Talk:Alexander Hamilton/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Doggerel

The following, from the Independent Chronicle (Boston), 16 October 1797 quoted in Carol Sue Humphrey, The Revolutionary Era: Primary Documents on Events from 1776 to 1800 (2003) p, 260

• ASK—who lies here beneath this monument?
• L o!—’tis a self created MONSTER, who
• E mbraced all vice. His arrogance was like
• X erxes, who flogg’d the disobedient sea,
• A dultery his smallest crime; when he
• N obility affected. This privilege
• D ecreed by Monarchs, was to that annext.
• E nticing and entic’d to ev’ry fraud,
• R enounced virtue, liberty and God.
• H aunted by whores—he haunted them in turn
• A ristocratic was this noble Goat
• M onster of monsters, in pollution skill’d
• I mmers’d in mischief, brothels, funds & banks
• L ewd slave to lust,—afforded consolation;
• T o mourning whores, and tory-lamentation.
• O utdid all fools, tainted with royal name;
• N one but fools, their wickedness proclaim.

is amusing; but quoting collections of primary sources is still original research. Put it in Wikisource. Septentrionalis 17:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Something can be original research without being an invertion. Septentrionalis 18:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ive taken my own suggestion; wikisource:Doggerel against Alexander Hamilton. Septentrionalis 18:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson mixes up original research (not allowed) and primary documents (allowed). In this case a scholar (Humphrey) did all the original research (in newspapers of 1790s) and published the results in a secndary book, which I used. the Wiki rule is "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections." --and the doggerel ceratinly qualifies. from Wikipedia:Reliable sources Rjensen 18:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The total insignificance of this poem makes me wonder why it would be quoted at relatively vast length in an encyclopedia article. Just say this: "The Federalist and Republican newspapers of the 1790s traded vicious barbs. Hamilton was often the target." and cite an appropriate source. Obviously, given the characterizations made ("vicious" and "often") a secondary rather than primary source would be required for this. I've removed the poem and tagged the text pending sourcing. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The importance of the poem is that is shows the issues that were in fact raised against Hamilton and the quality of the debate. The quote follows Wiki standards and presents primary documents in a way that users at all educational elevles can handle. Many of the sources on the press are cited at First Party System. Rjensen 07:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

But if we presented every supporting primary document the article would be thousands upon thousands of pages long -- I'm tempted to throw the text of a few of the Federalist Papers in there to support a few points. The statement that atacks were made against Hamilton can be made without the presence of a supporting primary source, just like all the other claims in the article. It should be cited to a SECONDARY source because the characterizations made cannot be established by primary sources. BTW I just realized I used the automatic revert, an error for which I apologize. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is inserting thousands of pages here--just a few lines of poetry that show very clearly the tone of the rhetoric of the 1790s and the main charges his enemies were making. To make space I deleted a useless poem that was included in the article. As for the Fed papers, they are all online and easy to link to. This article lacks a serious analysis of AH's ideas in them. Rjensen 17:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The only thing this poem shows clearly is that once, Alexander Hamilton was attacked in a newspaper. It doesn't demonstrate the main charges his enemies were making, it demonstrates the main charges this particular enemy made in this particular poem. There's no secondary source supporting the idea that this poem was typical on such attacks -- indeed, despite my request you've provided no secondary sources attesting to anything about these newspaper attacks. Compared to the length of other quotes in the article this quote is huge, and giving it pride of place is a bad idea when it's relative importance is exceedingly low. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper rhetoric

On the request for secondary sources on the tone of newspaper rhetoric, here's a good example: AH Biographer Miller says this: "it was [editor] Freneau's particular delight to rake Hamilton over the coals and to watch his reputation go up in smoke. In describing the iniquities of Alexander Hamilton, the Poet of the Revolution abused both his poetic and journalistic license. Freneau seemed to have imagined that he was fighting the American Revolution over again, this time with Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist party in the place of George III and the Tories." [Miller, Alexander Hamilton: Portrait in Paradox p. 344]

