Jump to content

Talk:Alexander Hamilton/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Questions

"Both sides were gained the support of local political factions;..." Huh? Doesn't anyone proof this article? Also, I've read the "1796 presidential election" section three times and still can't understand several points. It is extremely confusing and obfiscated. EG, at the end: "Adams resented this, since he rightly felt his service to the nation was much more extensive than Pinckney's." I assume that Adams won and became president, with Jefferson as VP. What exactly did Adams resent, then? Another example: at the beginning, it is explained (poorly worded, btw) that the he who gets the most votes becomes Pres, and the runner up becomes VP. Then it states that Jefferson had a running mate as a VP candidate. Which is it? Was this written by a single writer who is too familiar with the subject and doesn't have the ability to write for those who don't already know everything? And what does this sentence fragment mean:? "Adams had also held it right to retain Washington's cabinet, except for cause;" On the other hand, the "Legacy" section is much better written and clears up several of the confusions and lapses of clarity of the previous sections. Perhaps it should be moved to the top, so the more detailed rest of the material will be easier to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.107.205 (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Which falls?

In the "Manufacturing and industry" section a "falls" is referenced. Which ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.107.205 (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Duel

Alexander Hamilton whispered to a confidant that, "I am to be President," shortly before the shots were fired. The individual stated to Burr that, "He is to be President." Burr would not relent. Burr shot a President. Gnostics (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can cite that with a semi-reliable source... MissMeticulous (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Error in the Infobox

The Infobox contains the line "| cause_of_death=[[Murder]]", which is not at present visible to readers (only if you view the source). That shouldn't be there, I think (unless a legal entity made such a finding). The article itself doesn't contain the word "Murder". I won't try to make the change myself, as there is probably a reason why the article is semi-protected. Notuncurious (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Burr was convicted, or at least indicted, in NY, but duel seems clearer. The article is semiprotected only because it gets so many bored junior high school students; any registered editor is welcome to edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Choice of Photo

This was mentioned briefly in Talk:Alexander Hamilton/Archive 1 but never resulted in discussion. The painting currently used on the page is described as a reproduction by Daniel Huntington circa 1865 of the original John Trumbull portrait. Wouldn't it be better (and more accurate) to use the original?

  • Daniel Huntington Replication
    Daniel Huntington Replication
  • John Trumbull Original
    John Trumbull Original

Dspark76 (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Done.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton's home being re-located

It is a little late to weigh-in since the public comment period is over, but for those who are interested: http://www.nps.gov/hagr/ Shoreranger (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reversion on the Hamilton literature

Equinox insists on reverting to

Several twentieth-century politicians wrote biographies of Hamilton.

This is both inadequate and inaccurate.

The politically laudatory Life of Hamilton is overwhelmingly a Republican form, written by those who regard his policies as laudable: what Democratic career would ever flourish from praising the high-tariff opponent of Jefferson? Democratic politicians write on Jefferson, or Madison, or the non-economic aspects of such men as JQAdams and Webster. Few politicians of either party (I can't think of any off-hand) write negative histories; 'taint inspiring to the voters.

Twentieth-century is simply wrong; Henry Cabot Lodge wrote his tribute to Hamilton in 1883, when he was still teaching at Harvard. That was book-length, not counting articles and speeches before it. Leaving it out would leave pabulum.

The Hamilton literature is bad enough, heaven knows — both flavors of it; but we should describe it as it stands, not replace our descriptions with tosh like this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here we go. By stating that "several Republican politicians advanced their careers by writing biographies of Hamilton", you are insinuating that those politicians did something improper, crooked, or dishonest by writing the said biographies. That was the immediate interpretation when I first read the phrase. In order to keep that, you'd need to detail HOW those politicians advanced their careers by writing those biographies, but then the details would be irrelevant to the article on Alexander Hamilton itself.
If Twentieth-century is incorrect, so be it.
If Democrats didn't write about him in any measure, then fine.
But to claim that the politicians advanced their careers by writing biographies is liberal/Democrat POV. Even then, that's an improvement over your initial entry - "several Republican politicans took it upon themselves to write biographies of Hamilton", as though they needed the permission of PMAnderson to do so. That's where I'm coming from.
Besides that, the sources you cited are to (1) another Wikipedia article and (2) the front page to a biography pay site.
BTW, what is "tosh"? Equinox137 (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Blithering nonsense, like the suggestion that a politician "advancing his career" is an insult. Hamilton's own generation indeed spent a great deal of time asserting that politicians did not have careers nor advance them; but were bashful Cincinnati, feebly resisting the importunities of their friends. We are not writing for the eighteenth century, but for the twentyfirst; we need not keep up the act, especially when discussing such comparatively modern politicians as Lodge or Vandenberg; it would of course be equally true of Democrats like Cleveland or Bryan or Truman.
The suggestion that this is a liberal POV displays all too clearly the defensive partisanship that Equinox brings to this discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact, I cited two printed sources. I provided a link to the online version of American National Biography on Vandenberg, because some readers will find it useful; others will find a link to our own article more so; yet others will consult the printed edition (many libraries have it). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that no one really cares about this whole discussion, given the fact that only you and I are arguing about it. Either way, I've added "19th & early 20th century" to the phrase instead of removing "Republicans." Is that sufficiently "non-tosh" (who the fuck says that anyway?) and clear of "defensive partisanship"? Equinox137 (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I say it. Calling Vandenberg early twentieth century is bizarre; his greatest influence was in 1947-48. And the recent wave of Hamiltonianism is certainly late 20th; see Federalist Society. But this can be dealt with by removing early. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Political economist

Next to financier, this is either redundant, or implies he wrote economic theory. He wrote very little theory, and that unoriginal; if he is to be called a political economist, so should every Revolutionary statesman. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • A Google search for "Alexander Hamilton", "poltical economist" seems to provide quite a bit of references to him as such, including a New York University page on it (http://alexanderhamilton.as.nyu.edu/page/aboutus) and a book excerpt that refers to him as a "forward looking political economist" ( [1]). In the sense that he understood true value to be dependent on labor, rather than land ownership, *and was in a position to write on, create, and develop economic policy* based on such, I believe is enough to justify labeling him as a political economist in the definition of his own time. A "financier", as I understand it, could certainly operate under the assumption that value comes only from land ownership, and is therefore not redundant of politcial economy. Shoreranger (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • He got the labor theory of value from Adam Smith and his school. It goes back through John Locke to the Middle Ages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Without question he got it from Adam Smith. However, proponents of the theory were called "political economists." Hamilton also seems to fit the modern definition, as demonstrated by NYU and the book quoted above. I assume by the lack of mention of either of these last two that he is, therefore, considered a political economist, and can be referred to as such in the article without challenge? His defense of political economy alone makes him a political economist, I do not believe it is necessary that he create new theory within it to be considered one. Regardless, the development of policy from the perspective of political economy should suffice, as well. A more thorough study of his policies might even show some original theory, but I contend it is not necessary for the label. Shoreranger (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
        • No, NYU is fully explained by his being the most respectable New Yorker to be a financier (the J. P. Morgan Program, let alone the Jay Gould Program, would be doomed in advance); their intended purpose to use the discipline of logic rather than rhetor ic alone separates them from the historic Hamilton.
        • As for the book from you quote, mere scanning reveals it to be a piece of advocacy.
        Hamilton dabbled in many fields; we cannot, and should not, list them all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
          • "Dabbled" is a little too dismissive, I think, for a practitioner of a field so influential as to lay the foundation of all economic policy for the United States, and all that implies. He "dabbled" in - what? - farming at The Grange, he would conversely appear to be the premier practitioner of political economy in the United States at the time - if not *all time*. Shoreranger (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Nonsense. Let us not exaggerate, even if some of us fail to be "this side idolatry". There have been notable financiers and Nobel Laureates in economics since; in his own time, Robert Morris and John Adams and Madison had been handling the far more difficult problem of a financial system without a tax base; and none of this justifies political economist, in addition to financier. Are we to declare the younger Pitt a political economist? he paraphrased Smith too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Since no other editors are participating, I am requesting a third party as per Wiki procedure. Still, inserting Nobel prize into the discussion is a little anachronistic, don't you think? "Idolotry", if true, does not appear to make him any less influential: American School (economics). Shoreranger (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The NYU site seems to provide more than sufficient support for this: "It is fitting that Alexander Hamilton, as America’s first important political economist." I support this usage and can't see any serious conflict with definitions of political economist. To say he was not responsible for a body of work as original as Adam Smith is praising with very faint criticism indeed.--Gregalton (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Then financier should go, they both refer to the same activities; this is dishonest inflation, like most of this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see Shoreranger defends his additional peacockery: politician, and leading statesman, both of which are dubious. What does leading statesman mean, as opposed to what Hamilton actually did? And as for politician, it is conventional in American to use it for men who have actually, at some point, been elected to something; if Hamilton was, we don't say so, and I see no evidence of it elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If "leading" is a peacock word in this context (and I don't agree that it is, except to your sensibilities), then remove it, but the term statesman certainly applies. As for "politician", your assumptiion of the necessity of election is not defended, and I contend anyone who served in the State Assembly and the Congress of the Confederation would merit the title, not to mention the Constitutional Convention. Shoreranger (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Third Opinion In the article Dollar, it cites the fact that "On April 2, 1792 Alexander Hamilton, then the Secretary of the Treasury, made a report to congress that were the result of his task to scientifically determine the amount of silver in the Spanish Milled Dollar coins that were then in current use by the people..." Although I understand that he was an important and sucessful financial leader, I don't think there is much evidence that Hamilton had a reputation as a Political Economist per se. Actually, the title of Political Economist of the founding fathers of the United States really should be given to Benjamin Franklin, who is known for his famous pamphlets on the subject such as this. I also read a book ("The History of Value") that would suggest that it was Franklin who did all the ground work for financial system of the United States. I think if Hamilton had written any pamphlets or books on the subject of Political Economy, I would be inclined to agree, but since he did not, I am inclined to the view that he is just not in that class of philosphical thinkers.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We now appear to have one response pro, one against, in response to the thrid opinon request, which is no resolution. Therefore, I am expand to a "Request for Comment". Shoreranger (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure if this is the best place to put my oar in here, but it seems to me we have two different kinds of issues: the first is questioning whether Hamilton was all these things; the second (and to my mind the more valid) is questioning whether this is a good way to begin an article. Although Hamilton could be considered a politician, statesman, financier, etc., that doesn't make it a reasonable first sentence. Here's the way the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica opens "ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1757-1804), American statesman and economist, was born, as a British subject. . . " For a comparable Wiki article, check Benjamin Franklin. The opening is typical chockablock Wiki style, but not all in the first sentence. Rather than arguing about each of these terms, this should be edited to put one or two important attributes in the first sentence, and then a summary of his other accomplishments.
For what it's worth, I'd vote for statesman over politician and economist over financier (to me, "financier" suggests Jay Gould, not Hamilton).Prodes111 (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)



I think this is unnecessary: the test for inclusion is not truth, but wp:v. Opinions of editors are not specifically an issue, when you have a source (NYU) that is reliable and unambiguously refers to him as a political economist. Unless there is a reliable source that contradicts this, I see no reason to leave it out.--Gregalton (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's still redundant, with financier; they refer to the same body of activities. I am willing to leave either out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That's an opinion, and would need to be supported by sources. I provide another reference that reputable and reliable sources refer to him as financier and statesman: NYTimes book review.--Gregalton (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No, that's the English language. What requuires, and lacks. evidence, are disjoint claims which are summarized by economist and by financier. To call him both on one set of facts is fraud. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see wp:v: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I understand your argument, but please provide sources.--Gregalton (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
A threshold is not all there is to a door. It is verifiable that he has been called both economist and financier; it is also verifiable that he has been called monocrat, murderer. traitor, and devil incarnate. Should we include them in the lead? No, it would be undue weight. So here. Financier and economist are the same claim, summarizing the same facts; including both is a misrepresentation, giving undue weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sources for what? Why NYU chose to call him a "political economist" in their political economics program? They're silent on that (doubtless because they regard the answer as obvious) and the argument from silence is a fallacy.
  • Rather, as WP:LEAD says, the lead should summarize the most important points of the article. Find Hamilton's work in political economy (if you can) distinct from his practical finance as Secretary (and unofficial Secretary), and add it to the text. At that point, I will have no objection to saying economist. Similarly, include his standing for any elective office, and we can reconsider politician. In the meantime, they are ungrounded bloviation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Please provide valid justification, beyond opinion of course, of requiring elected office as a determing factor for the label "politician". The Wiki entry for politician appears to clearly, perhaps even specifically, contradict. So would Miriam-Webster. Regardless, the matter at hand was the "political economist" label (and not simply "economist", as the last post was reduced to), and not any other portion of the article. Any other disagreements should be discussed on their own, under a seperate heading. Shoreranger (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I trust the OED will serve: specifically one who is professionally involved in politics as the holder of or a candidate for an elected office. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Alas, you trust erroneously. Not having an OED handy, I cannot check your reference, whereas an equally valid dictionary has already been cited that at least expands, if not contradicts, your definition. I suspect the definition you provide is not the only one offered by the OED either but, as I said, I do not have easy access to one right now. Regardless, if taken on face value, you have only demonstrated that a person who is elected to office is a politician, which was never in question, but you have not demonstrated that someone who satisfies all the characteristics in the Meriam-Webster definition - such as Hamilton - is *not*. Please try again. Shoreranger (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Whoopsie! It appears that I *do* have relatively handy access to a version of the OED, and it gives the following definition:

"especially", but not specifically. Can we move on to the specific question we are supposed to be discussing here, which was the legitimacy of Hamilton being referred to as a political economist? At least take this discussion of politician to its own heading, no doubt for more dictionary duels. Shoreranger (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Of course it isn't the only one; the OED is full, as often, of obsolete, historic and special definitions, including the white-eyed vireo. The meaning of elected official (and the sense of trickster, not here meant) are the only ones still current and applicable to a human being. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Has Shoreranger read the text he defends, which describes Hamilton as American politician, leading statesman, political economist, financier... etc., etc. to the crack of doom? I dispute all the first three as repetitious bloviation. Really, politician, statesman, and political economist, all in five words? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And, when, pray tell, was Hamilton professionally involved in politics? That, as the quotations show, is intended to cover such uses as this sentence from Adam Smith: That insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician, whose councils are directed by the momentary fluctuations of affairs. I do not hate Hamilton; I decline to leave us saying something which is ambiguous between a falsehood and a (dated) piece of invective. It was Burr who founded Tammany. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The phrases used in the opening are verified with reliable sources. Since NYU refers to him as "America’s first important political economist", it is certainly not undue to refer to him as a political economist. Again, unless the parties that wish to dispute this provide sources rather than opinions, there is no reason to continue this discussion.--Gregalton (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. You miscite our policies to defend partisan bad writing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton should be described as a political economist. His five reports as Secretary of the Treasury, particularly the Report on Manufactures and the two Reports on Public Credit, laid the foundation for an entirely new school of thought on economics, in opposition to the British Free Trade approach. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Another front now, I guess: Politician

The definitions of politician include appointees. Hamilton was appointed Secretary of the Treasury. The definitinos include representatives. Hamilton represented New York city in the state assembly, New York State in the Annapolis Convention, at the Congress of the Confederation, at the Constitutional Convention. Are these not the very quintessential bodies of politics? I am astounded that anyone can seriously argue that anyone holding any one - not to mention ALL - of thes offices was not a politicial, let alone a "professional" politician. I will see if we can get anyone from the political group to comment. Shoreranger (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they specifically do not, unless we are to use Jacobean definitions,


This discussion is absurd. Clearly meets most definitions of politician, save the most narrow and contrived. Again, once referenced - and unless there is a wp:rs reliable source that disputes the assertion - it is established for wp purposes as verified.--Gregalton (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:Undue, which is the problem here, is part of our verifiability policy. This is a fraudulent attempt to defend dishonest verbiage. This is therefore not what our policy says, or ever has said. Repetition of this distortion is therefore pointless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Political economist" and "financier" the same thing c. 1790?

Another indulgence: Are these the same. Let's ask around...: Shoreranger (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

another red herring; we are not writing for 1790, but for 2008. We cannot do so without a time machine. Enough; Shoreranger has expressed his political creed, that Hamilton (not Robert Morris, not Friedman, not Galbraith) is the premier political economist of United States history. This is not a blog, to which such arguments should be confined. Please learn to write neutrally. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
See below for others, not I, who know far more about these things than I do, and their assessment of Hamilton's influence. No doubt PamAnderson will smell a conspiracy among them. Time machine? It is you who are comparing Hamilton to [Milton] Friedman!! Red Herring?! We have a net full now countering your silly arguements against all these terms which have abundant justificaiton!!! You object to style, not substance. So much time wasted jumping through your silly hoops, it seems to me. Shoreranger (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Again, I do not see a source arguing this. Since we have supporting references for both, there is no need for this RFC - at least until someone provides sources disputing it.--Gregalton (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A repetition of the same position: that if someone,. somewhere has called Hamilton X, X must go in the lead. Nonsense. If WP:V intended to say that, it would not include WP:UNDUE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE seems to deal with "minority viewpoints". I believe it is the contention that all of the Hamilton attributes are sufficiently majority views, and not in the minority, at all. Just a few more 'mainstream' views of Hamilton as a political economist - again, revealed by a simple Google search: Foreign Affairs, July/August 2004, |“The Political Economy of State Reform -- Political to the Core” ; The Lehrman Institute; and here we have another author who uses "financier" and "polticial economist" in the same sentance to describe Hamilton, also! Do I really have to go on? I invite others to do research of their own. Shoreranger Shoreranger (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It deals with proportionality in handling all viewpoints. Thus, here, Founding Father implies statesman (those who failed to be statemanlike, like Bancroft or Arnold, are no longer FF's), so including both is double-dipping. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I congratulate Shoreranger on finding John Bach McMaster, a century-old book, and one of the partisan histories ever to be published on the United States, complete with meditations on Hamilton's "descent from the Celtic race" (through his Huguenot mother). This is what we are trying to avoid. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So you claim. Prove its unsuitability, and any of the other references are unsuitable, if you can. The age of the book only proves how long these viewpoints have been accepted in the mainstream. The Celts inhabited what is now France, btw - perhaps you are familiar with Gaul? Shoreranger (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have to prove anything of the kind. I merely have to observe that Shoreranger's standard would warrant the inclusion of monocrat, and is therefore unsuitable even for his partisan agenda, and that his rhodomontade does not summarize (as our policy requires) the rest of the article. Keep your demands for Mediation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I demand nothing, simply challenge to prove unsuitability. I wish you wouldn't be so defensive. Shoreranger (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If Shoreranger wishes to indulge in nineteenth-century race doctrine, he should go right ahead. (He should read McMaster first, though; McMaster distinguishes between the shrewd and logical qualities of the Scots, like Hamilton's father, and the emotional qualities of the "children of the Celtic races", like his mother. Last I heard, there was a Celtic presence in Ayrshire.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • YOU introduced the "race" issue! How obsurd! Price of tea in China? Talk about your Red Herrings! Rediculous!! Shoreranger (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lauding to the skies

Vague? Yes, but so is my source: which says, as quoted, "Hamilton's apotheosis after the Civil War" and nothing more. That is still an improvement over the previous assertion, that Lodge and Roosevelt and Croly made the Hamilton cult up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I have requested Mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Alexander Hamilton. Shoreranger is welcome to join. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this pertains directly, but I can't help but noticing that the lead section has a lot of detail, and is possibly over-long in total, while omits to mention the whole "killed in a duel" aspect. Given that's significant enough to have its own article, it seems quite an omission. Alai (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
AGREED, Was on the verge of adding a subsection about this very thing - the lead needs to be drastically shortened, with info not absolutely necessary moved into the body. SteveCoppock (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to redraft. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. It is a good deal shorter now. All information irrelevant to the intro was moved into the places of best fit in the body. Feel free to edit them in their new homes. Much of that info probably should have been deleted outright, but I will see if others want to keep it or chuck it. I also added a bit about the Post and the Reynolds affair since I think those are both pretty significant events, and are important in the intro. AdRem (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Update: I did not include the Reynolds Affair in the intro after all. Since there is not an article solely devoted to it, and since the timeline is a bit cumbersome, I decided not to. But feel free to work it in if you are up to it. Also, the Reynolds section could use some work if anyone has the knowledge, the time, and the inclination. If not, I will do more work on it eventually, but will probably not have enough time for a little while. Thanks in advance for any help you can spare on it. AdRem (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Update #2: I cannot make the intro much more concise without eliminating some information outright--as opposed to moving it around, which is what I have been doing thus far--so I think I will stop right here. It isn't perfect, but as I said, it is probably the best I can do without tweaking someone out or sparking an edit war over someone's pet sentence. Plus, getting all of that tarrif and 'laudatory biography' stuff out into the body ALONE made it a lot shorter--and better. AdRem (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Chiming in late. I've noticed PMA's hard work at James K. Polk and have read all the RFC and mediation comments. Think these issues are moving toward resolution, though I don't expect to have time to mediate, and will contribute where possible as a Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections member (technically just outside scope).

