've been reading one. (I of course accept your word that you do not so intend; although I can only judge by your edits.)
Chernow's popularization received, and deserved, appalling reviews in the professional press; we cite one of them (on the question of Hamilton's homosexuality). But provide a citation of a source which gives a different account of Hamilton's religion in middle life, or his involvement at Newburgh, and we will include them also; as it is, I can only follow the consensus of the sources I've seen.
I have been patient, and waited for Labor Day, on which most editors concerned with this article will be busy. But there is a limit; edits based on (and sourced to) mainstream sources should not be tagged indefinitely on the basis of "I don't believe it" and "I read it somewhere". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton's reputation

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)

Agreed, wholeheartedly. DukeOfSquirrels 17:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

William S. redux

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)

Possible vandalism.

Could anyone confirm if this edit is vandalism? Thanks. Aowpr 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Artillery company

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)

Heroes

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)

Talk:Alexander Hamilton/Archive 4: Difference between revisions Add topic