Here's another account: "It was with the newspaper editors, however, on both sides that a climax of rancorous and venomous abuse was reached. Of the Federalist editors, the most voluminous masters of scurrility were William Cobbett of Porcupine's Gazette and John Ward Fenno of the United States Gazette, at Philadelphia; Noah Webster of the American Minerva, at New York; and at Boston, Benjamin Russell of the Columbian Centinel, Thomas Paine of the Federal Orrery, and John Russell of the Boston Gazette. Chief of these was Cobbett, whose control of abusive epithet and invective may be judged from the following terms applied by him to his political foes, the Jacobins: "refuse of nations"; "yelper of the Democratic kennels"; "vile old wretch"; "tool of a baboon"; "frog-eating, man-eating, blooddrinking cannibals"; "I say, beware, ye under-strapping cut-throats who walk in rags and sleep amidst filth and vermin; for if once the halter gets round your flea-bitten necks, howling and confessing will come too late." Cobbett wrote of the "base and hellish calumnies" propagated by the Jacobins, and of "tearing the mask from the artful and ferocious villains who, owing to the infatuation of the poor, and the supineness of the rich, have made such fearful progress in the destruction of all that is amiable and good and sacred among men." Among the milder examples of his description of Jacobins was the following: "Where the voice of the people has the most weight in public affairs, there it is most easy to introduce novel and subversive doctrines. In such States too, there generally, not to say always, exists a party who, from the long habit of hating those who administer the Government, become the enemies of the Government itself, and are ready to sell their treacherous services to the first bidder. To these descriptions of men, the sect of the Jacobins have attached themselves in every country they have been suffered to enter. They are a sort of flies, that naturally settle on the excremental and corrupted parts of the body politic. . . . The persons who composed this opposition, and who thence took the name of Anti-Federalists, were not equal to the Federalists, either in point of riches or respectability. They were in general, men of bad moral characters embarrassed in their private affairs, or the tools of such as were. Men of this caste naturally feared the operation of a Government embued with sufficient strength to make itself respected, and with sufficient wisdom to exclude the ignorant and wicked from a share in its administration." [Jacobin and Junto by Charles Warren (1931) pp 90-91.] Rjensen 18:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

These sources would be infinitely more useful to a reader than the primary document, although you went above and beyond in actually transcribing such lengthy quotes. Hopefully you are satisfied with the section as it is after your latest edit, as I think it is pretty good. Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

CHRIS--A CONFESSION: I cut and pasted from Questia.com, a terrific resource. Section is good but let's add a few more lines of poetry to show the charges that were used. Rjensen 18:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Third paragraph is a mess

There really needs to be some citations for this, and the opinionated tone muffled. --Shoreranger 17:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what you have in mind. Septentrionalis 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Slavery

The lengthy material about his relationship to slavery that I found in the lead did not belong there. A lead should only be about three paras and should summarise the article, not contain detail that goes beyond anything found in the article itself. Besides, the material was not well integrated with the rest of the lead. Accordingly, I've shifted this material into the "slavery" section and attempted to reconcile the two sets of material. This exposed another problem: the two accounts were not easy to read harmoniously (again, the material in a lead should not go beyond what can be found elsewhere in the body of the article). I've done the best job I can of producing a coherent account from what was there. I suggest that some more work be done to ensure that the account of Hamilton and slavery is consistent and accurate, and that all detail remain in one spot as per my edit. Perhaps a new summary sentence could be written for the lead, but I see no non-controversial way of summarising the issue, and a lead does not have to deal with every aspect of the subject matter of its article. Metamagician3000 12:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; I concur. My only quibble with your edit is this: the sort of opposition or regret for slavery that Davis discussed was actually widespread around 1774-9; in consulting several historians, I have seen none who disagrees. (Some question the depth of the sentiment; many who talked in this vein continued to own slaves all their lives, but the existence of the rhetoric is not controversial, AFAIK). Septentrionalis 04:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The unsourced statements are that

• no previous proposal involved Congress. This is, in fact, false; Sargeant submitted his plan to John Adams to be transmitted to Congress in 1776.
• There were no previous black combat units. I doubt this. The First Rhode Island was raised in 1777. Laurens' is certainly not the first ptoposal of slave combat units, so the text is at least misleading. Septentrionalis 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It is false. The First Rhode Island fought at the Battle of Rhode Island and elsewhere; "gallantly", says the source cited below.