  • Hamilton was most definitely a political economist for his work in economic theory (see EB), even though it by less academic means like the Federalist Papers. His work establishing the silver standard is foundational (unrelated to Franklin's advocacy of paper money). His defense of the carriage tax in Hylton v. U.S. won over the three justices who ruled on it, effectively establishing the meaning of the "and direct Taxes" clause for generations to come. (The concept had actually been inserted by Hamilton's friend Gouverneur Morris as a successful tax-limiting compromise in the Constitutional Convention, and so Hamilton's contribution is highly significant to this distinction, unique among national taxation schemes.) That work is largely distinct from Treasury work or Bank of New York work.
  • He was certainly a politician. Statesman is better than "leading statesman" unless sourced.
  • So every one of the list of activities (like "political economist") may appear in the lead, but definitely not all in the first sentence. There e.g. economist trumps financier and statesman trumps politician (I see Prodes111 says so also). The lesser "offices" can be sprinkled throughout the remainder of the lead. I see no reason to avoid "financier" in a later lead mention of his economic acitivites.
  • However, the lead is still too long and confused. I will also make other fixes.
  • Charges of idolatry, dishonesty, creed, race doctrine, etc. among editors are inappropriate. Selective dictionary citation is inappropriate.
  • Charges of monocrat, murderer, traitor would be appropriate if sourced and balanced. "Devil" is already in the article.
  • I'm a Jeffersonian. JJB 15:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Grave

I took a look through the archives (very amusing), but couldn't find a reason why the image of Alexander's gravestone is not within the page. There is reference to his burial place, but no picture.H.al-shawaf (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I missed it on the page.38.98.172.58 (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Early years: proposed deletion

Hello.

I would like to propose that the following sentence be deleted from the section 'Early Years' since it seems to be digressive and speculative:

"This abandonment, death, and anxiety over his illegitimate birth, all presumably had severe emotional consequences for Alexander, even by the standards of an eighteenth-century childhood.[15]"

I don't have anything against the statement. It may be true. It may not. I just think it disrupts the logical flow of the paragraph, and is an unnecessary bit of conjecture to boot. It is an opinion. Clearly, not everything any historian ever opined about should automatically be included in an encyclopedia article, which by definition is a sort of distillation of the consensus of secondary sources, as well as the major dissenting views. I would say it is better to leave this particular pontification out and just let the facts speak for themselves.

BUT, I am bringing this issue up here because someone (sort of) put a citation next to it, and so I would like to hear why anyone might choose to disagree with what I just wrote. AdRem (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Flexner does indeed spend his book on the psychoanalysis of Hamilton; anything less sweeping than passim would be inaccurate. The phrasing here can certainly be tweaked (it's not mine); but I don't know of any source which actively disagrees with the conjecture stated. We can describe Flexner's particular theory in the text, but this would be more subject to AdRem's objections than what we do now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Chronological Order: Family Life

I have a second recommendation. The entire article from birth through death is chronologically-oriented with the exception of 'Family Life'. Would someone be willing to correct this? Options: 1) Perhaps you could fold the relevant family information into the regular timeline, or 2) include it in whole or in part in a reworked, non-chronologically-oriented section after the 'Death' section, or 3) simply move it lock stock so it is after the 'Death' section. What suggestions do people have? Anything to correct this digression within the chronology would be beneficial to the article. Fire away with suggestions! AdRem (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There are other exceptions ("Industrialist" springs to mind). Moving it after "Death" seems wrong; perhaps dividing it into a section on Elizabeth to be tucked in with his marriage and a section on his children, who grew to adulthood after 1800, and therefore belong where it is now. Philip's duel would fit there too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Done, except for the duel. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I finished the chronological integration (most of) the rest of the way. I also did some badly-needed copy editing to integrate the duplicated information better. AdRem (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Genetics

Genetic genealogical research into the descendants of Hamilton have predicted that Hamilton may belong to the human Y-Haplogroup I1.<:ref>Founding Father DNA & Hamilton DNA Project Results Discussion<:/ref>

So? Who cares? If this can be made relevant to his parentage, put it back in; but I hold this to be cruft. Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm goint to have to agree. When I saw that passage go in, I thought it was kind of interesting, but also totally devoid of any context or relevance to the article. I just had time to go to the psu.edu link in order to see if there was something there to support the above passage's inclusion, but there isn't. I say keep the passage out unless relevance to the article can be shown somehow.AdRem (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well it is part of his "legacy" as in the legacy section and therefore in context in that regard if society at large is delving into it's many founding fathers pasts enough with technology to search their genetic imprint, isn't it? How can non-recombinant DNA *not* be relevant to his parentage? The Thomas Jefferson article mentions his haplogroup, by the way. 67.5.157.10 (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Founding the Federalist Party

This stuff needs to be balanced, and it needs to make sense. I fixed an edit about the Democratic-Republican newspapers with faulty structure and balanced its POV to match that for the Federalist Newspapers.

I also tweaked the sentence introducing the party separation to be more accurate. It wasn't 'fiscal policy' alone that drove the separation into two parties. It was also differences over foreign policy issues, differences on the role of the government, and the differences between the Republican's agrarian vision for the country's future vs. the Federalists vision of a nation based on trade, business, and (proto-)industry. AdRem (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The fiscal differences were the immediate practical issue; the rest is rhetoric, no less Jefferson's than Hamilton's. Jefferson was perfectly able to use a pro-industrial rhetoric when it suited his purposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Like Hamilton, Jefferson helped establish and support Democratic-Republican newspapers , most notably Philip Freneau's National Gazette, founded in 1791.[1]

"Like Hamilton" is a falsehood. Hamilton lent Fenno money out of his own pocket, and started other papers to publish his own articles. Jefferson offered Freneau a job as translator, knowing that he would have the time to run a paper also. There is a difference; when I have a source to hand, we should include how Hamilton distorted that difference. AdRem (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise: I'll remove the 'Like Hamilton" "equivalence" part of the sentence. But the parallel sentences are pretty important. Thanks. AdRem (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, please do NOT include some additional POV anti-Hamilton thing on this subject. It's disingenuous to state that Jefferson and Madison didn't actively lure Freneau to Philadelphia with every intention of him setting up a Republican paper. Don't put that in the article. They are not identical situations, but they are very similar. People interested in the subject might enjoy "Infamous Scribblers". That book centers on this early 'journalism', and specifically on the Fenno-Freneau Federalist-Republican wars. It has a great deal of info collected in one place for easy reference, and it isn't from an outdated POV source. AdRem (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Jefferson encouraged one newspaper, and he did not directly support it. Supporting newspapers is unsubstantiated hyperbole. But I am an eventualist; there will be a time when someone has the energy to clean up this neo-Federalist nonsense; I will be happy to support him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The sentence could use some tweaking so as to be clearer--I will try to do just that. I tried the previous incarnation of this sentence as a an honest, good-faith compromise w/ PMAnderson. It was not my original choice of phrasing. In this attempted compromise I screwed up what I meant to say the process. That being said, to label the whole article POV and factually-inaccurate, as too pro-Hamilton of all things is ridiculous, since the overwhelming majority of rogue POV passages are anti-Hamilton ones. Also, I don't appreciate the snide edit descriptions repeatedly labeling the whole article 'trash' because of an attempt to fix one contentious sentence. That is really uncalled for, and uncivil. I have worked very hard to rearrange and improve this article without deleting much information of any kind--even that which probably should be deleted. I will continue to work towards this goal, and to work with people. Just please leave the nasty comments and the vitriol out of the process as best you can. P.S. I have no idea what on earth being a 'neo-Federalist' would entail, but I can assure you that it is somewhat unlikely I would fit the criteria. AdRem (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
To achieve consensus, I changed the sentence to remove the suggestion that there was financial support of republican editors. It is true however, and widely-accepted as such. I attached a citation to support the (apparently controversial) fact that Madison and Jefferson had prodded Freneau to start and run a Republican newspaper. Incidentally, the same pages also talk about the deliberately indirect nature of the financial support. However, that latter point is not essential to this article, so I left it out. This addresses your concerns, PMAnderson--I hope. AdRem (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Since PMA has not replied, the compromise appears to address the concerns in good faith, and there was only one disputed/POV allegation, I see no reason whatsoever to retain the tags. Any further tagging would be better done by "Template:pov-section" and would be better if preceded by discussion that sufficiently cognizes the controversy. JJB 15:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I see it has been reworded; I will see what it now says, and tweak further. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • == Hamilton's Birth ==

january 11, 1755 not 1757

65.30.9.192 (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Actually the dispute about his birth year is pretty well described as is in the first paragraph. It summarizes the arguments for each of the two years, and the consensus among most historians. AdRem (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Some errors

In the early 1790s, differing policy views on a wide variety of issues from foreign policy to the financial policy began to separate the country into two increasingly-distinct political groups. By 1792 or 1793 newspapers started calling Hamilton supporters "Federalists" and their opponents "Democrats" or "Republicans".
As early as 1790, Hamilton started putting together one of these two nationwide coalitions. Using the contacts he had made in the Army and the Treasury, Hamilton enlisted the support of prominent men from various states who shared a vision for the direction of the nation similar to Hamilton's own. These supporters included merchants, bankers, and financiers in a dozen major cities. Religious and educational leaders, hostile to the increasingly-violent French Revolution also joined his coalition, especially in New England. Hamilton and the Federalists set up their own newspapers, and supported editors including Noah Webster and John Fenno. Fenno founded and edited a major Federalist newspaper, the Gazette of the United States in 1789, in which Hamilton wrote numerous anonymous editorials and articles supporting Federalist positions.[2]
By 1792, Jefferson and Madison started an opposition caucus in Congress, which was to grow into the Democratic Republican Party. The Democratic-Republicans established their own newspapers, and backed their own editors such as Benjamin Franklin Bache and Philip Freneau. In 1791, Freneau founded a major Democratic-Republican newspaper, the National Gazette at the encouragement of Jefferson and Madison.[3][4] These Federalist and Republican newspapers of the 1790s traded "rancorous and venomous abuse."[5] The Republicans attacked Hamilton as a monarchist who betrayed America's true values; after the Reynolds affair, they used salacious humor relentlessly.
Jay's Treaty of 1794 injected foreign policy into the party debates. Hamilton and his party favored friendly relations with Britain and denounced the increasingly unstable and violent French Revolution, while denounced the increasingly unstable and violent French denounced the increasingly unstable and violent French Revolution, as a sellout of their former ally, France, to their former enemy, Britain [6]

This is trash. It distorts the chronology and misstates the history:

  • To start with, Hamilton was in office less than six years; the first sentence confounds the fiscal contentions of 1789 and the Jay's Treaty disputes of 1794.
  • Jefferson did not found the DR caucus: he was never in Congress. \
  • It also omits much.

More follows. This is unacceptable partisan falsehood. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Some extraordinary flaws:

Hamilton started putting together one of these two nationwide coalitions. as early as 1790.[sic] One of the key elements in the coalition, Fenno's Gazette, was founded in 1789, with Hamilton's assistance.
denounced the increasingly unstable and violent French Revolution (in the context of Jay's Treaty of late 1794). At a minimum, a chronological blunder: Jay went to London after Thermidor, and it was ratified during the discussions which led to the French Directory.
  • Internal violence had been decreasing since July 1794.
  • Instability had been decreasing, and would continue to decrease, since September 1793.
  • External aggression had been decreasing since May 1793, when the people who sent over Genet for world revolution fell from power; it would not increase again for several years; France could not attack the United States unless England let it happen, which would not be during wartime.
as a sellout of their former ally, France, to their former enemy, Britain. More accurately, as a sellout of the United States to its present enemy, Britain. This is in any case nonsense; the Treaty was a commercial treaty which did not involve France.
The suggestion that the Federalist press did not use salacious humor is partisan nonsense; if examples are not linked under Hartford Wits, they ought to be.
The footnotes approach academic fraud. Bemis does not support this text; he was cited for the Hammond affair. Similarly, ANB was cited for Hamilton's personal loan to Fenno, which has disappeared. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Examining the history shows that most of those gross blunders do not result from the present editors; some of them descend from the days, visible in the first archive, when this page was a nomination for Mount Rushmore. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed most of the errors. I'm glad PMA realized about halfway through that most of those were old errors, and not a group of 'parisan' statements written by 'Neo-Federalists' (whatever that would be). Incidentally, I don't want to hear any more uncivil, negative talk from PMA. I have had it. The last Federalist probably died in the mid to late 1800s--THERE ARE NO FEDERALIST PARTISANS--they're all dead. Dead. Dead. Dead. Get over it. If you don't like the historical consensus of modern research, stay away from this article, because that consensus is what it is supposed to be based on, and what it WILL be based on eventually, so help me, God. AdRem (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I have more experience with this article than AdRem does; there are not only Federalist partisans alive, some of them have edited here (although the worst has flounced off to Citizendium).
The historical consensus of modern research ahould be followed, but it should not be confused with Chernow's incompetent and dishonest popularization; it may not be found in the appalling wasteland of the Hamilton literature at all (see the quote prefixed to the bibliography, which is right about both sides.) It can be found, in time, by compiling modern research on Hamilton's lifetime not about Hamilton, and therefore on balance lacking the party animus infesting the direct literature.
For one example, I see AdRem has removed some of the gratitutous inaccuracy from the section on the Federalist Party; but he has not removed the confusion, nor the tendentiousness that inspired both.
  • For instance, saying that Hamilton and his friends denounced the unstable and violent French Revolution is not much better than increasingly. It still represents Thermidor as unstable and violent, an expression of opinion (and minority opinion at that). It still asserts that policy towards France was the issue between parties, which is exceedingly doubtful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


For another, the ill-written apologetic on Conway's cabal is better away; but if we should say something about it, this is best done by looking up a source on the cabal, and see what it says about Hamilton.
AdRem should bear in mind one of WP:Raul's laws: Attempts to change POV articles to NPOV invariably result from a different POV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the Confederation

Hi, PMA. Please don't revert my edits, and say you are doing something else. That is not honest. I am trying to stick with the truth, wherever it leads. If I make a mistake, I will correct it. I don't care. I just want this article to evolve towards a more accurate history based upon the consensus of present historical scholarship. I agree that Newburgh should be included somehow. For the record, I have previously read about it in many different sources, including many sources that are not Hamilton bios. I consulted a number of these sources in my rewrite. The Newburgh situation is complex, and my edit was an attempt to briefly outline this tricky situation in the context of Hamilton's involvement or lack thereof as it is written up in most of today's historical sources. The previous incarnation of that section was imprecise, inaccurate, and contained unnecessary information and digressions. If you would like to make changes, please talk with me. I do not want an edit war, but I am not going to let you revert to the previous inaccurate and slanted version. AdRem (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Martin and Lender, or Wills, the sources cited? (Martin is the best source we could find on Newburgh.) If not, please do not attribute this oleaginous apologetic to them, on the claim that it's The Truth; in fact, remove it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, again. For those who care, What happened was basically this: I left a footnote attached behind Washington's quotes because--according to that footnote's explanation--the sources cited referred to Washington's quote. And apparently they did--but they may also have been meant to refer to other things. Nonetheless, I left it where it was. I repeat: I left it where it was--I did not change its immediate context. I left it in in order to avoid another accusation from PMA that I am a lying Federalist partisan scumbag. But, of course, I received one anyway. What I changed was the few sentences behind the Washington quotes\ to try and make them less POV, more accurate. The citation was and is immediately behind Washington's quotes, and was meant to refer only to that, not the preceding several paragraphs, which was PMA's original accusation (as near as I can tell). Apparently, he has since realized this and has moved his original complaint tag back behind the Washington quote. Again, I would appreciate it if you would be civil, PMA. Please, PMA, stop the accusations, the insults, and the glib edit summaries. If you see a problem it is easy enough to point it out without conflating it or assigning a slew of motives to its editor.AdRem (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have not yet ascribed a motivation to AdRen's edits; this is characteristic of his slipshod readings.
  • The text of the footnote in question is Martin and Lender, A Respectable Army; the Military Origins of the Republic, 1763-1789 pp. 188-9. Garry Wills, Cincinnatus, p.6, citing Washington's letters of April 4, 1783 (to Hamilton) and March 12, 1783 (to Elias Boudinot, as President of Congress) as warnings to the Congressmen; Washington mentions Robert Morris expressly. Quotes from the letter to Hamilton, text from Fitzpatrick's edition of the Writings 26:293. American National Biography, "Alexander Hamilton" by Forrest McDonald. The two Morrises, despite their association here and elsewhere, were unrelated.
  • When written, it indicated that the paragraph in question was what Wills, and Martin and Lender said, and indentified the direct quotation. The paragraph now says the opposite of what the cited sources say (one of them is quoted above).


Hamilton and several of his colleagues made use of the plight of the discontented soldiers of the Newburgh conspiracy. American officers stationed at Newburgh had demanded Congress provide them with long-promised years of back pay and pensions. They threatened to demand the pay by force if Congress did not provide it. While Hamilton considered the soldiers' complaints legitimate, he did not approve of this looming mutiny, and wrote to warn Washington of its new level of seriousness. Yet, Hamilton simultaneously worked to address the concerns that had prompted the Newburgh officers' budding revolt, and thus made use of the fear and sense of urgency that the Newburgh situation generated in order to win support for the federal impost revenue the Congressmen desired. Washington wrote Hamilton back, criticizing the Morrises, among others, for playing with so "dangerous an instrument" as an army and making the veterans "mere Puppets to establish Continental funds". Washington defused the Newburgh situation, and Hamilton continued to work to remedy its underlying causes. Soon after, a new impost amendment was passed, and a Congressional committee recommended a settlement of the soldiers' pensions with a payment of five years wages. However, once again, the states would not ratify such measures, and the Army disbanded without its pay or pensions in April of 1783, and did not receive settlement on either for many years.

There are two problems with this:

Most seriously, it is academic fraud; it represents the views of neither source.

To quote Wills (Martin and Lender is much more diffuse, and differs slightly, but clearly portrays Hamilton as part of the conspiracy, who wrote Washington in the expectation that he would intervene and lead his soldiers to recover their rights, and thus compel Congress to impose a funding scheme) "some members of Congress, who desired the stronger union that Washington was sponsoring, thought they could advance their cause by playing on the Army's grievances, on the inability of the central government to address its complaints. Nothing could stand at a greater distance from Washington's moral argument for increased authority than any attempt to seize power, or to form it on a military basis. [Italics original; new paragraph] Washington sent uncharacteristically stern warnings to Alexander Hamilton, letting him know that he realized what Hamilton and Robert Morris were up to."