This edit is most deplorable. The implicit suggestion that Laurens' plan was either first or unique is false; so is the suggestion that it received no support from South Carolina. Does Rjensen no longer contend that Laurens' plan was the only one to involve Congress? Septentrionalis 02:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact is Hamilton had nothing to do with various other plans and they do not belong in his bio. Pmanderson was rejected as an adminsitrator because of this kind of s nuisance editing designed to weaken Wiki articles to express a POV. Rjensen 02:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Another irrelevant personal attack, I see. This does not justify removal of the facts that Laurens' would not have been the first or only slave unit; nor was it the first combat unit. (See Sidney Kaplan: The Black Presence in the Era of the American Revolution, p.64.) I will see if a shorter shatement of these details will satisfy Rjensen's view of Hamilton. Septentrionalis 02:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I subjoin the full (sourced) paragraph here:

During the Revolutionary War, there was a series of proposals to arm slaves, free them, and compensate their masters. The first of these projects was made in August 1776, by Jonathan Dickinson Sargeant; Rhode Island enacted one in 1777. Freeing any enlisted slaves had also become customary by then both for the British, who did not compensate their American masters, and for the Continental Army; some states were to require it before the end of the war. The first Rhode Island fought in the Battle of Rhode Island in 1778. The next year, Hamilton's friend John Laurens suggested such a unit be formed under his command, to relieve besieged Charleston; Hamilton wrote a letter to the Continental Congress to create up to four battalions of slaves for combat duty, and free them. Congress approved a plan to purchase 3000 slaves, but South Carolina officials vetoed the plan, even though the situation was so desperate that the governor had also written Congress in favor of it.

Why not write another article about freeing slaves. this is a biography--we do NOT talk about other efforts to industrialize America for example, we do not talk about other immigrants from the West Indies, we do not talk about a million topics that Hamilton was not involved in. Article says it was Laurens plan and AH promoted it, getting Congress to approve 3000 troops. False to talk about Brits--they never enlisted Loyalist slaves and --after a couple weeks in 1775--never used black units. (Dunmore took in about 500 runaways from Patriot masters & made them soldiers in one small battle. Then half died of disease and the unit vanished.) The point is that Hamilton was promoting a much larger plan -- one that dramatically shows the issue of race during Revolution. Rjensen 03:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• If Rjensen had bothered to read the paragraph immediately preceeding, he would have found nothing about British black units, whether Dunmore's or the raiders off Sandy Hook. What is said and sourced is that the British did enlist American slaves (presumably largely Patriot slaves) and did free them - and in New York and South Carolina (as Hamilton says) as well as Virginia.
• Hamilton's "larger plan" is original research. What Hamilton did was to endorse Laurens' plan for a draft and express a hope, in half a sentence, that this might lead to a wider emancipation. Both these are stated. (And the hope was not certain. Virginia did enlist and free slaves; and so far from leading to emancipation, the Assembly had to step in to keep the freedmen from being repossessed by their former owners. See "The Negro on the Virginia Frontier" J. Reuben Sheeler: The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 43, No. 4. (Oct., 1958), pp. 285.)
• Laurens' plan was in no respect unique, except perhaps for size; and its size is both disputed, and less than fully meaningful. The First Rhode Island acquired many fewer slaves than it planned.

As for this edit; the matter of Princeton can certainly be condensed, or put in a note; but when some biographers affirm it flatly, some deny it flatly, and the standard history of the period offers an intriguing compromise, we should at least mention it. Septentrionalis 21:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is a footnote; what's the problem? If we don't explain multiple views, someone will insert one view on the basis of one of the biographers who assert it. Septentrionalis 22:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As for this edit, iot inserts the following paragraph, which contains two falsehoods:

Modern scholars believe that the historical record confirms Hamilton as a "steadfast abolitionist." However one college undergraduate claims that the record reveals him as a "hypocrite." (ref)Quotes describing the historiography from Weston, who disagrees with both, finding Hamilton ambivalent.(/ref)

• As the footnote says, Weston does not "claim that the record reveals him as a hypocrite". He considers Hamilton ambivalent on the matter.
• He contradicts those modern scholars (which I take to mean Flexner and others) who do take him to be one. Nevertheless their existence is worth noting.
  • Weston was an undergraduate when he wrote his peer-reviewed paper. Rjensen did not object to this when he introduced Weston's paper (and misquoted it). Septentrionalis 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's wondeful that undergraduates write serious papers--some Wiki editors have even less education. But lets not call them "modern scholars". Rjensen 22:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Only Rjensen calls him one; Weston and the paragraph quoted use "modern scholars" of the critics of Hamilton, of which Weston is not one. Septentrionalis 22:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that Rjensen's talent for irrelevance continues. What Wilder (Covenant with Color p. 53.) actually says is:

The city also remained a haven for slave smugglers. "Any day of the week slaves could be discovered stowed in the holds on board ships docked in New York harbor. They were brought from Africa, the West Indies, South America, and the American South, bound for reshipment to Southern plantations," notes Anthony Gronowicz in his history of pre-Civil War Manhattan politics. Looking at the period from 1857 to 1862, Robert Trent Vinson argues that "New York City enjoyed the dubious distinction of being one of the world's leading slaving ports."

• This demonstrates import; Hamilton was associated with a law banning export.
• As the mention of "smugglers" shows, this deals with the period after 1800, when the slave trade was illegal; much of it when it was illegal under the laws of the United States.
• I set aside the question of what this whole paragraph says about the effectiveness of such laws. Septentrionalis 18:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither of these statements is true.

• During the Revolutionary War, Hamilton and Laurens put forth the only proposal to Congress to arm slaves, free them, and compensate their masters.
• Certainly false; the Sergeant proposal had all these elements.

• Some small-scale projects had been proposed at the state level. Rhode Island had formed a unit of about 200 blacks, some of them ex-slaves. Sidney Kaplan, The Black Presence in the Era of the American Revolution, p.64ff
• The First Rhode Island was a fulfillment of Rhode Island's obligations to Congress. It was a full regiment. In part because this was Rhode Island, it had only 200 (freed) slaves, but its roster was filled up with free blacks and Indians.
• It was not "small-scale"; it was two batallions. Laurens' plan was variously stated at three, four, or five batallions. (Congress authorized up to six, but tgis included Georgia and was a maximum.

Please stop this pointless unsourced falsehood. Septentrionalis 19:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Princeton

I don't know what Rjensen has against this footnote. But someday an editor will insert one of the several sourced flat assertions out there, and we'll need it.Septentrionalis 19:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some dispute about this. The original source was a collection of anecdotes by Hercules Mulligan, published well after Hamilton's death; some biographers consider him unreliable. Mulligan asserts that Hamilton demanded the right to advance from class to class at his own speed, and John Witherspoon refused. Witherspoon had just overseen a similar program for James Madison, but this may have been the problem: Madison had then collapsed from overwork.