Secondarily, it is rhetoric, not history:

  • While Hamilton considered the soldiers' complaints legitimate, he did not approve of this looming mutiny, and wrote to warn Washington of its new level of seriousness. True only in the sense that the Congressmen would all have prefered action by Congress, or a coup by Washington, to a mutiny; but this is dishonestly phrased to distinguish Hamilton from the others.
  • Yet, Hamilton simultaneously worked to address the concerns that had prompted the Newburgh officers' budding revolt This amounts to "Hamilton continued to attempt to get Congress some revenue, so it could pay its obligations". We've had that before; its presence here only serves to express the POV that Hamilton's actions must, as ever, have had the highest motives. Propaganda.
  • Hamilton continued to work to remedy its underlying causes. Another repetition of the same matter of fact; more excuses.
  • did not receive settlement on either for many years What exactly is many years supposed to mean? (Madison would argue that the answer, for many soldiers, was "never"; but we explain that below.) Hamilton passed a settlement bill six or seven years later; is that many? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I am really sad to have to keep defending myself from PMA's harsh but easily refuted accusations. Again: regarding the great footnote controversy, see my previous response. Regarding bullet point 1: Nothing there is refuted by PMA because it is all perfectly true and straightforward. It is an attempt to introduce Hamilton's complex half-involvement in Newburgh. At the very least, it is clear from any major treatment of the subject that Hamilton would not have wanted the military coup to actually happen, nor would he have let it. To ensure this, he gave Washington a heads-up letter warning him of the the situation, albeit in a way that tried to use the situation to get the soldiers' back pay, and the independent sources of revenue for the federal government. Bullet point 2: just an explanation of what he was doing trying to parallel the idea with the first portion of the paragraph. I don't think Hamilton is squeaky clean on Newburgh, I just want to present its complexity, or leave it all out, and point readers to the main article on Newburgh. This one situation shouldn't be given more weight than, say something more important, like Hamilton's war years. Bullet point 3: it's not repetition, he's still doing it at a different time after Newburgh. That is significant because t bridges to the conclusion about the whole revenue/soldier pay situation. Bullet point 4: 'many years' is supposed to mean 'many years'--for those who got anything at all, for those who did not sell their vouchers to speculators. The specific date of that occurrence is irrelevant to the scope of the article. This would be so much easier if you could be civil, PMA, and not digress into name-calling at every possible instance. AdRem (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
None of this answers Who says this? other than AdRem's uncontrolled imagination. The sources cited do not; they say the opposite. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And if you don't think Hamilton is squeaky clean about Newburgh, the solution is to say what he actually did, as this article once did; not supply two sentences of whitewash about how he was "working to fix the underlying problems" all the time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Before, it was lousy history. At this point, we ought to just eliminate all but a passing reference to the whole thing since you don't trust commonly-accepted major sources, and since I'm not going to let you poison this article anymore. AdRem (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Before, it was what all the sources I consulted said Newburgh was, including the American National Biography life of Hamilton and a standard source on Newburgh; if AdRem thinks that is "lousy history", I need present no more to the candid world. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact, AdRem has succeeded in misrepresenting Chernow's account too.
    • Hamilton urged [Washington] to badger Congress through surrogates...to dabble in a dangerous game of pretending to be a lofty statesman while covertly orchestrating pressure on Congress. (p.177) No hint of any of this, which is itself more mild than other accounts, has leaked through into our text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Washington lectured Hamilton "An army... is a dangerous instrument to play with (ellipsis Chernow's; p. 179) No "obliqueness" here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

More party trash

When France declared war against Great Britain in February of 1793, the United States was confronted with a major foreign policy conundrum. The US had to decide whether or not to honor their 1778 treaty of alliance with France; if they chose not to, they had to choose how they would remain a neutral party. In 1794, this situation became a major point of contention between the two parties. The Republicans favored the French. The Federalists, led by Hamilton, recommended the normalization of relations with Great Britain and expansion of Anglo-American trade. In order to avoid war with Britain, and to resolve major outstanding issues left over from the Revolutionary War, Washington sided with Hamilton and the Federalists, and sent Chief Justice John Jay to negotiate with the British. The result was Jay's Treaty, which granted the United States "most favored nation" status and averted war with Britain, but did little to address other American concerns. Hamilton and Washington were less than happy with the treaty, but deemed it necessary to avert war. The treaty was extremely unpopular, and the Democratic-Republicans opposed it for its failure to redress previous grievances, and for its failure to address British violations of American neutrality during the war.

This begins with suggestio falsi: neutrality in the war of 1793 was not a party issue; Jefferson approved of the neutrality, and was a major architect of it. (He did so more reluctantly than some; but that belongs in Thomas Jefferson, not here.) It then descends to plain and simple unsourced falsehood: the point of contention was not over "favoring the French", except in Federalist polemic. It then concludes with an extremely controversial explanation of Jay's Treaty; most historians retain the traditional view that it was a failure, the dispute being over whether anything better was attainable.

On a minor matter, Jefferson's usage for his friends was republican, lower case; it should be restored.

Two such appalling sections, added to the ancient bias of this page (which began as an avowed declaration that Hamilton belonged on Mount Rushmore) justify general tags. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is surreal. PMA has tortured a possible meaning from an ambiguity of phrasing, and used it to attack my motives--again. I will try to improve the phrasing, but--and I mean this only as a statement of fact, and not as a personal attack--I do not have as much free time as PMA to edit Wikipedia. The interpretation of Jay's Treaty is totally mainstream. I said perfectly plainly that it did very little to redress leftover American grievances. Hamilton didn't much like it. Washington didn't much like it. All it really did was prevent war with Britain at a time when it would have destroyed the country. AdRem (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Mainstream only in the Hamilton hagiography. AdRem should consider widening his reading, if he genuinely believes this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you just never stop with the jabs, do you? I repeat my strong objection to an editor such as yourself who decries the essentially universally-acclaimed Chernow bio as 'the worst ever' editing this article at all. You simply are too biased to edit here. Period.
It is acclaimed by the popular journalists, like its author; but in fact it is not the worst ever; there are several worse ones, now mercifully out of print. If I said this, I retract it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, the acclaim is not just popular, it is essentially universal. It has also been widely acclaimed by historians, biographers, and in historical journals--I gave you a wide variety of examples on your talk page a while back, and you were unable to provide me with any to the contrary. Even if you could provide me with a few that said something negative, the bulk of all reviews, professional and popular are still overwhelmingly, incontestably in praise of the book. AdRem (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
In figuring out the most succinct way of summarizing Jay treaty, my immediate source was not Chernow. I have read quite widely, thank you--which is why it is so painful for me to see this article in such a state. For the record, my immediate source for the Jay Treaty portion was actually the State Department website history of the Treaty. AdRem (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Curious. They contain the quite accurate summary The resulting treaty addressed few U.S. interests, and ultimately granted Britain additional rights. Your eulogy omits this entirely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Curious? My eulogy? You have got to be kidding me. I am at my wit's end here. That extremely brief summary is about over 500 words long. And I had to condense it into a few very compact sentences--I stand by the results. Only you could or would call that 'eulogy'. Just because something isn't isn't maximally slanted to portray Hamilton, or something he does in the worst possible light doesn't make it eulogy. That is a more than reasonable summary and you know it. Your seemingly never-ending attempts to imply my writing is dishonest and Federalist partisan are made all the more exasperating for the fact that you pretend you are not doing so. I am going to ask you, ONE LAST TIME to write without snide, poisonous, disgustingly-smarmy passive-aggressive comments. I have really, really tried to assume good faith with you--why on earth do insist upon pushing its limits with every comment that you make? AdRem (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this serious? By "summary", I meant the single sentence quoted above from the State Department, which is a better summing-up of the results of the treaty than all AdRem's bafflegab. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
And I have inserted it, as such. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Explain why this is dubious

PMA, explain why you think that is 'dubious' about the following or remove the tag.

1) PMA marked this sentence as dubious in 'Emergence of Parties':

During Hamilton's tenure as Treasury Secretary, political factions began to emerge from differing views on domestic and foreign[dubious – discuss] policies.
Thjey began to emerge during 1789-93, before Jefferson left office. During that time, foreign policy was not an issue between the parties, which did not have a line on them.

2) Ditto for this in the same section:

The Federalists assembled a nationwide coalition in order to garner support for their expansive financial programs, and for other Administration policies.[dubious – discuss]
Last cluse doubtful, and in any case hopelessly vague; the fiscal question was the central issue, all others only incidental, like the ethics questions devised by both sides. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

3) And for this:

The Federalists, led by Hamilton, recommended the normalization of relations with Great Britain and expansion of Anglo-American trade.[dubious – discuss]
At last, a valid quibble. The tag should go after normalization. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please recommend changes with brief, to the point explanations that do not involve calling me any names, or explaining what you think my motives are. Thank you. AdRem (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have, I repeat, never made any claims about your motives. Your prose is partisan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I see, my prose, the disembodied, impersonal noun--not me. Then you haven't called me a Federalist partisan, a liar, dishonest, an oleagenous apologist, or anything else then? That's a relief. Give me a break, buddy. AdRem (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I called a certain now departed editor a Federalist partisan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
Are you kidding me? Things you have specifically called me, my edits, or ascribed to me on this page alone: "neo-Federalist nonsense", " unacceptable partisan falsehood", "trash", "academic fraud", "ill-written apologetic", "oleaginous apologetic", "slipshod", "(of writing) rhetoric, not history", "(of writing) Propaganda", "(of writing) appalling sections", you even named an entire section which described my edits as "More Party Trash". AdRem (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ascribing to authors opinions they both deny is academic fraud. For the issue, see the section above. If the shoe pinches, take it off. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Typically, you have ignored everything except the one thing it is easiest for you to answer. And on that, the accusation of 'academic fraud'--NO IT WAS NOT--at the very worst it was an accident. And it is explained above. And you know it. KNOCK OFF THE PERSONAL INSULTS. AdRem (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Very well. I will accept your word on that matter, although I remain curious how one can reverse the meaning of a text, leave the footnote that sourced it, and call it an accident; footnotes are not mere decoration. As for the rest, they are descriptions of text, almost all specified sentences of text: if a text reads as propaganda, it is undesirable for that reason. If that is not what you meant, revise (preferably, for once, stating a source for the revisions, as a service both to your fellow editors and to any readers of this unhappy article). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I would refute this, but if anyone cares enough to read this, they can easily tell PMA is has not been forthcoming or straightforward about anything so far, and thus, is not likely to do so in the future. You can't pretend to accept me at my word, and then disclaim it. That is such awful passive-aggressive incivility. But if someone such as yourself, who appears to do nothing but edit wikipedia, hasn't learned that by now, can't assume good faith, can't be civil in a crunch, then I suppose they never will. AdRem (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced

The only footnotes on the whole section on Parties are two quotes from Jefferson, to answer Skyemoor's boring insistence on capitalizing Republican (neither was there when I placed the tag, and neither is a source, in our sense), and the book on the NYPost. While this interesting assertion may be sustained, it does not source any of AdRem's claims. There may be a "few or no" tag for sections; if so, I would agree to a downgrade. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Newburgh

I compressed the Newburgh situation to a more appropriate length. As it stands now, it mentions the whole situation in context, but not in oppressive detail. It is balanced, Hamilton is implicated as much as can be inferred from the record. If they want to know the entire situation in its full complexity, it is better to let them check out the full 'Newburgh Conspiracy' article. I even left the phrase 'Newburgh Conspiracy' in. Going into any more detail in any direction is bound to provoke more tags and disputes. Clearly, that didn't work before, nor was it balanced in the form it was before I got here. I think the version, as of now, is a sensible compromise. It is of the appropriate depth relative to the article, and of appropriate balance. AdRem (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • As I said above, when AdRem got here, what was said was the consensus of every source I consulted. AdRem finds this unbalanced; let him supply other sources. Chernow may omit it; but then Chernow has a habit of omitting what even he cannot excuse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I did supply sources. They do represent the consensus. Chernow does not omit it. He does not have the habit of omitting what even he cannot excuse, he is in fact praised for his balanced portrayal. That's why I like it. That's probably one of the major reasons why historians like it. But how you can keep talking about Chernow like his bio is trash when no one anywhere agrees with you even a little bit amazes me. I am further amazed that you despise it so much in spite of the fact that you HAVE ADMITTEDLY NEVER READ IT! AdRem (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • We have guidance on weaselwording: we're against it. the role Washington suspected [Hamilton] had played in the matter (unexplained) leaves the reader with two obvious questions: What role is that? Did Hamilton play it? There is a consensus answer to both questions; but I will refrain from inserting it to see if we hear from a third party.
  • And what, pray, do you have against Newburgh Conspiracy? It's the usual name for both halves of the affair.
Does the "we" you repeatedly use refer to the royal plural? DO you have a mouse in your pocket? Again, the sentence is describing Washington at the time. He didn't know that Hamilton had played a larger part at the time. The consensus is that at the time he suspected it, and implied to Hamilton that he knew Hamilton was probably somehow tied in with what he already knew was Morris's central role. AdRem (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No, we is Wikipedia as a whole; our consensus is stated at the page linked. As for the rest of this, it is unsupported by Chernow, or by anyone else I have read; but comments on Newburgh will be at the bottom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Parties POV

PMA: If you want to rewrite the Parties section somewhat, you have my support to do so--provided you hold to two conditions. 1) Please do not cut and paste from the previous version, or resort to anything like wholesale reversions to the previous version. Write the new sentences into this version, and keep in mind that it was not financial issues alone that prompted the division into the two parties, it was also fundamental differences about the form the federal government would take and its level of energy 2) Take your time. Plan out your rework, and keep everything there that you can. Try to work for balance. Try to incorporate major dissenting viewpoints, but don't give excessive weight to overly anti-Hamilton stuff (or for that matter, overly pro-Hamilton, if you think you can restrain yourself, and be fair). Try to keep your biases at bay. Otherwise, go nuts. AdRem (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Why thank you, most kindly of you; but it was not financial issues alone that prompted the division into the two parties, it was also fundamental differences about the form the federal government would take and its level of energy is a very dubious claim. Madison had always wanted energetic government (not another monarchy, but forcible), and (as our lead used to note) he governed energetically when President. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You always have to be snide and sarcastic, huh? Even when I tell you to do basically whatever you want? Grow up or leave Wikipedia. AdRem (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hammond affair

However, the willful omission of sourced fact is inexcusable. Chernow does, of course, but that is one of the reasons he is not a reliable source. I insert it here to await AdRem's explanation;

Hamilton had revealed this decision in private to George Hammond, the British Minister to the United States, without telling Jay—or anyone else; it was unknown until Hammond's dispatches were read in the 1920s. This "amazing revelation" may have had limited effect on the negotiations; Jay did threaten to join the League at one point, but the British had other reasons not to view the League as a serious threat.<:ref>Samuel Flagg Bemis, Jay's Treaty (quoted); Elkins and McKitrick p.411 f.</ref>

Please observe that the sources cited are the standard account of Jay's Treaty and the current standard history of the 1790's, published in 1995. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to comment! I'm not sure I know enough about the Hammond event. Offhand I'd say, first quote the two sources here in talk, and provide the diff of AdRem's deletion and edit summary (I couldn't find it quickly), so others can verify these details. That meets the reinsertion burden of proof, and then we can explore and resolve any disagreements with it. Also, my approach would be not to use language like "inexcusable", which can appear absolutist, and not to use so many tags (six boxes, some perhaps redundant?). If you'd like my help in solving the tags more directly, please list bullet points of each of the remaining open issues. Thanks. JJB 17:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Both sources are fairly long (the text quoted is a summary), but Elkins and McKittrick is still in print, and should be readily available. I do not believe that transcribing several paragraphs each is a reasonable burden here. But I will see what I can do about highlights. (I can't find the removal either, but there has been some edit conflict; I will restore, and make a fresh section on the war, and let AdRem make his case for removal here.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Include what? And this article isn't a 'diplomatic history of 1794'. What we are talking about is what should be a sentence or two in a bio--maybe. I doubt you would find the sentences PMA wants to add in any encyclopeedia article about Hamilton anywhere--and isn't that what this is supposed to be??? My most significant beef with it PMA, is that it is totally a wandering, rambling, poorly-written accretion that isn't even put into context--it isn't even introduced, really. You support a TON of things like this. You draw out every anti-Hamilton spin on everything until the smallest situation (as long as it takes pains to maximize its villainization of Hamilton) takes up more space than whole (significant) periods of his life. I don't love Hamilton, I don't feel the need to spin his life. I just want this article to be something roughly approaching the accuracy, focus, format and scope of a real encyclopedia article. I try to follow the consensus of the major, critically (both popularly and professionally) acclaimed bios of Hamilton, and other works that mention him. PMA has repeatedly expressed his unwillingness to include works that fit this definition, works which form the current core of current research about Hamilton, and which among the very best and most reliable material available about him. PMA rarely answers the most direct and pertinent of questions, and abuses tag features to further his fringe opinions about Hamilton. That ought to disqualify him, and save this article and its editors from wasting any more time on PMA's ridiculous anti-Hamilton POV edits and complaints. AdRem (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, "any diplomatic history of 1794 should include" the Hammond affair. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Remaining points of conflict

AdRem insists on writing in the following claims, none of which I see significant support for:

  • That the conflict between the incipient parties was over foreign policy during Washington's first term.
Not the only thing, not the main thing. A part of it. AdRem (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That, when there was a party issue over foreign policy, it was policy towards the French that was in question.
Not really what I said. The Democratic-Republicans and most of the country was more sympathetic to France, and did not like the idea of cozying up to Britain in any sense. AdRem (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Afterwards, Washington wrote to Hamilton and obliquely rebuked him for the role Washington suspected he had played in the matter of Newburgh. This is weaselwording; there is consensus on what role Hamilton played, and that he indeed played it.
It's very clearly not weaselwording. See below. The sentence was specifically about the letter Washington wrote, and its extremely indirect rebuke of Hamilton for the role Washington thought Hamilton had played by Newburgh soldiers as leverage for obtaining federal income sources, and soldier back pay. AdRem (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Another PMA tag - "oblique rebuke" "suspected" etc.

PMA doesn't agree with something else. In this case, it was the sentence: "...Washington wrote to Hamilton and obliquely rebuked him for the role Washington suspected[weasel words] he had played in the matter.[failed verification][7] (tags added = PMA's)

The exact passage I used to cite this, because it is what I had on hand at the time--I could easily find others--is from p. 179 in Chernow:

"The feared mutiny at Newburgh deepened but also complicated relations between Hamilton and Washington. It reinforced their mutual conviction that the Articles of Confederation had to be revised root and branch and Congress strengthened. "More than half the perplexities I have experienced in the course of my command, and almost the whole of the difficulties and distress of the army, have their origin here," Washington wrote of congressional weakness. At the same time, Washington saw a certain Machiavellian streak in Hamilton, and bluntly told him of the grumbling in the army about congressmen who tried to use the soldiers as "mere puppets to establish continental funds." He lectured Hamilton: "The army...is a dangerous instrument to play with. Washington must have seen that Hamilton, for all his brains and daring, sometimes lacked judgment and had to be supervised carefully. On the other hand, Hamilton had employed his wiles in the service of ideals that Washington himself endosed." (Chernow, pp.179-80)

Oblique. Rebuke. I don't see what on earth there is to argue about. Just for good measure, the actual letter Washington wrote to Hamilton that is being described in my sentence (see below) is pretty clear in backing this up. Chernow actually uses the exact phrase "obliquely rebuffed" on p.178 in describing Washington's response to Hamilton's warning about financial problems, and the disgruntled soldiers, and his suggestion that the soldiers' plight could be useful leverage in fixing both problems. In the intrest of full disclosure, that description does not refer to the letter my sentence refers to, but to the one that preceded it--it is before the Newburgh Address, but is very similarly written, describing the very same dislike of Hamilton's suggestion of using the army to get continental funding and army backpay. The letter below is Washington's response to a letter from Hamilton after Washington addressed the soldiers at Newburgh. I present it just so that you get the feel of what Washington actually said, and how he said it.

"I will now, in strict confidence, mention a matter which may be useful for you to be informed of. It is that some men (and leading ones too) in this army, are beginning to entertain suspicions that Congress, or some members of it, regardless of the past sufferings and present distress, maugre the justice which is due to them, and the returns which a grateful people should make to men who certainly have contributed more than any other class to the establishment of Independency, are to be made use of as mere puppets to establish continental funds, and that rather than not succeed in this measure, or weaken their ground, they would make a sacrifice of the army and all its interests.

I have two reasons for mentioning this matter to you. The one is, that the army (considering the irritable state it is in, its sufferings and composition) is a dangerous instrument to play with ; the other, that every possible means consistent with their own views (which certainly are moderate) should be essayed, to get it disbanded without delay. I might add a third : it is, that the Financier is suspected to be at the bottom of this scheme. If sentiments of this sort should become general, their operation will be opposed to this plan; at the same time that it would increase the present discontents. Upon the whole, disband the army as soon as possible, but consult the wishes of it, which really are moderate in the mode, and perfectly compatible with the honor, dignity and justice which is due from the country to it."

Hamilton is never directly implicated by Washington, but the wording is unusually strongly-worded for a letter to Hamilton--hence I described it as an oblique rebuke, which is the way--give or take a little attitude or bias--that it is always phrased when describing the situation in bios and history accounts. PMA likes the strongest anti-Hamilton phrasing, because that is his bias, though he has never been open about it.

By the way, note the word "suspicions" in Washington's letter. Washington doesn't directly mention Hamilton's role in this whole situation. WE'RE NOT EVEN SURE WHO DID WHAT NOW. Most things I have read about Hamilton, about others, about the period (among those that mention Hamilton's role in Newburgh at all) mention that Robert Morris (FYI: He is indisputably 'the financier' mentioned in Washington's letter) was at the helm of this situation, that the other Morris was helping, and some of the others, including Hamilton, played supporting roles to differing degrees. It is pretty clear that Hamilton didn't mind using the bluff of an angry army rebellion to get the government its funding, and the soldiers their pay--Washington didn't, to his credit. Nonetheless, this was an indirect rebuke from Washington about using the fear of armed rebellion to scare up more funding for the central government and soldiers. How that is in dispute, given all of this, and oodles more if necessary, is something for someone else to waste their time proving. AdRem (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Ah, I see. AdRem is no longer claiming that obliquely is in Chernow (which it is not; Chernow's words, which AdRem quotes (so one must suppose he has read them) are that Washington lectured Hamilton "An army... is a dangerous instrument to play with.) It's AdRem's own Original Research from Washington's letter.
If you want to continue to act like this, that is your choice, but it is in Chernow as has already been explained above--so don't keep claiming that it fails verification. That is a flat out lie. If you wnt to change the wording, tell me how. If you can't, when I have time to get to the library, I will find someone else who echos Chernow's portrayalk of it as an oblique rebuke. However, I am not at all opposed to a change of the phrasing if you like, just to a revert to the previous slanted versions of it. AdRem (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This remains entirely AdRem's invention. Chernow's paragraph is quoted above; it says nothing more about obliquity than it did yesterday. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Washington's obliquity in other letters, written before Washington went to Newburgh, would be relevant if we discussed them; we don't.
I think that's a huge stretch, there. Also, please refrain from using 'we'. You don't represent anyone but yourself, and if you are speaking in the wikipedia "we"--don't. It comes off as arrogant to speak for wikipedia, the other editors who have contributed here. AdRem (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course Robert Morris is the Financier; I am surprised that AdRem finds it necessary to state the fact.
I was trying to make clear to you or anyone who cares to know that R. Morris was the main figure in the plan.AdRem (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
More original research. I have seen no source that says so; equally seriously, the paper by Kohn I have added to the sources is in part a review of the primary sources; he makes plain that modern historians have no evidence on the internal relations of the Congressional conspiracy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • AdRem also omits Hamilton urged [Washington] to badger Congress through surrogates...to dabble in a dangerous game of pretending to be a lofty statesman while covertly orchestrating pressure on Congress. (Chernow, p.177) No hint of any of this, which is itself more mild than other accounts, has leaked through into our text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I 'omitted' a sentence from 2 pages before the paragraph I quoted which doesn't change the crux of my argument at all.AdRem (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Your argument, again, is by nature in violation of our policy: we don't invent our own arguments, we summarize what has already been argued by others. If others disagree, we describe the disagreement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, I would prefer you say 'Wikipedia' instead of'we'--it sounds rude and pedantic to do otherwise. This is sentence is so consensus it's not even funny. This is not original research, though I feared you would take my attempt to explain it using what information I had immediately at hand (Washington's letter) as a good faith attempt to persuade you until I can check out other sources I have read in the pasta again. You seem bent on being rude and confrontational as you can. When the facts are not on your side, which they usually are not, you assault me from technocratic points. I am the one aiming for a writing based on a consensus view, you are arguing your own POV against those reliable sources that you don't personally care for. I will get additional sources when I can, this is easily verifiable, but I have other things to worry about besides this ludicrous edit conflict. I don't have time to argue with someone who isn't interested in a logical discussion, who likes to argue for argument's sake, who gets a kick out of control, out of telling others what to do, rather than doing what is best for the article. AdRem (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
AdRem demands that I change the conventional usage I share with many Wikipedians; I should prefer not to. We is the whole body of Wikipedians; AdRem is welcome to consider himself one of us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 'most soldiers never received the promised pay or pensions. An extraordinary statement, especially in claiming a majority. Most soldiers were not promised pensions; this was an officers' perk. Setting that aside, what is the source for any of this? statistical statements are required to have sources. Very many soldiers got their back pay in 1789/90, when Hamilton himself arranged it; whether they got it in full is a question which Hamilton and Madison can settle between them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You YOURSELF described it as a majority above. PMA above: "(Madison would argue that the answer, for many soldiers, was "never";". If you want to quibble over extremely minor and subjective word choices, that's your decision, but stop with the pompous implications that everything you don't agree with is done with bad intent. Words you ought to eliminate from your vocab: "extraordinary", "tosh", "nonsense", "partisan", or anything else used to conflate subjective phrasings or minor errors into a lecture. Find another hobby, PMA. AdRem (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I did no such thing. AdRem should really consider taking his own advice; Wikipedia requires being able to read English prose and to see what it says.
  • Many is not most; "many skunks have rabies" need not assert a majority; "most" does.
  • Madison's rhetoric is not the same thing as historic fact; we quote it below, and ascribe it to Madison, as we should. Even if Madison had said "most" (and I don't see that he did), we would require a source that he was correct before saying it in our own voice.
Nothing in this edit ascribes evil intent, but "the wicked flee where no man pursueth". I asked for a source; is there one or not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit summary (I removed your tags, but I adressed most of their concerns, and made additional unrelated edits--you are the one who 'blanked' me--all I did was remove your tags) is a lie. As anyone examining it will see, it has removed the tags from the Newburgh section, but has not changed the text at all. On the election of 1800, it has replaced the inversion of chronology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Easy there, bud. As any one certainly can see, I did much more than you suggest, you deleted all my wording changes that helped what was written made sense. I can't talk to you anymore, because you always say I said something or did something I didn't, but responding to your misstatements is an endless, fruitless task. It was so unclear what was being talked about that I mistakenly inverted the chronology of two events. Mea culpa. To be fair, you did delete my other wording. In any case, I am under no illusions that anyone is reading this thread anymore, and I am sooooooo done trying to point out where you are wrong, it only brings up two more and more unfounded accusations. There are at least a few new editors who have been attracted (if temporarily) to this article, which is what I desperately sought, and what it desperately needs. I hope they will continue, and bring others. I hope that closes this out. AdRem (talk)
What it desperately needs is an editor unwilling to suppress half of Hamilton's career. In the meantime, what the dickens does AdRem mean? The edit to which that was a summary was an exact reversion, removing the tags; his previous edit removed the tags, tweaking two words, only one of them significant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

It appears the first two sentences only need tightening (because pretty much about the same thing; note also the disambig links). PMA's objection was "no evidence [of] who led", so let's drop "most notably" and not answer the question "who led":

Several Congressmen, such as superintendent of finance Robert Morris, his assistant Gouverneur Morris, and Hamilton, attempted to secure independent funding both for the federal government and for American soldiers, in one case by using the Newburgh conspiracy soldiers' discontent (over long-promised back pay and pensions) as leverage to obtain support for both measures.<ref name=ellis141>Ellis 2004, pp. 141-4.</ref>

PMA requests insertion of a sourced statement, although it should not be phrased to include contentious words from Chernow without attribution, so it might be peeled back to:

Hamilton covertly urged Washington to have surrogates press Congress for funding, so as not to implicate Hamilton's own political career.<ref>Chernow, p. 177.</ref>

In describing the later GW letter, first it looks to me like Chernow himself mistakes the primary source, GW's periodic sentence. Since maugre is the preposition meaning "in spite of", I parse the sentence as follows: Leading men suspect (1) that Congress (in spite of justice and gratitude to the army) are to be made puppets and (2) that Congress would sacrifice the army. Note Chernow reads the soldiers, not the Congress, as the puppets, and while my first, hastier reading had supported that, I do not see it now as grammatically defensible. GW declines to accuse puppeteers. Next, Chernow says "oblique" of the prior letter, and "blunt" as to this letter, so since we want to properly weight GW's attitude to AH, both should be considered (there is no reason not to mention the former "oblique" letter). Also, when GW says others suspect Congress or members would sacrifice the army, that is also at least an oblique reference to Congressman AH (and perhaps blunt for the epistolary standards of the day). So why not let the readers determine GW's implications for themselves?

Washington's replies ranged from oblique rebuff to blunt lecture, warning against "suspicions that Congress ... would make a sacrifice of the army and all its interests."<ref>Chernow, pp. 177-180.</ref>

I heard PMA say darkly there is consensus about what role GW suspected AH played and whether he played it. I'm sorry I didn't notice in my review what that refers to. So far my proposal mentions AH's role of attempting to secure these measures by writing GW (and telescopes the Morrises' earlier attempts in as well). If more has been said I beg for repetition. At any rate, the next sentence I would use is expanded a bit for context, and has been moved down one sentence. "Also" appears because GW's replies just mentioned were both before and after it:

On March 15, Washington also defused the Newburgh situation by a personal appeal for forbearance from his fellow officers.<ref name=ellis141/>

The only remaining task is more defensible wording of the resolution of the pay issue:

Congress ordered the Army officially disbanded without its pay or pensions in April 1783. Congress eventually passed a new impost amendment, and a Congressional committee recommended a settlement of the soldiers' pensions, with a payment of five years' wages. However, once again, the states did not ratify such measures, and so the debate over promised back pay and pensions was not resolved by the Confederation Congress.

These are good-faith attempts to accommodate all the data I've seen. If I've omitted data, let me know. I am not responding to the 1800 chronology at this time, and I think continuing efforts to cool down will reward both editors here. JJB 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

    • This is in basis acceptable to me. There are some points I would phrase differently; but I would not tag this text if installed, nor, with one exception, feel it in immediate need of editing. That exception is Hamilton's motivation in urging Washington to act covertly; my understanding is that this would not affect Hamilton's career, but he felt that, like Morris and himself, Washington would be more effective if he publicly played the statesman while privately orchestrating pressures. (I would also like a source for five year's wages; it was my impression that the pensions were longer than that. If this means ten years of half-pay, we should say so.) If this is in general acceptable, we can discuss points of detail.
    • That would leave the sentence Hamilton urged Washington to covertly arrange for surrogates tp press Congress for funding.
    What do others think? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
With your basic acceptance, I'm going ahead and letting other editors use it as a basis. Quick searches on thomas.loc.gov did not turn up the texts; a better approach probably would. I can't tell from the quote p. 177 which party Chernow is charging with being covert, so in my insertion I have dropped this, and other text that you suggest might give rise to other concerns. I trust AdRem to pick up the normal editing cycle from here, and again I apologize if I missed any nuances. JJB 19:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Because of what I took out I needed a different transition clause so I selected "daring" from Chernow; hope that works. JJB 19:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am taking a break from this headache for a little while. I figured it could benefit from a little air, and it has, at least in the sense of attracting some new editors. JJB, I hope you will help put the word out to anyone who you think might be interested in this article, or be willing to put a bit of timing on it. I have been trying to get new editors to flood this article without much success. New blood and overwhelming energy will help sort this article out. Thanks for helping. AdRem (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My edit of today was principally intended to get the Morrises and Madison out into the general context of the federal funding question, which they had been working on for years before Hamilton arrived. This, and adding what Hamilton actually did, required more revision than I expected, but I think it is now in a rational order:

See below in new section: Newburgh. The gist of my objection is every time PMA adds 300 words back into the Newburgh paragraph(s), it gives far, far too much relative weight to this little event. When this happens, it blows the consensus to bits. This is not the Newburgh article (and, yes there is one). For more info see the 'Newburgh' new thread below. Thanks AdRem (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline logic

This edit inverts the timeline. The New York election took place in the spring of 1800; it was the election for the New York legislature; Hamilton's pamphlet was written, as the unmeddled text said, in September. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I will agree that our article should have said more of this than it did; but it does now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Claimed 'contentious' sentences altered to remove 'contentious' parts

Tagged sentences were altered to remove any conceivable quibbles. But more will likely be argued, I suspect. AdRem (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG...could it be...consenus with PMAnderson??? Hooray!

Yes! Thank you. I have no problem with the phrasing you changed in the 'Emergence of parties' section. As it now stands, it represents what happened! I am seriously thrilled! I just corrected some of your spacing and grammatical/syntax typos. Well done! Happy Weekend! AdRem (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Newburgh...again?

PMA asked for comment and we let a third party (JJB) rewrite a difficult section--in which I stayed almost totally out of the process to allow things to cool down. Consensus was more or less arrived at, and then what happens? I look away and PMA rewrites it again to include his own lengthy take on Newburgh...again. Not only is Newburgh of relatively little importance to Hamilton as it lies even without PMA's attempted addition, but wven now, it now takes up as much space as, for example, Hamilton's military career--one of many parts of his life certainly far more deserving of article focus than repeating what other people did at Newburgh, and what they might or might not have done. Why should such lengthy and POV paragraphs on every minor Hamilton snafu be included? They are painstakingly negotiated out, and then PMA puts them back if the consensus has removed them. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article that gives appropriate information on the relevant parts of Hamilton's life. We don't have to keep Newburgh out, (it was mostly fine how it was) but if they want more info on it, the way is just to include a link to the Newburgh Conspiracy, which we did; or we could insert a 'see main article - Newburgh' link. This item is never given more than a few pages in biographies, and the huge relative amount of focus it that PMA keeps trying to give it is POV, and against what little consensus there is here. AdRem (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The solution is to expand Hamilton's military career, although there's a reason we don't say much about it between Princeton and Yorktown: aides spend a lot of time, but are agencies of their general's will, not doing anything independent; this is, after all, why Hamilton wanted to get out of it.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Huge relative focus is a falsehood. It is, and always has been, a paragraph, shorter than AdRem's tirade above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
    • I should note that the ANB article (about the same length as ours, and written by a fervent supporter of Hamilton) has less than we do about the Revolution, and includes this: There he became involved with Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, and others in a scheme to combine the lobbying power of public creditors with "the terror of a mutinying army" to induce Congress to pass and the states to ratify amendments to the Articles of Confederation vesting Congress with independent sources of revenue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The text in question is two sentences, which are what Hamilton demonstrably did:

The Congressmen encouraged MacDougall and Knox to continue their aggressive approach, threatening unknown consequences if their demands were not granted, and resolving to defy civil authority at least by not disbanding if they were not satisfied; meanwhile, they defeated proposals which would have resolved the crisis without establishing general Federal taxation: that the states assume the debt to the army, or that a impost be established dedicated to the sole purpose of paying that debt. They did not advocate the impractical step of actually taking over Congress.

The omission of what Hamilton actually did requires much more justification than this tirade; but I would have thought the sourced denial that Hamilton was involved in a coup was worth including. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

with a long footnote, intended to do two things:

  • explain Kohn's judgment, shared by others, that the conspiracy did not, and could not, aim at a coup d'etat.
  • distinguish the conspiracy of MacDougall and Knox, with whom Hamilton was involved, from that of Armstrong, with which there is no evidence that he (as opposed to Morris) was directly involved. Since AdRem appears to have confused these above, this seemed useful, but I will not insist.
<:ref>Kohn. The judgment of impracticality is his: the enlisted men had much less at stake that the officers, and might not have followed any rebellion; if they had, the insurgent army, completely unsupplied, would have had to catch Congress, which the British had attempted vainly for years; once caught, any resolution imposed on Congress would still have had to be implemented by the states. There was a coup proposed, in the Newburgh Addresses, to replace Washington as Commander-in-Chief, with Horatio Gates; the Congressional conspirators were in touch with John Armstrong, Gates' aide and organizer of the small body of officers in favor of this, through Robert Morris and Captain John Brooks, one of MacDougall's colleagues.</ref>
(ec) I might characterize this somewhat differently than AdRem, but not too much so. The facts on the ground are, first, that PMA's edit, while it adds some significant detail and has thankfully kept the promise to refrain from tagging, has deleted most of a (different) paragraph under "Hamilton enters Congress" that seemed useful and at least as appropriate as the new content. Deleting that much, without significant paraphrase, would seem to need a little more advertisement than PMA gave (add: until just now). Second, AdRem cut the new portion of PMA's under "Congress and the Army": and since it does not mention Hamilton once, it does have relatively poor claims on being necessary background. It is very clearly Newburgh content, not Hamilton content, applying the coatrack principle to that section. (Add: perhaps I missed the part where we proved that Hamilton was involved with a sourced statement clearer than just "the Congressmen"?) AdRem's deletion was properly advertised, although it would also have been very thoughtful to have courtesy-moved the deleted content to Newburgh as well.
Given those facts, the normal editing cycle would suggest that the immediate next step for one of us is at least: incorporate the text deleted from "Hamilton enters Congress" back into PMA's new text and organizational structure; and incorporate the text deleted from "Congress and the Army" into Newburgh Conspiracy. It would show very good faith if someone could perform both those (very mechanical) edits at the same time, before I get around to it. By the way, thank you once again for permitting me to be frank in this discussion; there is exceeding much more courtesy here than there is in the 21st-century controversies. JJB 14:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The text removed was:

While on Washington's staff, Hamilton had become frustrated with the decentralized nature of the wartime Continental Congress, particularly its dependence upon the states for financial support. The wartime Congress had no right to collect taxes, or to demand money from the states. As a result, there were often serious shortfalls in funding for nearly all aspects of the War from soldiers' wages, to supplies, to any other Congressional mandates. Thus, when Hamilton entered Congress, among his chief goals was to increase central authority of the government, and provide it with some level of autonomy in financial matters. Many others, including James Madison also desired some basic measure of financial autonomy for the Federal government. In an attempt to provide this basic financial self-sufficiency, Madison joined Hamilton in supporting a 5-percent federal duty on all imports--though this duty was never fully ratified, and thus never became law.<:ref>Chernow, p. 176.</ref> Hamilton and Madison also issued a joint statement that went even further, stating that beyond having some level of financial autonomy, the Federal government ought to be able to make laws that supersede those of the individual states.<:ref>Chernow, p. 176.</ref>