Whether or not the kid applied to Princeton is pretty trivial. He never had any connection with princeton. He in fact attended Columbia. (Imagine 40 years from now listing all the colleges that president XXX applied to way back in 2006 at age 17-- how silly.) Rjensen 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If the President's biographers dispute about it, as Hamilton's do, it would not be trivial; but we can see how silence works. Septentrionalis 19:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I see Princeton's back. This is why to include footnotes like this; to keep from wasting everybody's time in an add-delete-protest-explain cycle. Add it once, and have done and a stable text. Septentrionalis 05:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

United States Navy

What was Hamilton's role in establishing the Navy? My understanding was that John Adams was much more decisive in its founding. (I could be wrong.) Eddieuny 15:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Most people give Adams credit for the navy; Hamilton did found the coast guard (as a Treasury operation).

Rjensen 15:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton the Lawyer

I found almost nothing about Hamilton's legal career, although he was the only serious lawyer among the founders, and one of the preeminent lawyers of the early republic. I began typing the section on Hamilton as a legal thinker and lawyer, but got too tired to continue. Here's what I wrote, feel free to edit and add to it until I can rework and complement it.

Only? How about Jay? John Adams? Marshall? Septentrionalis 16:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton as lawyer

Alexander Hamilton's career as a lawyer has earned him a reputation as one of the leading lawyers of the early republic, not only for his law practice, but for his numerous writings on civil, constitutional, and international law. His legacy as a lawyer include his "Practical proceedings of the Supreme Court of the State of New York," his advocacy in Rutgers V. Waddington, his Federalist Papers (constitutional law,) his written Opinion on the Constitutionality of National Bank, his arguments in Hylton v. The United States, and his speech favoring freedom of the press in the People v. Harry Croswell. His Phocion Essays on civil liberties, Camillus and No Jacobin essays on international law, also give an idea of Hamilton's expertise in both areas.

Rutgers v. Waddington, the Tory cases, and the Federalist are discussed at some length in chronological order. The others should be mentioned briefly, in their places.

All would-be lawyers in New York had to be apprenticed to a practicing attorney for three years, before taking the Bar exams. Re-entering civilian life at the close of the war, Hamilton exploited a loophole that gave law students whose studies had been interrupted by wartime combat a waiver until April 1782. The revolutionary war did interrupt Hamilton's studies, but he was studying medicine at the time, not Law.

The question of what Hamilton was studying is disputed; the evidence is incomplete. Septentrionalis 16:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

With a special extension allowing him until october to finish his studies, Hamilton passed the bar after a miraculous three months, attaining status as cousel, and courtroom attorney by July 1782. He took extensive notes in those three months, which were eventually published as practical proceedings of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, the first practice manual to appear in America. It was the standard manual for New York lawyers, until it became the basis of a more serious work on the subject.

"miraculous three months" is hagiography; and should be avoided. Please read WP:Peacock, as an application of WP:NPOV. Septentrionalis 16:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In 1784, Hamilton wrote two pamphlets signed "Phocion" in which he argued against the confiscation act (1779) and the Trespass act (1782.) Hamilton called these acts "arbitrary legislation," that violated the civil liberties of tories. He therefore rushed to the defense of Tories as a lawyer, and made the legal case against the tresspass act. In his brief, he tied international law to common law, and concluded that the New York legislature, had the power to declare the Trespass act null and void because it violated the law of nations. This was an early argument for Judicial review, Which Hamilton elaborated later on in the Federalist.

Elkins and McKitrick carefully distinguish between the Tory cases and judicial review. Septentrionalis 16:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And above all, please cite sources: accurately, fairly, and completely. Septentrionalis 16:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, John Marshall was not a Founder. I should have phrased the opening, "Alexander Hamilton was the only founder to have made a lifelong career out of his law practice." What Hamilton was studying is not disputed. His benefactors in St. Croix sent him to the colonies with hopes that he might become a doctor. Ron Chernow asserts this in his biography, and shows that Hamilton studied anatomy under Dr. Samuel Clossy at Kings.

Elkins and McKitrik may or may not have distiguished between the Tory cases and Judicial review, but most studies of Rutgers v. Waddington treat it as an early discussion of Judicial review. In fact, it is the earliest printed discussion of the era. Judge James Duane offered a written opinion that challenged Hamilton's support of Judicial Review, and that opinion is the earliest discussion of the subject.