Insofar as this explains the situation of Congress, it is still in the text; the rest is Hamilton's feelings and goals, which are implicit in his actions; concentrating on them suggests, which is not true, that they were unique to Hamilton: Morris, Wilson, and Madison shared them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I have added the half-sentence above on Hamilton and Madison's views in their joint report on Rhode Island; it is probably redundant with Hamilton's letter to RI, but harmless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What the nationalists wished when they sent Brooks back to Newburgh was the active cooperation of Knox and the other leaders of the Army's effort for redress. Should all the efforts and parliamentary manouvering in Philadelphia fail, a declaration by the Army that it would not disband might frighten Congress into passing commutation, then another funding system to raise the money. Such a declaration, while only passive mutiny... [digression on risks, ending] No one could possibly foresee the consequences of the military declaring its independence from the civil power. Yet, in the first week of February, anticipating the worst, the Morrises and Hamilton were willing to take the chance. Knox and the other leaders in Newburgh were responsible men, and could be depended upon to keep the situation in hand.. (Kohn, pp. 198-9; the top of p 198 contains Hamilton's summary of why a coup was impracticable.) Bold added; "the Congressmen" was an effort to cover the complication that while those three were certainly involved, others may have been, leaving no evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Without immediate direct comment on your latest edits, which would take me more time today, I'd like to (1) ask you to reread my comment above, (2) thank you for providing the Kohn text, and (3) ask you to consider providing another side source: can you more fully quote Chernow p. 177 so we can determine who, in context, he is actually saying was the pretended "lofty statesman while covertly orchestrating pressure on Congress": AH, GW, or ambiguous? JJB 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Washington, if he took Hamilton's advice; but I would prefer not to type in another paragraph by hand unless AdRem disagrees. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, so....same problem all over again, different sentences and sources. I don't really have time to deal with more PMA stuff right now, but this giant Newburgh/Funding section just is way too long and irrelevant to Hamilton to be included here. I hope PMA will consider cleaning up his typos, and moving it to the Newburgh article where it belongs (if it belongs anywhere). I would do it, but I am certain PMA would consider it hostile coming from me, and I'm really not even sure his additions are accurate enough to include in the separate Newburgh article as they are now anyway. Again, JJB, if you can...please help the article. AdRem (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • JJB, feel free to clean up any typoes you can find; it is very difficult to copy edit what one has written. The comment above is a declaration that AdRem wants this article to be a Mount Rushmore nomination, and will object to any of the parts of Hamilton's career inconsistent with that. As for accuracy, I have summarized what I found in the sources cited; if AdRem has other sources, they are welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(Sigh) There you go again impugning my motives again, PMA. That's not what I'm after here. I just want this to resemble a mainstream, reputable, consensus-of-major-current-sources encyclopedia article. Whatever your POV is, it has proven not to be mainstream in either a popular or academic sense where this subject is concerned. You would do well to read JJB's comments, and to proofread your own edits at least a bit. FYI, and ironically, you misspelled "typos" above. AdRem (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I know nothing of AdRem's motives: I know only his actions. He is a single-purpose account, which has edited only on this article; he has routinely blanked sourced information on the subject of this article; he has repeatedly made tendentious claims with no source, or when the source has not supported the claim made. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The spelling and grammar of our patriotic colleague may be assessed in this comment; despite having three cracks at this post, it is still misspelt and ungrammatical - can he amend the inappropriate spelling, and fix the pretentious soleicism, before I post again?

His edit here consists of several parts, more than I presently have time to review:

PMA, of course has (almost as a rule) impugned the motives of anyone who has had a substantive disagreement with him, or who has tried to discuss anything with him--as a search of the word 'partisan' or 'Mount Rushmore' on this page or any archive from the Alexander Hamilton talk pages will show. If anyone really wants to see a few examples, I provided a few here a while back on this page. As for the 'typoes', typo that wasn't very nice of me to point out, even though this isn't 18th century Britain. As for the edits themselves, I will take your tags one by one. Please don't use them any more than is called for. Thanks. AdRem (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ground rules?

OK, I have now taken the time simply to restore content deleted by either AdRem or Pmanderson (as well as copy some to Newburgh Conspiracy), without comment on the validity of the deleted comment other than that it at least marginally relates to Hamilton. I hope I recognize the concerns stated, and I know the current version does not address them all. But since I don't see myself succeeding in suggesting some editing protocols for resolving these concerns, I'm going to tell you flat-out protocols that might help you if you observe them faithfully. I trust that you both will permit my recommending you to such a set of principles, seeking good-faith resolution of concerns.

  • Please refrain from using section tags; instead, favor inline tags. A section tag refers to nebulous talk discussion and is often sustained in the absence of any specific discussion. An inline tag usually makes clear the specific objection and allows it to be discussed separately rather than in a glom. I would rather see ten inline tags than one section tag. I will hereby delete the section tags and add a few of the inline tags, attempting to provide examples illustrating some of the concerns from all sides. AdRem may also want to add inline tags to Newburgh Conspiracy for eventual resolution.
  • Please refrain from deleting another editor's content, again in favor of inline tags. Be very careful not to abuse a couple permissible exceptions: it is fine to combine redundant sentences, as this does not remove meaning; it is fine to remove sentences which have very tenuous linkage to Hamilton, but only if the content is moved to another article, as this does not remove meaning either. If the content is POV or weasely or undue weight, guess what, there are appropriate inline tags!
  • Please allow other editors to attempt to address your tag in good faith. If it is removed but the issue unaddressed, feel free to tag it again, inline.
  • Please continue to do your best to make each significant change separately, providing a separate rationale in edit history for each possibly contentious edit. Again, see my next edits for examples.
  • Please continue to remember normal wikiquette, such as keeping discussion content-related rather than user-related.

These steps will keep the debate focused on a delineable list of issues to be individually resolved, rather than sprawling everywhere. Remember to take a deep breath, because there is nothing wrong with the article leaving a mistaken impression in some clause, if it's inline-tagged for the nonce. It's not critical. If we all go slow we'll get there together. JJB 13:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Speaking of going slow, I won't have time to suggest more than a few tags now. I am not intending to favor any particular editor with them, as I am only marking the most obvious examples of possibly improveable texts. It seems to me that one editor has been doing more inserting than the other, and this may affect my tag placement, but I am still striving for neutrality overall. More later. JJB 13:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This text is, again, basically acceptable. There seems to be some repetition on the requirement for the unanimous action of the states, which is slightly misleading: Congress could request money from the states separately, and individual states were free to give it; the only measures discussed which required action from all the states were the general funding measures of 1781 and 1783. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a question: Most of AdRem's most questionable edits simply suppress material. I know of no tag to mark omissions but a section tag; am I overlooking one? This will not be a problem if he abides by your second recommenation; we'll see.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It was at this time that a group of officers organized under the leadership of General Henry Knox sent a delegation to lobby Congress for their back pay, led by Hamilton's New York acquaintance Alexander MacDougall. I presume the objection here is to the identification of MacDougall, which I have removed. The result seems vague; the article already mentions and links to MacDougall some sections earlier, and it is useful to tell the reader that this is the same man. The next sentence also mentions the Army's back pay; this seemed redundant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hamilton's collaboration with Madison was a committee report recommending the delegation to Rhode Island. The argument for federal funding is in the report, not in anything which the delegation had power to accept or refuse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Congress had given up printing unsupported paper money back in September 1779; it obtained what money it had from subsidies from the King of France, aid requested from the several states (which were often unable or unwilling to contribute), and loans from Europe against these uncertain revenues. What is unneutral about this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Just that I couldn't find the "undue weight" tag earlier, in a rush. :D My only question there would be whether it's too much distant background in a biography. Thank you for these clarifications! They really help move the process along. JJB 20:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

On Slavery

The On Slavery section of the article begins "Some modern scholars believe that the historical record confirms Hamilton as a 'steadfast abolitionist'; others see him as a 'hypocrite.'" The rest of the section goes on to provide ample evidence of the abolitionist side but no real mention of the hypocrite side. Is there more than the fact that he made a few compromises over the years? If not the hypocrite term seems a little harsh. No POV issue from me as I have no idea what his views were. That is why I'm asking. James (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the majority (or even significant minority viewpoints) would ever call Hamliton a "hypocrite" on slavery. I have never seen one, and unless someone can provide significant evidence of such a view, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia article. PMA? What do you say, can that one go away, or will you fight it? AdRem (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course I will fight it; the paper cited is a published survey of the literature, and Flexner's view of Hamilton on slavery is fairly close to this: that Hamilton did only what his social obligations required. According to this view, the NYMS was a social obligation, to which any respectable gentleman would belong; and beyond that, Hamilton did nothing more than any other New York gentleman would have. (Do remember that every member of the NY Legislature but one voted for some form of emancipation in 1785; the bill failed to pass because they could not agree on black civil rights after emancipation.) I do not say I agree with this; but the "Hamilton was an abolition view" is even less supported Despite the special pleading (McDonald's, IIRC), Hamilton probably owned slaves; he certainly bought one for his in-laws, and he returned a fugitive slave to his master. Beyond that, he supported the gag law in Congress; I hold that he may well have been right to prefer the Constitution to immediate appeal for redress of the evil, but Franklin and Garrison would disagree. Indeed, the real weakness of "hypocrite" may well that Hamilton did not protest slavery enough to warrant it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is a sourced quote, but the source is a 15-page undergrad paper in a black-interest journal attempting tertiarily to summarize other viewpoints it disagrees with. Like the tertiary speculation elsewhere from the gay journal, this should not be presented as the opinion of Wikipedia due to WP:PSTS and other reasons. JJB 16:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Rephrased, since the quotes are from Weston, not necessarily the authors he is thinking of. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

'Hamilton enters congress' - tags

OK, now we're talking. I will take these issues one at a time, and sign each so they don't balloon up as much as previous ones.

1) While on Washington's staff, Hamilton became frustrated[vague] with the decentralized nature of the wartime Continental Congress, particularly its dependence upon the states for financial support: it had no right to collect taxes, or to demand money from the states.

What is 'vague' about that, and more importantly, why on earth should it have to be more specific? AdRem (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just slightly emotional language, and a rushed attempt to provide an example. Withdrawn, unimportant. JJB 16:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 Done JJB 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

2) As a result, there were often serious shortfalls in funding for nearly all aspects of the War, whether soldiers' wages, supplies, or other Congressional mandates.[vague]

I didn't exactly write this current version, but what specifically do you object to? AdRem (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What the dickens does other Congressional mandates mean? What expenditures, indeed, did Congress mandate? And if there are answers, why should the reader have to guess? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

3) Congress had given up printing unsupported paper money back in September 1779; it obtained what money it had from subsidies from the King of France, aid requested from the several states (which were often unable or unwilling to contribute), and loans from Europe against these uncertain revenues.[neutrality disputed][32]

I think that objection tag was inserted on my behalf because I removed it before. If that is the case, I will say that I think this sentence is pretty unnecessary; I would like to see it shortened, but since it doesn't create POV problems, this is a low priority for me. Keep in mind this article is about Hamilton, and the background, I would argue, is necessary only if it provides essential context. What do you say about this one, PMA? AdRem (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the nub of Hamilton's problem; the real reason why Hamilton (and the half-dozen others) were intent on Federal revenues before 1789. Other sentences could be folded into this one; particularly: Congress lacked the ability to pay its debts, since it was dependent upon the States for its funding, and since securing approval from all the States often proved very difficult. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Since AdRem doesn't dispute neutrality here, and I have dealt with the repetitiousness in (8), I think this tag can be removed, and be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for keeping this on track! Adding the other tags (from the next section) below. Please list any other new tags hereabouts as you add them, and use {{done}} when done, especially if I've inferred a dispute where there isn't one. JJB 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

4) It was at this time that a group of officers organized under the leadership of General Henry Knox sent a delegation to lobby Congress, led by Capt. Alexander MacDougall.[vague] Tag added by Septentrionalis, though I suspect AdRem also finds this section a bit unduly weighted. JJB 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

5) In Congressional debate, Hamilton suggested using the Army's claims to garner support from the states for the proposed national funding system.[neutrality disputed] Tag added by Septentrionalis, unclear if proper summation of source. JJB 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

6) The Morrises and Hamilton encouraged MacDougall and Knox to continue an aggressive approach, threatening unknown consequences if their demands were not granted, and resolving to defy civil authority, at least by not disbanding if the army were not satisfied; meanwhile, the Congressmen defeated proposals which would have resolved the crisis without establishing general federal taxation: that the states assume the debt to the army, or that a impost be established dedicated to the sole purpose of paying that debt.[opinion needs balancing] My tag for text deleted by AdRem. JJB 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Not opinion; Kohn states all these as fact, and I know of no source which disagrees with any of it. If one is provided, we should state the disagreement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Martin and Lender (see bibliography) are stronger, and cite a different paper of Kohn. There are two points here: what did Hamilton write to Washington? And did Hamilton and the Morrises involve Gates?
    • On the first, Martin and Lender say (and Chernow agrees in essence): The nationalists in Congress needed Washington's involvement, perhaps even his willingness to lead the army into the field as a temporary expedient to frighten the states into submission. [Long passage on why Washington was not going to do this.] The Morris nationalists, despite the odds against involving Washington, were direct in their approach. As Hamilton discreetly explained to the commander in chief: the great desideratum...is the establishment of general funds, which can alone do justice to the Creditors of the United States....In this, the influence of the army, properly directed, may cooperate. Hamilton sent these calculated suggestions to Washington in February 1783. At that time, informal word about the preliminary peace settlement had begun to reach the government in Philadelphia. If peace came and the army disbanded without incident, the potential leverage of strong military pressure would be forever lost. Washington appreciated those circumstances and prepared himself for the seemingly inevitable confrontation, which he described as the officers throwing themselves "into the gulph of Civil horror."
    • Martin and Lender then go on to discuss Gates's plans, if any, and the Congressmen's involvement with them. It is this which Washington "suspected", and modern historians disagree on what Gates was planning, and whether Morris and Hamilton were involved with it, ignorant of it, or wished 'to have Gates "spark the explosion" of the army' after which Washington would (they hoped) restrain it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

7) Rhode Island again opposed these provisions, and Hamilton's robust assertions of national prerogatives in his previous letter offended many.[vague] My tag for text deleted by AdRem. JJB 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

8) Not tagged, but I believe all of Congress owed back wages and pension money to the Continental Army. Congress lacked the ability to pay its debts, since it was dependent upon the States for its funding, and since securing approval from all the States often proved very difficult. was redundant, and removed it. Congress's funding problems are in the previous paragraph, as they should be: they began long before Newburgh, and were not resolved until Hamilton was Secretary; the debts to the Army are described in the sentences following. (Pensions were an officers' perk, promised at Valley Forge; we should say this, since it gives the officers an interest distinct from their men.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

9) The present text says that Congress had no power to tax both at the beginning and end of the first paragraph under Hamilton goes to Congress. This should be consolidated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In summary, I have dealt with all of these to my satisfaction, except the {{vague}}, other editors are welcome to object. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

View of the future

After the War of 1812, Hamilton's former opponents, including Madison and Albert Gallatin, revived some of his federalizing programs, such as a second national bank, national infrastructure, tariffs, and a standing army and navy. Hamilton's federalist and business-oriented economic visions for the country continue to influence party platforms to this day.

The problem with the first sentence here is that it is equally true of the Jefferson Administration, which expanded the first Bank of the United States and conducted public works. The Democrats were more cautious about such matters than the Federalists; one of Madison's last acts in office was to veto a public works program; but the text here quoted is a stereotype, which confuses Jefferson with John Randolph. In any case, why is it in Hamilton's biography? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Warren Shaw

This link has now been removed twice, by different editors. Why should we have it? Who is Warren Shaw, that we should regard his unsupported opinion as deserving any weight, much less the prominience of a sea of blue? Another PBS talking head? So? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  • WHO the source of information is does not determine what is useful for links, as far as I can tell, content - I understood - is. If an editor removes contributions because they are unfamiliar whith the source, isn't the onus upon the editor to find out who the source is, at least before they remove something based on that rationale? Is appearence as a commentator on PBS alone a rationale for dismisal? Has it not been argued elsewhere that such is a credential, rather than a detrement? Regardless, a viewing of the video link reveals what seems like mostly a resaonable overview of Hamilton's life, which alone would seem to justify the link remain. I only request that a genuine consensus be reached before defensible additions to the article be removed - and opinion or derision about what is defensible should not be enough, logical arguements should be necessary. I suspect that this will be drawn out and protracted by those who have much more time to spare on Wiki and have taken on a proprietary attitude on this article, and just be removed anyway, as I don't have the time or inclination to defend ad infinitum any contribution, no matter how justifiable I consider it to be. I only write this much because I have a moment, and I don't want silence to imply concurence. Shoreranger (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Why is this a reliable source? Being a PBS talking head is not incompatible with being one, but it's not enough. Is this source being given undue weight?
Furthermore, the restored assertion is an extraordinary claim. Capitalism, ethnic diversity, liberty, and rule by lawyers are characteristic of most cities throughout history; they are specifically characteristic of New York only in the sense that New York has a claim to be the oldest city in the territory of the United States; and Hamilton has nothing to do with that. Boston was capitalist, Philadelphia diverse (and devoted to freedom of speech), Virginia ruled by lawyers, before Hamilton was born. This requires extraordinary evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe Philadelphia lawyer also antedates the Revolution; we so claim, but without sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Continually published?

It occurs to me that the claim of the Post to be continually published for over two centuries may need some qualification; New York has had newspaper strikes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that if a periodical goes out of publication voluntarily, perhaps through bankruptcy, then starts up again, a discontinuity can be said to have happened. In the case of a strike, the organisation will still exist, and the journalists may even be sitting at their desks, so there seems at least to be organisational continuity. Surely every newspaper has had the odd strike from time to time? AWhiteC (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Talleyrand

It would be helpful if Shoreranger would consult sources, instead of assuming, as be did here, what is covered by them. This is Henry Adams' view of Talleyrand, and of his opinion of Hamilton. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if the quote cited related to the material it purports to support. As written, the text gave the impression this was Tallyrand's opinion, not Adams'. The fact that someone holds this opinion is not challenged, yet, only that it has not been properly, and clearly cited. The French quote cited does not support the statement it follows, even if something elsewhere in the source does. If so, citing it properly should be no trouble. Shoreranger (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, is there more than one "opinion" of Hamilton's "mind" on this subject? If so, perhaps it can be cited as well, to avoid the appearence of this being a fringe idea in contradiciton to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. Shoreranger (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Not that I know of; Adams' representation of Talleyrand seems similar to, if nore detailed than, other descriptions I have seen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I find this edit summary almost as bizarre as the edit it accompanies: Needs clarification: Adams' opinon must be cited seperate [sic] from quote. Where did you find that piece of asinine advice?

Edit summaries are victims of limited character space. I sympathize with you if you wished a greater explanation. Simply put: the Frech quote is from one source, the opinon of "like mind" from another. Each needs proper citation. Shoreranger (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit as a whole approaches vandalism; since Adams is the source for the evaluation of Talleyrand, adding a {{cn}} instead of moving the note accordingly, is disingenuous. I realize that mere reversion is easier than keeping a footnote next to the text it justifies; but laziness will only excuse so much. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A sound reader will hardly conclude that a single sentence has taken up eight pages, especially in the Library of America's small type. The reference therefore must be to the evaluation of Talleyrand, not merely the quote. I have revised, for the less clueful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The length of the cited text is not at all the point. The French quote is from one source, the "opinion" of "like mind" is another. Each needs to be properly ascribed. I am surprised at why that is difficult to grasp or, if understanding is not the issue, why one would intentionally avoid crediting the source of the opinion. Shoreranger (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
No, they are not; they are both from the same passage of Henry Adams; since he gives the originsl source for the French quotation, which I have not consulted, I transcribed it, for the reader's service. I have no idea why Shoreranger has intentionally removed the source of the opinion (which is Adams' opinion of Talleyrand, not AFAIK Talleyrand's estimate of himself) from the opinion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Shoreranger's continued blanking of this passage, now reworded, claims " consensus in discussion", presumably this section. Since the objection consists of Shoreranger supported by, er, Shoreranger, this would appear to be somewhat exaggerated. If Shoreranger can find another view of Talleyrand, he is of course welcome to insert it, with source; it would be news to me. If not, there are other vehicles of dispute resolution, but really it would be simpler if Shoreranger read the cited sources; the History of the Jefferson Administration is no longer hard to come by. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not the last to remove it, Pam - wasn't it you? Leave it in if it is so important to you, just as long as you make the citations and text clear that it represents one author's opinion on the thoughts of the two figures in question, and clear that the French quote comes from a differnt source than that opinion. Shoreranger (talk)
You removed it here at 20:55 September 10. As for your condition, it would be asserting a lie, since the French does come from the same source as the opinion; he is, as stated, quoting Talleyrand. Nor is it any more one author's opinion than anything else for which we cite a single soure; Adams states it more fully than most people, but I know nobody who disagrees with it. And yes, of course it matters: Quoting Talleyrand's words without explaining what he meant by them is dishonest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton's Military Rank

Does anyone know what Hamilton's military rank was? Only major general is listed in the infobox so it would be good if the other ranks he was and what years are listed.-Kieran4 (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

When was he born?

How can there not be an exact birthdate on one of our founding fathers? How am I supposed to do this research paper if I don't even know what year Hamilton was born? Hey, was the dude 47 or 49? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.151.177 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Because no one knows which of the two asserted dates is correct; he has no birth certificate, and may never have had one; many bastards didn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
The writer's almanac podcast with Grrison keiller says 1755. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaidOff (talk • contribs) 02:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Physiocrats

Hamilton advocated the Land Value Tax derived from the French Physiocrats Laissez Faire Economics as the best source of revenue for State Governments.

I don't believe it. That was Jefferson's policy. But I put it here in case there is a citation, and this is not Single-Tax posturing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The enlarged form of the paragraph is:
Hamilton advocated the Land Value Tax derived from the French Physiocrats Laissez Faire Economics as the best source of revenue for State Governments. Writing in the Federalist Papers #36<:ref>Federalist Paper #36</ref> he said, "A small land tax will answer the purpose of the States, and will be their most simple and most fit resource."
There are two problems with this. The first is that it is an original synthesis from a primary source, which we deprecate: see WP:SYNTH. The second is why we have policy against the first: it's wrong. It misreads the Federalist cited. Hamilton is not arguing for the adoption of any land tax; he is arguing that the already existing land taxes are sufficient for the needs of the States, and they can do without customs revenues. If some substantial body of historians have said this, we should include it anyway; but I doubt one can be found. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed

I find that PMAnderson tagged the entire article as NPOV five weeks ago, and the only contemporaneous complaints are (1) the vague allusion to Hamilton opponents in Congress being involved in its investigations of him and (2) that Talleyrand's quote necessitates another tangential political explanation. Since these both seem to have been resolved to PMA's satisfaction (implied by apparent silence on the matters since about the day after the tag), I am removing the tag. I would like to repeat that I find tagging an entire article as "trash", without stating something more substantial than a couple quickly resolved issues, and permitting that tag to stand indefinitely, is very disappointing, especially after this exact scenario has been discussed once before. Next time, PMA, please stick to the tags which serve those purposes, such as pov-section, vague, cn, dubious, etc.; if you don't, I have no other threat to make than that I will fail to be able to accept your argumentation at face value anymore. In fact, if you're going to do the fixes (such as to add the Talleyrand text, which appears to me as so digressive), why even add the POV tag first? That combination gives the impression to the unwary user that your version is the POV one! (If there are still specific problems, I will still peek at this page occasionally to see if they get mentioned in talk; but I think PMA's repeated pattern is starting to look like a failure to understand certain communication concepts.) JJB 04:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I should have tagged this page when I first met it, some years ago; but at the time, I thought I would indeed have the time and energy to fix it. This article began as a Mount Rushmore nomination, as the first archived comment shows; all I have been able to do is to keep the True Believers from making this more of a panegyric than it already is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

On Economics

Alexander Hamilton is sometimes considered the "patron saint" of the American School of economic philosophy that, according to one historian, dominated economic policy after 1861.[8] He firmly supported government intervention in favor of business, after the manner of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, as early as the fall of 1781.[9]

Hamilton opposed the British ideas of free trade which he believed skewed benefits to colonial/imperial powers, in favor of U.S. protectionism which he believed would help develop the fledgling nation's emerging economy. Henry C. Carey was inspired by his writings. Some say[who?] he influenced the ideas and work of German Friedrich List.


In the Federalist Hamilton advocates a National Consumption Tax[10] [11], and a Land Value Tax[12]

On Economics

Alexander Hamilton is sometimes considered the "patron saint" of the American School of economic philosophy that, according to one historian, dominated economic policy after 1861.[13] He firmly supported government intervention in favor of business, after the manner of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, as early as the fall of 1781.[14]

Hamilton opposed the British ideas of free trade which he believed skewed benefits to colonial/imperial powers, in favor of U.S. protectionism which he believed would help develop the fledgling nation's emerging economy. Henry C. Carey was inspired by his writings. Some say[who?] he influenced the ideas and work of German Friedrich List.


In the Federalist Hamilton advocates a National Consumption Tax<:ref>[2],Federalist Papers</ref> [15], and a Land Value Tax<:ref>[3],Federalist Papers</ref>

This is incompetent Original Research, and original synthesis, from primary sources. The 21st Federalist mentions "Taxes on articles of consumption"; these are ordinary customs and excise taxes, commonplace in the eighteenth century. A National Cunsumption Tax would be something that would tax any item of consumption not specially favored, at a uniform rate; both unfeasible in Hamilton's time.
If there were a reliable, fact-checked secondary source which said any of this, that would be a different question; but of course there is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton's religion

Currently, the opening sentence to this section reads: "In his early life, he suffered from homosexuality and rape, though not deeply scared, abuse."

In addition to not having anything to do with the rest of the section regarding Hamilton's religious views, it doesn't seem to make any sense grammatically. This might be a candidate for editing.71.203.101.181 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

faction

The contemporary term for contending political groups used by Hamilton and Madison was "faction", particularly in the Federalist Papers. Biographers refer to Hamilton and Jefferson/Madision "factions". John Adams and George Washington refered to "factions". Including the term "faction" with a link explaining its use in context only seems to make sense. The brief defense of "coalition" appears based on one author's use - many Hamilton biographers use "faction" instead or in conjunction. If "faction" is the contemporary term, why risk anachronism using anything else?Shoreranger (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For two reasons;
  • We are not writing for the eighteenth century, but for the twenty-first; by Shoreranger's reasoning, this article would use New-York, and Augustus would be in Latin.
  • More seriously, that's not faction means; it doesn't simply mean "coalition", nor ever did; to quote the OED: A party in the state or in any community or association. Always with opprobrious sense, conveying the imputation of selfish or mischievous ends or turbulent or unscrupulous methods. To use this opprobrium of the Federalists and of Madison, in one sweeping breath, is not even POV; it's a PoV nobody holds. Even used only in one direction, it mistakes eighteenth century usage: a faction may be an element of a coalition, but a coalition cannot be a single faction; there would be nothing to coalesce. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Coalition, in precisely the sense of "coalition government", without moral implication, is an eighteenth-century word (not that that matters): the OED cites from Bolingbroke in 1715; the "Coalition" between Fox and North, in 1783, is contemporary usage.
In short, we don't need to revive archaisms, however piquant; but if we do, we should do so correctly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Exposed in an affair with Maria Reynolds, Hamilton resigned from the Treasury in 1795 to return to Constitutional law and advocacy of strong federalism. In 1798, the Quasi-War with France led Hamilton to argue for, organize, and become de facto commander of a national army.

This is misleading. Hamilton did indeed resign as Sec. of the Treas., in part because of the Reynolds affair, but also because neither congress nor Washington were inclined to support his efforts to bring the industrial revolution to America, as he reported to Congress in "The Report on Manufactures."

The part about his role in the military is highly misleading. Pres. Adams appointed Geo. Washington as America's top general, with the power to name his immediate subordinates. Hamilton was named as one of three, with the rank of Maj. General, with the added responsibility of being the Inspector General of the army. This made him second in command to Washington, and after Washington's death, the highest ranking officer in the US armed forces.

The article makes it appear that Hamilton himself was able to get himself appointed to this powerful position and that is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.225.243 (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Washington was prevailed upon to insist that Hamilton be appointed first, and therefore senior, against Adams' wishes. It may be disputable whether Hamilton persuaded Washington directly. See Flexner's Washington Vol. IV.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So, does anyone know who the author of this is? I need the author to cite it!

  • I have three comments for this section: 1) Suggestions for 76.115.225.243: please sign your comment with four tilde marks; in addition, it would helpful if you would first create a username so your comments are easier for everyone to follow. 2) Reminder to PMA: if you would be so kind, please cut and paste specific passages you are responding to rather than simply inserting your own comments right in the middle of another's comment, it would be much easier for readers to follow this kind of exchange; cutting and pasting would also be more respectful to the other editor. 3) Concerning the quote "...does anyone know who the author of this is? I need the author to cite it!", I am not sure what you mean by "this"; please clarify. Thanks. AdRem (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-Sense Claims About Hamilton's Influence Over U.S. Government

Stating this is inaccurate: "He has been described as one who "more than any other designed the Government of the United States":[16]". Hamilton's plans were rejected at Philadelphia in 1787, and after the Constitution was ratified he said no one's opinions were more removed from that instrument than his were known to be. He regarded it as a makeshift.

Category:Political Sex Scandals

Why this category? All there is the article is that he may have had an affair or two. That's hearsay, not scandal, and not even particularly scandalous hearsay.86.145.1.63 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's more than hearsay, it was fact. Hamilton admitted to the affair with Maria Reynolds when questioned by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and resigned his post as Secretary of the Treasury when news of the affair and the hush money he paid Reynolds' husband become public. I'm all for avoiding revisionist history but this scandal is documented fact. Equinox137 (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is documented that Hamilton had an affair with Reynolds. However, it was not admitted to Jefferson and Madison and did not lead to his resignation as Treasury Secretary. In Dec 1792, Hamilton admitted the affair to James Monroe, Frederick Muhlenberg, and Abraham Venable who agreed to keep the information in confidence. Hamilton did not resign from Treasury Secretary until Jan 1795 and the affair was not made public until the summer of 1797. (Mjs533 (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes, you are correct. I did not have my information completely straight at the time I made that statement (i.e. March of 2008). Thanks. Equinox137 (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

First Bank of the United States

His role in the creation of the First Bank of the United States deserves far more than a brief mention in the lede. The whiskey tax was a more doubtful idea. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

CITATIONS, PLEASE!

"He made jokes about God during the Constitutional Convention." Hello, guyssssssssss!!! Could we have a source, please?

Adair and Harvey, as cited at the end of the paragraph. Septentrionalis what the hela eoaiehfaosufaioupvidkPMAnderson 19:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The citation is given in full in the bibliography, and it's from the leading scholarly journal: Douglass Adair and Marvin Harvey, "Was Alexander Hamilton a Christian Statesman?," The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 12, No. 2, Alexander Hamilton: 1755-1804 (Apr., 1955), pp. 308-329 in JSTOR. The entire paragraph is based on this one major article, so it should be footnoted at the end and the Guysssss have handled it properly. One joke came when Franklin moved that each session in the future be opened with prayer, and AH replied that there was no need for calling in "foreign aid." Rjensen (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Now, mind you, like most academic articles, Adair and Harvey were making a case; there may be an opposing case out there. But I haven't found it; just a concentration on the touching piety of Hamilton's last years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

==Question about quote==yo yo dawg! i just edited this page. :) who wrote this quote : " i consider the foundation of the constitution is laid on this ground- that all powers,not delegated(given)to the U.S. by the constitution,nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states,or the people" was it Hamilton or Jefferson?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.19.173 (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Voter-based

the Federalist Party, the world's first voter-based political party.

Really, this will not do. It is not supported by the rest of the article - and whether it is true is at best a matter of definition. If the Federalists be older than the Democratic-Republicans, then we must consider the brief period when both were factions within Congress and not voter-based at all. Again, how are either "voter-based" and the (English) Whigs not? (Many Whig strongholds had fewer voters than Federalist strongholds - Charleston always excepted; but "voter-based" does not make that distinction.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

please read a textbook before editing advanced history topics

with 100 or so footnotes the text is fully annotated, and the lede would look pretty stupid repeating those 100 footnotes. It's simply ignorance of basic history textbooks to challenge well known facts (like Hamilton was the strongest member of the cabinet, as esplained en every textbook and every biography and in the text), (like the Federalist Papers remain the most important source on the Constitution--as explained in fn 48 and in every textbook). Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the Rushmore nomination brigade has been through again. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, not an encomium; we avoid words like strongest, well-known, memorable - they belong to a different rhetoric. WP:PEACOCK is a long guideline, but it can be boiled down to the maxim of successful historiography: show, don't tell.
It is a partisan (and largely meaningless) claim, unjust to Washington, that there was a "strongest member" of his cabinet - other than the President. Who was the "strongest member" of TR's cabinet? Wilson's? FDR's? Jackson's? The question is meaningless with a good cabinet under a competent President; it arises in two cases: when there is a loose cannon, like Seward; or when the administration is falling apart, out of the President's control, as in 1974.
As a minor question: if Hamilton is an advanced topic, what, Sir, would be an elementary one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Statements agreed upon by all experts belong in Wiki, and like the Pacific being the largest ocean, Hamilton was the strongest cabinet member. He dominated most policies as the text makes clear and every textbook mentions this. (There was no such dominant person in Wilson, Jackson's FDR and TR's cabinets, by contrast, so Hamilton stands out). The most recent book says: "The most important member of the new adminsitration was...Hamilton" (Gordon Wood Empire of Liberty (2009) p 89) As for WP:PEACOCK: it clearly states: This does not mean one should underplay the legitimate importance of a topic. To say that "Hamilton was one of the most influential members of Waashington's cabinet" makes scholarship a farce. The lede summarizes the basic points, all of which are covered in detail in the text with citations and explanations. An elementary topic is that "Washington was the first president"--or is that OR? --perhaps we should say, "Many scholars believe that Washington was the first president.")Rjensen (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, saying that Hamilton was "more influential" than the other two full members of Washington's cabinet is probably about right (the Attorney-General not running a department even by eighteenth-century standards); thank you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This exercise in blanking and reversion claims, in its edit summary, to be conducted for the sake of four ill-chosen words in a single passage.

The appropriate fix would have been to edit that passage again, preferably with some more exact language than Jeffersonians; I have done so. If the remaining effort to whitewash out of Hamilton's more embarassing moments continues, I will tag this contemptible article appropriately. It already reflects the POV of such partisan trash as Vandenburg's book all too clearly; further movement in that direction will render it worthless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

everybody knows that "jeffersonains" are the followers of Thomas Jefferson--what other Jefferson could possibly be meant? as for "trash": a very poor choice of words regarding a well-known book by a Republican Senator which illustrated the text statement that Republicans gave Hamilton high praise. Rjensen (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's try being accurate among ourselves. It was a pot-boiler written by an editor who would have liked to be Senator and was duly chosen.
Jeffersonians is one choice to describe the opponents of Jay's Treaty, but a bad one, especially since Jefferson played a small part in that controversy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If User:Rjensen continues to revert to the text

He shaped the main policies of the Washington Administration and formed the first national party, the Federalist Party, to support his programs.

which is exaggerated even for Federalist propaganda, I shall tag this article as the hero-worshipping trash it is. Even from the works of Forrest McDonald, it would be difficult to support this view - Hamilton did not form a party single-handedly, as this would imply; he did have a day job. Forrest McDonald's views have been included in the article; but they are not consensus - and this text caricatures them.

While I am about it, "operational command" of a force which conducted no operations is an interesting, if perverse, concept; let's have a source for that too, shall we? Or are we going to have more vacuous declamation about what Rjensen claims is in tertiary sources? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I see Rjensen also wants to say that Hamilton "dominated" his party. Since he opposed and countermined the party's nominee in 1796 and 1800, and had lost his position in it by 1804, this seems a trifle exaggerated to me; men who dominate parties don't usually need to pamphleteer against the nominee, or engage in political stunts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I see our Hamilton fan is back again; he now presumes to cite Forrest McDonald for this figment of "operational command". What McDonald actually says is that Hamilton's job was to raise the army to be used against the French - and that he found it impossible to do so because of Adams' opposition. "Operational command" of a force not in being is a novel concept, worthy of our Federalist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

Given repeated vandalism by unregistered editors, I think we should semi-protect this article.--RossF18 (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You can file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. William Avery (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
After further vandalism I made a request and it's been done now. William Avery (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hamilton's Religion

Under the heading "Hamilton's Religion", it states "After his misfortunes of 1801, he asserted the truth of the Christian revelation." This is clearly in violation of NPOV, since it asserts that Christian revelation is "the truth". I'm going to change it to the more neutral "...he asserted the claims of the Christian revelation." Bricology (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The sentence: "After his misfortunes of 1801, he asserted the claims of the Christian revelation," could simply read:
(i) "After his misfortunes of 1801, he adopted Christianity in earnest," or...
(ii) "After his misfortunes of 1801, he began to promote the teaching of Christianity." Mephistophelian (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it says that Hamilton asserted that Christianity was true, which he did; this does not imply that it is, any more than Hamilton's assertions on economics imply that a national debt or a protective tariffs are useful to the country. Both the suggested replacements say more that is the case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hamilton's education

Sources differ about whether Hamilton applied to enter Princeton (then the College of New Jersey). The primary source is unreliable, writing well after Hamilton's death; Hamilton's biographers differ on whether the story is plausible in itself. To let the latest popularization decide this is irresponsible. I have emended accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


The wikipedia user Pmanderson has repeatedly altered and removed a well-sourced account of Hamilton's application to study at an accelerated rate at the College of New Jersey, later Princeton. Perhaps Pmanderson or someone else can explain what specifically the objection is to the fact that Hamilton sought an accelerated course at Princeton and was rejected? Could anyone provide multiple reliable sources to support this claim? In addition to the source from Chernow that was deleted by Pmanderson, many other sources list this same bit of information, of which I here provide 3 of the more mainstream and relatively recent Hamilton biographies as an attempt at providing a representative sample of the current historical consensus:

This same information is detailed in Alexander Hamilton: A Life, by Willard Sterne Randall on pages 61-62, in Alexander Hamilton: a Biography by Forrest McDonald on page 12, and in Alexander Hamilton, American by Richard Brookhiser on pages 20-21.

None of these sources qualify their accounts of this part of Hamilton's life. However, if there is a Hamilton bio or other reliable source that anyone knows of which suggests that Hamilton may never have applied to the College of New Jersey, could you please provide those sources? Otherwise, I would ask that Pmanderson or someone else restore my well-sourced edit which has been removed by Pmanderson twice. Thank you. AdRem (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That's because Brookhiser is a lazy ideologist, not interested in mere matters of fact; several actual biographers join in the doubt - see both Flexner's Young Hamilton and Mitchell's Alexander Hamilton, Volume I, both mentioned in the note.