Please read other sources than Chernow's deplorable exercise in turgid apologetic. In particular, try Mitchell's life - he likes Hamilton, but not to the point of idolatry; and general histories of the United States. Mitchell was published some years ago, but should be available by interlibrary loan. It would also be helpful if someone were to read Malone's Jefferson and incorporate that PoV. Septentrionalis 14:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well what I said on Judicial review I don't take from Chernow, but from various publications in law journals, and legal history publications, as well as the ensemble of twentieth century Hamilton biographies, most of which I'm familiar with. I can't give accurate citations off the top of my head, But if you want I'll get back to you on that.

You accuse Chernow of idolatry (fairly, but that's irrelevant,) and then cite Malone's Jefferson, an even worse hagiography of Jefferson. Similarly, as much as Malone idolizes Jefferson, he demonizes Hamilton as if on some childish vendetta against the dead man's historical reputation.

I wouldn't write this article (or Thomas Jefferson) out of either of them; but they are widely held points of view. Both of them (and the ones between) should be represented here, and Malone isn't. Septentrionalis 02:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Just like Malone, Ron Chernow has provided valuable and up to date scholarship, supplementing Mitchell's work with many important insights and discoveries (Hamilton's Monitor and Phocion articles, for example.) General histories of the United States are pointless in determining if Hamilton studied medicine or law at Kings' that's of no interest to them.

Monarchist

I dispute the addition of "monarchist" to "Hamilton was deeply committed to the principles of republicanism". (The sentence to which it is added could use work, but that's another question.) This would, in context, imply that the Federalist expressed monarchism, which is a novel claim. So is the existence of monarchist republicanism in the first place.

Hamilton gave a single monarchist speech to the Convention; but he was committed to the experiment in republicanism (for the US, not elsewhere). He did not prefer it, as the article says; and he lost faith in it after the election of Jefferson, as the article should say and does not. Septentrionalis 02:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)\

He also defended it as late as Federalist Paper #69. The article has been adjusted. Skyemoor 03:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much better. Septentrionalis 22:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Party Name for opposition

There has been much discussion back and forth on the Democratic-Republican party article about when the party was actually given that name. It's unclear whether the national organization took that name much before 1815, while Jefferson and Madison began referring to it as the "republican party" or "Republican party" from 1792 on. Some local chapters started calling themselves Democratic Republican starting in 1802. While most Poly Sci books, along with some children's books and non-history books still refer to the party as Democratic Republican, history books, including textbooks, now commonly refer to the party as the "Republican Party", or sometimes "Jeffersonian Republicans". So to state that Jefferson/Madison created/established/started the "Democratic-Republican Party" would be incorrect and misleading. For more information, see the respective Talk page. Skyemoor 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The party that elected Jefferson and Madison never had a "national organization" to take any name, its furthest organization was a congressional caucus, itself called by various terms, including "Democratic Members of Congress". Calling them the "Republican Party" is incorrect and actively misleading. Skyemoor's preferred language: "with James Madison created the rival Republican party, which evolved into the Democratic-Republican Party." is simple ignorance. The DRP is the party that elected Madison; its name evolved, but it was the same party that opposed Hamilton. Septentrionalis 23:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

First, Pmanderson|Septentrionalis may not have seen Wikipedia:Civility; I suggest an investigation on his part. Second, there is no evidence yet presented that party members refered to themselves as "Democratic Republicans" until one local chapter began so in 1802; there is no evidence that a national "Democratic-Republican Party" elected Madison. On the other hand, Jefferson and Madison both referred to it as the "republican party" or "Republican party" as early as 1792; Jefferson continued with this term, and Madison infrequently refered to local chapters of Democratic-Republicans after 1813. So unless Pmanderson|Septentrionalis wants to argue with Jefferson and Madison themselves, to suggest that they created a DR party is completely erroneous and purposefully misleading . Skyemoor 23:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Skyemoor really should know what Jefferson's letter actually says; he's cited it often enough:

[The public believes t]hat the ultimate object of all this is to prepare the way for a change, from the present republican form of government, to that of a monarchy, of which the English constitution is to be the model. That this was contemplated in the Convention is no secret, because it's partisans have made none of it. To effect it then was impracticable, but they are still eager after their object, and are predisposing every thing for it's ultimate attainment. So many of them have got into the legislature, that, aided by the corrupt squadron of paper dealers, who are at their devotion, they make a majority in both houses. The republican party, who wish to preserve the government in it's present form, are fewer in number. They are fewer even when joined by the two, three, or half dozen anti-federalists, who, tho they dare not avow it, are still opposed to any general government: but being less so to a republican than a monarchical one, they naturally join those whom they think pursuing the lesser evil.

Of all the mischiefs objected to the system of measures before mentioned, none is so afflicting, and fatal to every honest hope, as the corruption of the legislature. As it was the earliest of these measures, it became the instrument for producing the rest, & will be the instrument for producing in future a king, lords & commons, or whatever else those who direct it may chuse. Withdrawn such a distance from the eye of their constituents, and these so dispersed as to be inaccessible to public information, & particularly to that of the conduct of their own representatives, they will form the most corrupt government on earth, if the means of their corruption be not prevented. The only hope of safety hangs now on the numerous representation which is to come forward the ensuing year. Some of the new members will probably be either in principle or interest, with the present majority, but it is expected that the great mass will form an accession to the republican party. They will not be able to undo all which the two preceding legislatures, & especially the first, have done. Public faith & right will oppose this. But some parts of the system may be rightfully reformed; a liberation from the rest unremittingly pursued as fast as right will permit, & the door shut in future against similar commitments of the nation. Should the next legislature take this course, it will draw upon them the whole monarchical & paper interest. But the latter I think will not go all lengths with the former, because creditors will never, of their own accord, fly off entirely from their debtors. Therefore this is the alternative least likely to produce convulsion. But should the majority of the new members be still in the same principles with the present, & shew that we have nothing to expect but a continuance of the same practices, it is not easy to conjecture what would be the result, nor what means would be resorted to for correction of the evil. True wisdom would direct that they should be temperate & peaceable, but the division of sentiment & interest happens unfortunately to be so geographical, that no mortal can say that what is most wise & temperate would prevail against what is most easy & obvious? I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the union into two or more parts. Yet when we review the mass which opposed the original coalescence, when we consider that it lay chiefly in the Southern quarter, that the legislature have availed themselves of no occasion of allaying it, but on the contrary whenever Northern & Southern prejudices have come into conflict, the latter have been sacrificed & the former soothed; that the owners of the debt are in the Southern & the holders of it in the Northern division; that the Anti-federal champions are now strengthened in argument by the fulfilment of their predictions; that this has been brought about by the Monarchical federalists themselves, who, having been for the new government merely as a stepping stone to monarchy, have themselves adopted the very constructions of the constitution, of which, when advocating it's acceptance before the tribunal of the people, they declared it insusceptible; that the republican federalists, who espoused the same government for it's intrinsic merits, are disarmed of their weapons, that which they denied as prophecy being now become true history: who can be sure that these things may not proselyte the small number Which was wanting to place the majority on the other side? And this is the event at which I tremble, & to prevent which I consider your continuance at the head of affairs as of the last importance. The confidence of the whole union is centred in you. Your being at the helm, will be more than an answer to every argument which can be used to alarm & lead the people in any quarter into violence or secession. North & South will hang together, if they have you to hang on; and, if the first correction of a numerous representation should fail in it's effect, your presence will give time for trying others not inconsistent with the union & peace of the states.

• This is "republican party"; not "Republican Party".
• This is not a proper name; or the name of a party in opposition to the "Federalists"; it is a description that part of Congress adherent to the republic against the monarchical interest.
• Indeed, it includes the "republican federalists" (bold added).