I note and deplore AdRem's personal abuse in heading this section. I would leave it, as characteristic of its author, but it makes edit summaries too difficult. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, let's get back to the point, please: The focus of this talk page section is whether or not there is any major controversy among contemporary historians and biographers that Hamilton applied to the College of New Jersey, and was rejected, probably because of his accelerated request. The name of the section is fine either way, and nobody cares about it but me and PMA anyway. I presented three well-known and respected sources that mention no controversy about the subject in question; one of these sources, Richard Brookheiser, was rejected out-of-hand by PMAnderson as "a lazy ideologist". This statement is not helpful in disputing that he is a reliable source, it is just PMAnderson's personal opinion--hardly grounds for overturning Brookheiser's account. I am once again forced to remind PMAnderson that his personal dislike of authors is simply not grounds for invalidating the professional judgments of those authors he happens to dislike or disagree with ideologically. Now, PMAnderson did imply that two authors support his claim, so I will examine them. First: Flexner's Young Hamilton: This work does not dispute that Hamilton applied to The College of New Jersey at all. What it does do on pages 58-59--have a look for yourself--is refer to the account I cited in the passages my initial post as "the universally accepted story"; it then goes to cast doubt on the validity of Hercules Mulligan's account of things, which is probably quite right. However, the important thing to take away from this is that nowhere does it deny he applied to the College of New Jersey/Princeton; accusing Mulligan of having an inaccurate recollection, or even of outright lying in portions of his account is not the same thing as saying Hamilton never applied to Princeton. If PMAnderson or anyone else can find anything directly contradicting this, I welcome it. As to PMAnderson's second source: Mitchell's Alexander Hamilton; it was published 58 years ago in 1962, and its author has been dead for 22 years. The book is not in my public library system (I live in a large US metropolitan area with an outstanding public library system), and I can find only one copy of this work for sale anywhere on the entire internet. Therefore, if we are to accept Mr. Mitchell's account over that of 3 (make that 4) other historians, perhaps PMAnderson would be kind enough to post specific passages which support his claims? Thank you, AdRem (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I see no point in further discussion with this uncivil revert-wsrrior. When Ad Rem learns how to perform inter library loan, and reads Professor Mitchell's biography - which may well be the best of the sorry crop of books written on Hamilton, poor man, we can return to this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I've repeatedly listed and explained my sources, Pmanderson, and I have gone out of my way to address your concerns. I hope that if anyone is patient enough to read this, that they will notice that you never refute my explanations or sources, you simply call me names and delete the things you don't personally like. What I've restored is the closest possible approximation of the consensus of historians. I understand you feel your old and obscure source, Mitchel (which has ONE copy available on the entire internet, and none in my metropolitan area of millions of people) should trump not only Ron Chernow's deep and widely-praised bio (which you dismiss out-of-hand), but also all the other major sources I listed above that say more or less same thing. Any way you approach this situation, my multiple reliable, and current sources trump your one source, which also happens to be extremely obscure, and dated. If you delete my well-sourced edit again, then I absolutely demand you answer why your one obscure source should be preferred over the consensus of all others. If you cannot logically defend this action, then how can you possibly believe that your actions are not destructive to the quality of Wikipedia, and to its fragile, open community spirit? Answer me here and stop reverting my edits, and deleting my painfully-over-sourced content. AdRem (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I am mildly, but only mildly, curious what deprived city this is; there are several copies of Prof. Mitchell's book available in libraries in this town of some 30,000 people; it was and remains a standard reference.
Chernow is a business journalist who filled a volume with such execrable writing as Had he [Johann Lavien] 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. News to me that the eighteenth century frowned on religious marriage - and even what he intended to say is an exaggeration.
More seriously, Chernow is a boot-licking incompetent. Much of his book is founded on tertiary and partisan writing - according to his own footnotes. He has slathered excuses over much of Hamilton's conduct; he has omitted parts of it (such as Hamilton's communication of Cabinet secrets to the representative of a hostile power).
Anybody who considers that that worthless doorstop deep is a fool; those who praised it are illiterate, ignorant, or (much more often) corrupt. Even by the paltry standards of American historiography, this was an appalling moment of partisanship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
PMA, I think you must be referring to: "Alexander Hamilton: a Concise Biography" by Broadus Mitchell, and not the two-volume "Alexander Hamliton" that your reference indicates. The latter is available, of course, through inter-library loan with the local university library, but given how much effort I have spent in addressing your concerns, I think it's only fair that you answer the questions I have asked you above and below before I go the extra mile of hunting down your lone remaining source. Though I know this is almost certainly pointless to ask again, I'll do so again anyway: Please explain why you think your one two-volume work from 30 years ago that is out-of-print and so obscure there is ONE COPY FOR SALE ANYWHERE ON THE WEB should supersede three recent, well-thought-of works, including, but not limited to Chernow's? Why? Your case that they are all junk is unsupportable, and you've hardly even tried to do so. Although I've seen you use that same awkward sentence from Chernow about marriage before to dismiss Chernow out-of-hand (by the way: clearly the editor missed correcting "religious" with "inter-religious"--but a typo invalidating an entire work?), you've also admitted you've never read the book through, or even most of it. So, since you've never read it, I'm genuinely confused about how you can say that Chernow's work is junk, and that everyone who thinks it was a good bio is "a fool", particularly since I have previously given you links to reviews of the Chernow bio that were just about universally positive. Even the reviews in professional historical journals were overwhelmingly positive, and the few that had quibbles had them about minor matters such as his style of citation--and even they were mostly positive. So, by your reasoning, essentially everyone, professional or amateur who has written a review of Chernow's "Alexander Hamilton", including David McCullough and Walter Issacson, are "fools". Is nearly the entirety of the historical and literary community wrong and you are the only sane one, or is it possible your compass is off a bit, historically-speaking? While you're thinking about that, think about this: ON WIKIPEDIA, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO REPLACE THE HISTORICAL CONSENSUS FOR YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS JUST BECAUSE YOU PERSONALLY THINK THEY'RE ALL WRONG SLOPPY/INCOMPETENT; it's not for you or I to decide what the consensus should be, but rather, to summarize what it is--that's what makes for a good article, an honest article. Leaving Chernow aside, I offered two, count 'em two, other good sources which you did not refute (though you did insult one of their authors). I would also add that I did you the courtesy of examining the 2/3 of the sources you mentioned in support of your position which I had reasonable access to (see above), and tried to get access to the the only other source you mentioned. Even if I can't get a hold of your final, obscure source, all things considered, and in the name of Wikipedia, the onus is on you to answer my reasonable questions before you start tinkering with my edits or deleting them as has been your practice. Please answer my questions before proceeding, or leave this article alone--that's the only fair thing to do for the Wikipedia we both appreciate. AdRem (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
You are confounding two different books; I have seen, used, and cited both. Mitchell's Alexander Hamilton (1957) is two volumes; Alexander Hamilton; a very concise biography (1976) is a one-volume abridgement (and slight update) issued for the Bicentennial.
Incorrect. The citations in question originally pointed to the two volume work in the citation section. At the time, that work had a parenthetical reference to the existence of an abridged version, which is the version you probably thought you were citing. As it was, you had references pointing incorrectly to pages in the two-volume work. I'm not "confounding" anything; it's your mistake, I'm just glad we were able to clarify what you meant to indicate. AdRem (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I recognize that the barbarism inter-religious was intended; that's really no excuse for the author who contrived such a sentence. The neologism is unspeakable and unnecessary - and the correction reduces the claim from an obvious absurdity into a mere falsehood. Lavien, whatever his ancestry, was not a practicing Jew, and to assert that there was a equal objection to marrying a convert (or the child of one) and marrying a black is just silly - after all, Joseph Wolff married a Walpole.
But enough; anybody who cites the popularizer McCullough (or the journalist Isaacson) as though he were an irrefutable authority is beyond the reach of reason. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Professional historians review Chernow much more severely. For one example, the paper by Andrew Trees in the bibliography is largely a review of Chernow. Amopng other points, it lambastes his view of the homosexual Hamilton, which is dedeced from the tone of his youthful correspondence by those who do not realize that the 1770s and 1780s were an age of sentiment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Not so fast--the allegation that "Professional historians review Chernow much more severely" seems to have overlooked the major scholarly journals. Take the leading Journal of American History which says (June 2006 p 192-3): "This book is one of those happy rarities: a popular biography that should also delight scholars....This is the kind of synthetic narrative history and biography that is rarely done to such high standards and is clearly one of the best introductions to the American formative era available. Moreover, the way Chernow integrates international affairs, domestic politics, economic and constitutional theory, and astute psychological analysis is nothing short of wondrous." (review by Professor Stephen B. Presser of Northwestern University) Rjensen (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Rjesnsen. I appreciate you pointing that out. I thank you for your patience in wading through this rather dense thread. I have--in the past--provided Septentrionalis with a list of all scholarly reviews of Chernow's book I could find, good or bad, including the one you have cited, and all that I found were at least on balance positive. One had a quibble with Chernow's footnoting, and the one cited by PMA (apparently) accuses Chernow of reading too much into Hamilton's "florid tone" in letters to Laurens, but all major historical journal reviews (at least that I could find) seemed, (on balance, at the very least) positive. I have challenged PMA to provide more than one example of the "severe" reviews he has repeatedly asserted exist (I renew that challenge here again). So far, PMA has been unable or unwilling to provide more than what he claims to be in the Trees review--and even that I can't verify anymore, as I no longer have the JSTOR access required to read the full article. Even assuming the Trees review is totally negative, many examples would be required to back up PMA's assertion that "Professional historians review Chernow much more severely", but the preponderance of the available professional reviews quite indisputably demonstrates PMA's claim to be an untrue statement. AdRem (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Addiction Rumor?

My memory's a bit hazy but I remember reading somewhere that Alexander Hamilton drank 10 cups of black coffee a day. --Arima (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton mentions an account of Hamilton's daily routine on p.250 involving starting the morning with strong coffee, but I don't recall reading that he drank ten cups a day in that work or a few others I've read. AdRem (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Little graphics changes

I finagled a few line breaks around and killed one widow in a photo caption to line this bear up a little; no substantive "content" changes, only layout tweaks. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

pending revision - 1755 or 1757?

The article section 'Childhood...' explains the confusion over Hamilton's birth date. The pending revision should be rejected. WCCasey (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Why do the dates of birth in the introduction and the info box not match? One says January 11th, and the other January 17th. --Polgraf (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would check in the edit history for vandalism. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an older edit where the dates match for 11 January. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
However, the text before vandalism read 1755 or 1757. Since this issue is unsettled (and probably unsettleable) in the sources, we should say so. (It is also one of the points on which we have been negatively reviewed on.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The birthdates (not years) in the article do not match. The text says "January 11". The box on right says "January 12". I think the 11th is correct. (Andrew) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.242.99 (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Burke Library

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Burke_Library&redirect=no

Redirected a link here in the article, assuming it matches with Burke Theological Library and it's redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForgottenHistory (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, no quotations out of context

This dubious edit cites "Princeton historian Sean Wilentz" as outlining the view that Hamilton was "the visionary architect of liberal capitalism", and Jefferson as somewhere between a dreamy reactionary idealist and a plain racist. One would think that this distinguished historian, or at least his source, agreed with the view outlined.

But they don't. Anybody of actual experience with scholarly reviews would expect, from the sweeping and fulsome phrasing, what the source actually proves to be: an extremely favorable review of a book which denies the view root and branch, with Wilentz's whole-hearted approval. (It's by Gordon S. Wood, who has done - to quote again - "more than any other scholar of his generation, or indeed since Charles Beard or perthaps Henry Adams to redefine" our understanding of the period) In short, the view being described is a caricature of a school with which these two eminent historians disagree. Quoting it at length without even suggesting that is less than intellectual honesty; the tactic of a blog, not an encyclopedia article governed by WP:UNDUE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wilentz says he is giving the scholarly consensus on Hamilton, which is what wikipedia is looking for. Wilentz says that Wood's view on AH is the minority viewpoint. Specifically Wilentz says that "Wood differs sharply with these current interpretations and also with the most previous ones." Pmanderson perhaps disagrees with most current and previous scholars but Wikipedia rules state that the majority viewpoint should be privileged, not the outlier (which is Wood). Wilentz's view includes lavish praise for Wood's writing style and a sharp attack on his failure to incorporate modern scholarship and his straight-jacketing of history. Rjensen (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Is Rjensen reading the same review as the rest of us?
  • Wilentz does not say he is presenting any consensus; he says that there are historians which adhere to the view he outlines - but that he and Wood do not, and that it is mistaken.
  • The sentence Rjensen quotes is saying that Wood disagrees with both the pro-Hamilton view and with the pre-existing anti-Hamilton view; Wood is opposed to Hamilton on different grounds: that he does not represent the liberal capitalism of the future (Jefferson is closer to that), but the European system of his own time. As an analysis of the Society of Useful Manufactures (designed to be a monopoly in the fashion of Colbert), this has a point; it is of course lacking as a Mount Rushmore nomination or a rallying cry for a political party, but this article is not supposed to be either.
  • Wilentz's review is not devoid of criticism; but his criticism of Wood's research deals with Wood's writing on the 1850s, not with Hamilton. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Rjensen is correct that we may rely on academic writing to explain how academics view subjects even when the writer disagrees with the accepted view. However, I would like to see the analysis expanded. After all, Hamilton's party disappeared, while Jefferson became a hero for liberals and conservatives alike. TFD (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
He would be, if that were what Wilentz said; but it isn't. I do not recall Wilentz naming any proponents of what he caricatures, but they shouldn't be hard to find; I'm sure the slushy stream of pro-Hamilton literature, like the acid brook of anti-Hamilton literature, still flows. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Created and dominated

[Hamilton] created and dominated the Federalist Party

Huh? Nobody "created" the Federalist Party; it didn't have a founding convention or a recruitment list; it began as a caucus of officials already serving. It is equally peculiar to find Hamilton's relations to the party described as "domination". Usually the party Boss doesn't have to intrigue (largely unsuccessfully) against two of the party's nominations for high office, nor risk his life to take a long shot at a third; he picks himself and nobody argues - that's what dominate means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's look at the RS instead of wild unfounded speculating:
  1. Encyclopedia of American parties, campaigns, and elections - Page 98 BY William C. Binning, Larry Eugene Esterly, Paul A. Sracic - 1999 - 467 pages - in 1796 "Although not able to be the candidate for the Federalist Party, Hamilton was clearly that party's leader."
  2. Parties and Elections in America: The Electoral Process - Page 28 by Sandy Maisel, Mark D. Brewer - 2007 - "The first of the American parties, the Federalist party, was shaped largely by Alexander Hamilton,"
  3. The Princeton encyclopedia of American political history Volume 2 - Page 282 by Michael Kazin, Rebecca Edwards, Adam Rothman - 2010 - ""Hamilton had already formed the Federalist party....Hamilton intended to build a Federalist Party committed to strong central government, sustained by commercial interests"
  4. John Miller, Hamilton p 319 "to make himself [Hamilton] the head and front of a political party"
  5. Federalism, power, and political economy by Christopher Hamilton, & Donald T. Wells - 1990 "he started the Federalist party"
  6. Encyclopedia of U.S. campaigns, elections, and electoral behavior: Volume 1 - Page 176 by Kenneth F. Warren - 2008 "opposed to the Federalist Party, established by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton"
  7. The Houghton Mifflin dictionary of biography - Page 673 2003 - "In 1795 Hamilton resigned his office, but he remained the actual leader of the Federalist Party until his death."
  8. Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and the future of America - Page 33 by Thomas Fleming - 2000 - "In 1792, Hamilton, now the leader of the emerging Federalist party in New York and the nation"
  9. John Adams: A Life - Page 378 by John Ferling - 2010 - "Hamilton exerted greater control over the Federalist Party than did the president [Adams]"
  10. it's not a new idea: History of the American People by Woodrow Wilson (1902) v 3 p 160 "Federalist party itself, — the very party which, until that day of breach [with Adams], Mr. Hamilton had led with an almost undisputed supremacy." Rjensen (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Try reading your Googled results; all of these say led The suggestion that he led it from the beginning disagrees with, say, ANB: He still held the belief that parties were inimical if not fatal to republics, and not until Adams was president, and the party system had grown so entrenched and rancorous that every public man had to take a stand one way or the other, did Hamilton refer to himself as a "Federalist." The claim that he led it "until his death" is an extreme minority view, perhaps forgivable in a tertiary source like Houghton Mifflin; his biographers say (correctly) that his relations with his party were never the same after he attacked and betrayed the party's nominee in 1800.
But I suppose difficulty in distinguishing between leadership and domination is only to be expected in a neo-Federalist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Higher resolution and more expressive birthplace photo available

Another photo of Hamilton's Nevis birthplace has been added to the commons recently (by me). It can be found here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Museum_of_Nevis_History_-_Alexander_Hamilton_birthplace.jpg

Does anyone object to swapping the current photo birthplace photo with this one? I can not edit the article yet (not yet auto-confirmed), but if no one changes this photo soon or objects, I will update it myself ASAP.

Dfarrell07 (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong info about the duel

Freeman is cited as a source (at footnote 80), but she's cited incorrectly. Her article doesn't say that there was an accepted way not to shoot at an opponent in a duel -- or that, had Hamilton done this, the duel would have ended differently. She says that people usually weren't trying to kill their opponents in political duels, and that Hamilton decided not to shoot at Burr (at least during their first fire). She also says that the frequency of leg wounds suggests that people weren't aiming to kill in political duels; they were proving that they were willing to die in defense of their names, not trying to murder. That's it. Nothing about Hamilton -- or anyone -- aiming to kill. So this is wrong in the Wikipedia article, and misstates the reference source. Can this be changed? (I'm new to this!) Histprof--1 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Troup?

HRobert Troup, his college roommate, noted that Hamilton was "in the habit of praying on his knees night and morning" and that Troupe had "often been powerfully affected by the fervor and eloquence of his prayers."<:ref>Hamilton, John Church (1834). The life of Alexander Hamilton, Volume 1. the New York Public Library: Halsted & Voorhies. p. 10. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)</ref>

Since when do we quote primary sources in extenso? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a secondary source, a biography published 1834, quoting an older letter by a different author. Nor is half a sentence "in extenso". The reason to doubt it is that the biography was written by Hamilton's son, and that the passage is simply not credible due to its fawning tone.Enon (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

In reference to: "Jefferson denounced Hamilton as too loose with the Constitution, too favorable to monarchy and particularly to Britain, and too partial to the moneyed interests of the cities at home, but Hamilton's policies were generally enacted and Jefferson eventually saw the necessity of many of Hamilton's plans." This sentence is unsourced, but it's the later part in which Jefferson is alleged to concede to Hamilton's plans that I find dubious... that's not the Jefferson I know. Is there any proof of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadon (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Albert Gallatin (Jefferson's Treasury Secretary) said Hamilton had created 'the most perfect system ever formed' after being asked by Jefferson to uncover 'the blunders and frauds of Hamilton'. See page 647 - Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow.

Jefferson also used the doctrine of implied powers (developed by Hamilton) to justify the Louisiana Purchase. See page 671 - Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.93.218 (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson's administration also engaged in internal improvements.
But the fundamental flaw here is that this article was written by partisan editors after Chernow's dishonest and ill-written book. The claim is unnecessary and polemical; I will remove it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


Pmanderson has a personal POV biased view of Chernow--but it is not based on the opinions of experts (the reviews of Chernow have been very positive indeed.) Therefore his rejection of Chernow is unacceptable. The rules call for all editors to "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view," so let's stick to that rule, please, even if we don't like Hamilton or Jefferson or whomever. Jefferson did kept Hamilton's tariff, kept the national bank, kept the customs service, accepted the national debt as legitimate, and used the implied powers idea to buy Louisiana. Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is based both on the opinions of experts, and on reading Chernow's apologetic and ill-written doorstop. Rjensen's campaign to make our American history articles into Federalist propaganda is less than responsible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
well that's POV and sheer hatred oozing out again. Un-named "experts"??? It is Pmanderson's own opinions that spill over into violations of Wiki's very strict rules about debasing living people. Federalist propaganda?? for the record, I have a very high admiration for both Federalists like Washington and Hamilton, and for Republicans like Jefferson and Madison. On various issues I lean sometimes toward one party and sometimes toward the other, but I make a point of keeping my private views private. The Wiki rule, to repeat, is "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." Rjensen (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah? Show three instances where you have removed a Federalist POV and we can discuss this further. Until then you remain a type-case of the rule Attempts to change POV articles to NPOV invariably result from a different POV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this needs any other header: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Hamilton&action=historysubmit&diff=430883826&oldid=430867088 this series of edits] does not seem profitable.

  • Jefferson and Burr were opposition candidates; while neither "party" was quite coherent, suggesting that they were running against each other in the same sense they were running against Adams is silly.
  • The suggestion that Hamilton would have supported Burr because they were from NY is ungrounded; Hamilton had reason to oppose Burr because they were from the same state. Other Federalists might have dealt with Burr in exachange for local patronage; but President Burr would be expected to keep the patronage of NY for his own friends, not Hamilton's.
  • Driving force behind a convention he did not attend, and did not persuade his state to attend, is puerile. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits

I'm not well versed enough in the historical data discussed here to be willing to make these edits myself, so I will post my suggestions for these edits. Both of these edits are under the section Emergence of parties.

Where it reads:

The opposition group, now referred to as the Democratic-Republican Party, was then known by several names, including , Republicans,republicans, Jeffersonians, and Democrats.

I believe that the first item referred to should be Democratic-Republicans; the second item, listed as “republicans,” should be capitalized.

Also, where it reads:

In 1801, Hamilton established a daily newspaper, the New York Evening Post under editor .

I believe that the sentence should end with “as editor.”

Markenrode (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2012

Please change Mr. Alexander Hamilton's birthdate in the information column from January 12 to January 11. The reason for doing this is so that it may reflect the birthdate, which is correctly listed in the article itself as January 11. 66.87.4.176 (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Done Thank you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 June 2012

In paragraph 5, in the phrase "writing 51 the 85 installments" the word "of" has been omitted.

ChrisMoller (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hamilton "quite religious" during most of his life?

The section on Hamilton's religious views in the current version of the article opens with: 

During much of his life, Hamilton remained quite religious.[109] Biographer Ron Chernow argues that this was the source of his aggressive abolitionism. Hamilton, as a youth in the West Indies, was an orthodox and conventional Presbyterian of the "New Light" evangelical type (as opposed to the "Old Light" Calvinists); he was being taught by a student of John Witherspoon, a moderate of the New School.

The first two sentences, including "During much of his life, Hamilton remained quite religious," appear to have been added by Quarkgluonsoup on 28 Sept 2011.[4]

I am unable to find any discussion of Hamilton's religious views on page 30 of the copy of Chernow's Alexander Hamilton to which I have access, or on the surrounding pages. Further, there are other parts of Chernow's book that might seem to contradict the statement that Hamilton was quite religious during much of his life.

I do not have a copy of the specific edition that is cited. The copy I have is ISBN 1-59420-009-2, rather than ISBN 1-59420-009-0 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. Can anyone confirm that the source does in fact contain the material as cited? Dezastru (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

all the editions of Chernow have the identical text. a leading scholar (Hecht) says of the young Hamilton, "Religion, his roommate said, was a very significant part of his friend's life. In addition to church attendance, Alexander prayed on his knees morning and night, apparently aloud" (Odd destiny, the life of Alexander Hamilton by Marie B. Hecht - 1982). Then we have a long period when AH was important but religion was not high on his list. (Asked why religion is left out of the Constitution he said, "we forgot.") Gordon Wood says, "Following the defeat of the Federalists in 1800...Alexander Hamilton underwent a deep religious conversion." -- that is, after his main political career ended. Hamilton in 1802 proposed, "Let an association be formed, to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society.' Its objects to be : 1st. The support of the Christian religion. 2d. The support of the Constitution of the United States." [he was killed & it was never formed] The best source probably is Douglass Adair, “Was Alexander Hamilton a Christian Statesman?” (1955) online Rjensen (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Bias in "Legacy" section re "scholarly trend"

begin quote from article: While scholars are not unanimous, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz in 2010 identified a scholarly trend very much in Hamilton's favor:

"In recent years, Hamilton and his reputation have decidedly gained the initiative among scholars who portray him as the visionary architect of the modern liberal capitalist economy and of a dynamic federal government headed by an energetic executive. Jefferson and his allies, by contrast, have come across as naïve, dreamy idealists. end quote from article

It's not clear upon what evidence Wilentz bases his claim of a "scholarly trend," but it's irrelevant anyway. Truth is not determined by votes or trends.

There does appear, as noted in the previous paragraphs of the Legacy section, that there is a general consensus on the facts: Hamilton had great influence on the present form of American government and American capitalism.

But the quote from Wilentz is not about facts; it's about value judgments. "Visionary architect of the modern liberal capitalist economy and of a dynamic federal government headed by an energetic executive" is a value judgment. The contrasting value judgment might be "evil mastermind of modern crony capitalism and of an oppressive federal government headed by an tyrannical executive."

Intelligent readers form their own value judgments based not on "scholarly trends" nor on the authority of scholars or of encyclopedias, but rather by deep thought and study of the contrasting opinions.

Thus, after "While scholars are not unanimous," this article, rather than quoting only one side, should cite examples from both sides of the value judgment dispute. A good example from the other side might be "Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution - and What It Means for Americans Today" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Wilentz is qualified to determine the trends in scholarly opinion, and it is not up to us to second guess his statement. If you think he was wrong, then find a source that provides an alternative summary. Also, a statement that someone holds an opinion is a statement of fact not of opinion. See also WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." The best way to determine "the prominence of each viewpoint" is to use a reliable source that explains it. While an intelligent reader may be able to weigh all the historical facts and form his or her own judgment, they also wish to know how historians have interpreted them, and the various arguments presented are helpful to them in forming their own opinions. TFD (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
TFD is quite right. Wikipedia is reporting facts and is sourcing them. What most scholars have decided about the era is a very important fact for readers. Very few if any scholars support DiLorenzo's screed; it's fringe. Rjensen (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hamilton and slavery

The old view of historians has changed dramatically in recent years, as Diggins and Wilentz say. Wilentz (2010) is quoted in the article: "In recent years, Hamilton and his reputation have decidedly gained the initiative among scholars." Chan himself had a lot to do with the change re slavery. It would be very hard to find any recent scholar who says slavery was a low priority for Hamilton--it's a defunct viewpoint that originated in the 1920s as Diggins explains and is not longer held by many historians, if any at all. Rjensen (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion in the last thread. Certainly statements by scholars that consensus has changed is acceptable. TFD (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Age at death

Alexandra Hamilton was 47 at the time of his death, not 49 as per the article. The article cites the correct dates of birth and death, just not his age.

Please can someone change this as I'm a new user.

Thanks

Scottegriffin (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)scottegriffin

Really, the age at death should be removed, or else manually changed to "47 or 49" to comply with the dates of birth. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Who took Rachel's silver?

I once contributed to a much older version of Alexander Hamilton which contained the following in the Early Years section:

A short time afterwards, Rachel's son from her first marriage appeared in Nevis, and (legally) confiscated the few valuables Hamilton's mother had owned, including several valuable silver spoons.

And the current version has this instead:

In probate court, Rachel's "first husband seized her estate"[6] and obtained the few valuables Rachel had owned, including some household silver.

Just wondering if there was any discussion of the change from Rachel's son from her first marriage taking the silver to Rachel's husband from her first marriage. I tried going through the archives, but couldn't find anything. Onlynone (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is possible that the son was acting on behalf of his father after who had been granted ownership by the probate court (hence the term "legally"). I notice that the earlier version was not sourced, while the new material is. TFD (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 September 2012

"please correct spelling of conerns to concerns" Bearinguy (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)I found a typo in under the section about the 1800 Presidential Election. Paragraph 6. When it became clear that Jefferson developed his own conerns about Burr and would not support his return to the Vice Presidency. I believe "conerns" is meant to be "concerns".

Done. Thanks for your vigilance! Favonian (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 January 2013

Grammar correction: Currently reads "Embarrassed when a extra-marital affair from his past became..." It should be changed to "Embarrassed when an extra-marital affair from his past became..." Gopdavey (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Done thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

advertisements mentioning "Father of modern banking"

Citizens Bank (which gave its name to Citizens Bank Park, current home of the Phillies major-league baseball team) has been running (at least radio) advertising in which someone is playing Alexander Hamilton, who is referred to therein as "father of modern banking".

"father of modern banking" w/r to Hamilton is also mentioned in:

http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/2232/why-is-alexander-hamilton-considered-the-father-of-modern-banking

Wilentz again

While scholars are not unanimous, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz in 2010 identified a scholarly trend very much in Hamilton's favor:
"In recent years, Hamilton and his reputation have decidedly gained the initiative among scholars who portray him as the visionary architect of the modern liberal capitalist economy and of a dynamic federal government headed by an energetic executive. Jefferson and his allies, by contrast, have come across as naïve, dreamy idealists. At best according to many historians, the Jeffersonians were reactionary utopians who resisted the onrush of capitalist modernity in hopes of turning America into a yeoman farmers' arcadia. At worst, they were proslavery racists who wish to rid the West of Indians, expand the empire of slavery, and keep political power in local hands – all the better to expand the institution of slavery and protect slaveholders' rights to own human property."[17]

This remains what it was the last time we discussed this: a quotation out of context, ironically describing a view with which Wilentz strongly disagrees. Wikipedia never was much of an encyclopedia - and this article was always a whitewash. But this is really uncalled for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And I should add that insofar as it ascribes to Wilentz a view he opposes, in the article cited, it's defamatory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02
39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It's properly quoted and cited. The context is set by the introductory sentence discussing the "scholarly trend", and the quote substantiates that. Based on Wikipedia standards, it doesn't seem to require deletion. Shoreranger (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Wilentz is a leading expert and he wrote and signed this and published it in the leading journal. He indicates it's the majority view. The statement is straight-forward and is not at all whimsical, ambiguous, garbled or contradictory. Rjensen (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It took me a while to find the Wilentz article cited, but I did, and also read a little bit more of Wilentz. I think what Septentrionalis may be trying to say is the quote by Wilentz, if taken out of context of the Wilentz article, expresses a viewpoint to which Wilentz does not generally agree. However, this is all the more reason that the statement by Wilentz identifying a historic trend is credible — in other words, even though Wilentz may not like it, it is a trend, and he is being objective in making the statement that the trend exists. So I agree, the quote belongs in the Alexander Hamilton article. To be fair to Wilentz, the WP article might benefit from a small caveat statement, like "This is not something that Wilentz himself seems to agree with, but he does see this as a trend in reinterpretation of Hamilton," but I will leave that up to someone else because I have not read enough of Wilentz to know for sure what he thinks. LaurentianShield (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the quote should stay. I would like a reference showing that Wilentz disagrees with the interpretation. I don't see how an accurate quote can be "defamatory" although I wouldn't oppose a clause placing the quote in context. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
ok, I kept the same quote but introduced it with this new text: Princeton historian Sean Wilentz in 2010 identified a scholarly trend very much in Hamilton's favor, even though Wilentz himself does not go along with it: Rjensen (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Does the reader really care what Wilentz personally thinks? What difference does it make? While it may be accurate (though it now likely requires a citation of its own demonstrating his position), it becomes more wordy and superfulous. Shoreranger (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to belabor the point too much, but even though I think the quote is entirely appropriate, there is something to Septentrionalis's original objections in the sense that lifting this quote without further explanation sounds like Wilentz endorses the perspective he describes, which he doesn't, and since there are in fact two moderately-opposing perspectives on how to summarize Hamilton it seems to me like it is important to be fair. I think there is no further citation needed, because actually the rest of the article cited does make clear (fairly clear) Wilentz's point of view. The citation is a book review, and Wilentz says this about the author (Gordon S. Wood) in regard to the quote: "Wood differs sharply from these current interpretations and also with most previous ones." Then Wilentz goes on to praise Wood's point of view, making fairly clear where he (Wilentz) falls. It is interesting what Wilentz says in the last sentence of the review, by the way: "It is a mark of Wood's achievement that historians will be arguing with his interpretations, and learning from them, for a very long time to come." LaurentianShield (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No:

Princeton historian Sean Wilentz in 2010 identified a scholarly trend very much in Hamilton's favor, even though Wilentz himself does not go along with it:

is still misleading to the point of defamation; Wilentz does not see a new, triumphant school, with himself standing in solitary opposition to it. He sees, as LaurentianShield says, two moderately opposed schools, with Gordon Wood amd himself offering a third way. I invite LaurentianShield to craft a brief summary of Wilentz's review - if he feels the matter is worth mentioning at all.Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Wilentz writes " Hamilton and his reputation have decidedly gained the initiative among scholars" with two people in disagreement (Wilentz himself and Wood). That's pretty clear. PMAnderson seems to reject what Wilentz actually wrote but I think and we can assume Wilentz was not trying to deceive the readership of a scholarly journal but actually said what he believed to be true. Rjensen (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
This will not do.
I agree with LaurentianShield's summary of Wilentz's artile; and Rjenson's polemical posts do not represent it accurately. If it were important enough to include, it would be important enough to say what Wilentz actually said. But we have not had a case to include these quotations out of context - far less omitting the context. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
PMAnderson has a bad reputation as a disruptive editor--he was banned for 12 months in 2012 for that and he's now back at it. This "defamation" business is pretty strange....who are we defaming? Jefferson? Wilentz? Hamilton? Rjensen (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Wilentz - and who is this we? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Wilentz is "defamed" by quoting exactly what he said????? what nonsense. "Defamation" is a BLP allegation so take it to the BLP board please. Rjensen (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
By quoting him incompletely and out of context? By ascribing to him a view he does not hold? Of course he is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Nor will this do:

The strongly hostile attitude of the Jeffersonians has never disappeared, but the viewpoint among scholars that has been dominant in recent years represents him as a "forerunner of the modern liberal capitalist economy," standing opposed to the agrarianism, or the slave-holding self-interest, of Jefferson and Madison. Gordon Wood presented an alternative view in Empire of Liberty
A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815 arguing Hamilton would have set up an essentially European society, with a republican monarchy, and strong institutions such as the Bank of the United States.

Wilentz sees Wood - and by implication himself - as a third choice beyond the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians. Wood is therefore not an "alternative"; much less - as this partisan text implies, again - a solitary alternative to Hamiltonianism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Here. I think this solves it as the statement is a critique, not an endorsement. I would be more inclined to paraphrase than quote as the tense and narrative of the Jefferson component does not translate well:

In a critique of scholarly journal articles depicting Hamilton and Jefferson, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz in 2010 identified a trend very much in Hamilton's favor:
"In recent years, Hamilton and his reputation have decidedly gained the initiative among scholars who portray him as the visionary architect of the modern liberal capitalist economy and of a dynamic federal government headed by an energetic executive. Jefferson and his allies, by contrast, have come across as naïve, dreamy idealists. At best according to many historians, the Jeffersonians were reactionary utopians who resisted the onrush of capitalist modernity in hopes of turning America into a yeoman farmers' arcadia. At worst, they were proslavery racists who wish to rid the West of Indians, expand the empire of slavery, and keep political power in local hands – all the better to expand the institution of slavery and protect slaveholders' rights to own human property."[18]

--DHeyward (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

dispute to BLP page

I took the current dispute to the BLP page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard with this text:

There is an edit war going on at Alexander Hamilton in which one editor USER:Pmanderson repeatedly removes a quotation about Hamilton by historian Sean Wilentz (who won the Pulitzer prize) saying that it is "defamatory" of Wilentz to quote him. The other editors all disagree and say the quotation is proper and should be kept. The talk page shows Pmanderson had been highly antagonistic for years on the Hamilton article and in 2012 was banned for one year for his disruptions on another article. We need a determination by this board whether the added text is "defamatory" re Wilentz or not. The disputed text is this:
Princeton historian Sean Wilentz in 2010 identified a scholarly trend very much in Hamilton's favor, even though Wilentz himself does not go along with it:
"In recent years, Hamilton and his reputation have decidedly gained the initiative among scholars who portray him as the visionary architect of the modern liberal capitalist economy and of a dynamic federal government headed by an energetic executive. Jefferson and his allies, by contrast, have come across as naïve, dreamy idealists. At best according to many historians, the Jeffersonians were reactionary utopians who resisted the onrush of capitalist modernity in hopes of turning America into a yeoman farmers' arcadia. At worst, they were proslavery racists who wish to rid the West of Indians, expand the empire of slavery, and keep political power in local hands – all the better to expand the institution of slavery and protect slaveholders' rights to own human property." [ref] Sean Wilentz, "Book Reviews," Journal of American History Sept, 2010 v. 97# 2 p 476[/ref] [end of text] Rjensen (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton Grange, Heights, Harlem and memorials

A quality article - I enjoyed reading it. But two things need attention. ONE) It has a section '8.1 Monuments and memorials' and a later section '8.7 Memorials'. Better if combined in some way, or else separated into 'Early monuments and memorials' and then 'Later monuments and memorials'. TWO) The first of these (8.1 Monuments and memorials) mentions the "Grange", his 32 acre country estate in Harlem in upper Manhattan - nowadays the Hamilton Grange National Memorial. Then the later section (8.7 Memorials) mentions His country home, named "The Grange", is in Hamilton Heights, a neighborhood in upper Manhattan. So I wondered: is the house in Harlem or not? The separate Hamilton Grange National Memorial article doesn't say it's in either Hamilton Heights or Harlem (!!) and instead only says it's in St Nicholas Park, NYC. (!!!). That article's section on History does say later that The Hamilton Heights neighborhood of Harlem derived its name from Hamilton and the Grange but only as an aside. So the area info is there but a bit untidy - one shouldn't have to search through several sections of two articles to find just exactly where a house is. Now I'm not a Harlem expert (plus I'm British) so I don't want to get too involved, but I suggest A) Add Hamilton Heights into the estate in Harlem sentence, B) Move the house(s) info from the two Memorials parts into a separate Legacy subsection titled Residences, set just after the Family subsection, and then C) The two Memorials parts will then be smaller, making it easier to conjoin or split into Early/Later. I can do A and B tomorrow if no one objects, leaving others to do C afterward. Is that okay with others? Pete Hobbs (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Federalist Party's description

Was the Federalist Party really "the world's first organized political party," as it says in the lead? It surely doesn't say that at the linked article for Federalist Party, where it's described as "the first American political party." Surely the descriptions should be in alignment across articles? Moncrief (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

yes...the British organized their voter-based parties in the 1830s. take a look at Kenneth Janda I think "voter-based" is more precise so I changed it. Rjensen (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Unknown facts about Alexander Hamilton

.Alexander Hamilton did not die in the state of New York U.S.A. In fact, he died in the town of Weehawken in the state of New Jersy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.71.21 (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Miller p. 344
  2. ^ ANB "John Fenno"
  3. ^ Burns, Pp. 281-2
  4. ^ Miller p. 344
  5. ^ Jacobin and Junto Charles Warren (1931) pp 90–91.
  6. ^ Bemis, Jay's Treaty. Elkins and McKitrick 400 ff.
  7. ^ Chernow, p.179-180
  8. ^ Lind, Michael, Hamilton's Republic, 1997, pp. xiv–xv, 229–30.
  9. ^ Chernow, p. 170, citing Continentalist V, published April 1782, but written in fall 1781; Syrett, p. 3:77.
  10. ^ [5],Federalist Papers
  11. ^ [6]
  12. ^ [7],Federalist Papers
  13. ^ Lind, Michael, Hamilton's Republic, 1997, pp. xiv–xv, 229–30.
  14. ^ Chernow, p. 170, citing Continentalist V, published April 1782, but written in fall 1781; Syrett, p. 3:77.
  15. ^ [8]
  16. ^ United States Senate. SENATE RESOLUTION 368—RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF RELOCATING AND RENOVATING THE HAMILTON GRANGE, NEW YORK. Congressional Record 106th Congress (1999–2000), October 6, 2000, Page: S10095
  17. ^ Sean Wilentz, "Book Reviews," Journal of American History Sept, 2010 v. 97# 2 p 476
  18. ^ Sean Wilentz, "Book Reviews," Journal of American History Sept, 2010 v. 97# 2 p 476
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_Hamilton/Archive_5&oldid=1072572433"