Regards, Septentrionalis 00:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson on more than one occasion pointed out to Washington the difference between high federalists and those who were more republican in nature, with the term republican as an adjective, not a noun. Yet you seem to have missed many references I've shown you before and that indeed now exist on the article's page;

* James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, March 2, 1794. "I see by a paper of last evening that even in New York a meeting of the people has taken place, at the instance of the Republican party, and that a committee is appointed for the like purpose."

* James Madison to William Hayward, March 21, 1809. Address to the Republicans of Talbot Co. Maryland

* Thomas Jefferson to John Melish, January 13, 1813. "The party called republican is steadily for the support of the present constitution"

* James Madison to Baltimore Republican Committee, April 22, 1815. Retrieved on 2006-10-27.

* James Madison to William Eustis, May 22, 1823. Retrieved on 2006-10-27. Transcript. "The people are now able every where to compare the principles and policy of those who have borne the name of Republicans or Democrats with the career of the adverse party. and to see and feel that the former are as much in harmony with the Spirit of the Nation as the latter was at variance with both."

So the use of Republican or republican party was the label that both Jefferson and Madison used. If you disagree, please provide solid references that show either of them use the DR term before 1810. And I would be surprised if you can scrounge up more than one from Jefferson before 1820. Please stop trying to mislead WP editors with this foolishness. Skyemoor 01:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Skyemoor is using primary sources, which he gives no sign of understanding, to insist on the indefensible usage: James Madison created the Republican party, which is an invitation to confusion, and an assistance to mindless partisanship.

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis excels at rhetorical outbursts, but it seems that with no evidence to support him, and insurmountable evidence against him, all he can do is shoot (and stab and poison) the messenger. I suggest he review Wikipedia:Civility. Skyemoor 02:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In most of these quotations, republican is an adjective, not a name, as it is in Jefferson's letter.

On the contrary, he used the term 'republican' together with 'party' to specify the Party that he and Madison started, though trying to be subtle about it; however, Madison came right out and stated "the Republican party" plainly. I've asked Pmanderson|Septentrionalis to provide evidence that Jefferson and Madison used the term before 1810, or that Jefferson even used the term more than once or twice. I've yet to hear back from him on this, though that does not stop him from his rhetorical attacks. Skyemoor 02:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Other adjectives were used, and Skyemoor has seen the cirations; Madison uses both Republican and Democratic in one of these, although his usage was mostly more conservative.

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis knows that the usage by Madison in 1823 was when the party was splitting into Democrats and Republicans. Skyemoor 02:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To assert, as Skyemoor wishes to, that the party of 1792 "evolved into" the Democratic Republican Party, is to write nonsense; this was the same party as the one that elected Madison and Monroe. Septentrionalis 06:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Here Pmanderson|Septentrionalis is partially right: the party was frequently called Democratic Republican on the national level by the time Monroe was elected. He has yet to make the case, however, that the same applies for Madison's 1808 election. Skyemoor 02:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I have not made a case for what I do not discuss; what I said above is that the party of 1816 is the same party as it was in Hamilton's lifetime. Septentrionalis 03:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The primary objectives of the 1790s party was radically different from the party of 1816 (changed to promote strong navy/standing forces, central bank, moderate tariff structure, etc). With logic like that, one could make that case that since it is the predecessor to the current US Democratic Party, that it should be named precisely that. On the contrary, contemporary historians are calling it the Republican Party (or Jeffersonian Republicans), so your claims fail to hold water in comparison. Skyemoor

And the party that enacted Reconstruction came to elect Trent Lott. So? In both cases, it's the same party. Septentrionalis 20:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, then your logic argues that Jefferson was elected by the Democratic party, as they claim lineage from his Presidency. Skyemoor 22:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly a defensible position, widely held - as the OED does. I have not maintained it; I prefer the compromise "Democratic Republican". Septentrionalis 23:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)