Posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
[by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine, CA), re-published with his permission]
For years I have admired Congressman Ron Paul’s principled stance on spending and the Constitution. That said, he really damaged himself when he blamed President Lincoln for the Civil War, saying, “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war… [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.”
This is historical revisionism of the worst order, and it must be addressed.
For Congressman Paul’s benefit – and for his supporters who may not know – seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President. After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
As previously noted, do you know where might one find a true scotsman?
Regardless, Hamilton bears primary responsibility in his own death as practically every realistic scenario of it rendered Burr's shot a legitimate one by dueling conventions.
If he intended to delope he did not communicate this to Burr in any way and in fact quite the opposite, meaning Burr had every reason to believe it was a shot at him. If he fired the pistol by accident, then it was his own fault for pulling a trigger he did not intend and Burr again had every reason to believe it was a shot at him. And if he fired and simply missed, then it was indeed a shot at him and Burr had the right to return. Yes, Hamilton was a troubled man at the time of his duel, worn, beaten down, and emotional. And he largely had himself to blame for it.
You are also simply wrong about there not being a second gun. Hamilton told the Doctor Hosack that he had not meant to fire and that his second would verify this intention (presumably by revealing the letter): "Soon after recovering his sight, he happened to cast his eye upon the case of pistols, and observing the one that he had had in his hand lying on the outside, he said, "Take care of that pistol; it is undischarged, and still cocked; it may go off and do harm. Pendleton knows that I did not intend to fire at him."
Pendleton heard this too and recorded it as "Pendleton knows I did not mean to fire at Col. Burr the first time."
That means he was apparently aware that he had indeed fired, either by accident or intentionally and he was now lying about it. Alternatively, he could have simply been delusional from the shock of being shot. Pendleton tried to claim as much, suggesting the comment about the still-loaded gun "shews that he was not sensible of having fired at all" and tries to spin that into a claim that Burr's shot knocked Hamilton unconscious causing him to fire involuntarily. Yet this could not be the case as Pendleton contradicted his recollection from only moments earlier where he reports Hamilton saying he did not mean to fire.
Hosack's account is likely more reliable refers to nearby pistols in the plural.
Meanwhile, everything we know about Hamilton's actions right before the duel suggest he was indeed looking to fire. He was seen very carefully sighting his gun and even stopped the lineup to adjust his glasses and re-steady his sight, as one would likely do immediately before firing.
Monroe, Muhlenberg and Venerable all agree H’s affair had nothing to do with his job and that it would be dropped. Your view of the nature of the political mores of the time are apparently only yours.
So just to be clear - Hamilton basically paid a man thousands of dollars to RENT OUT THE GUY'S WIFE FOR SEXUAL FAVORS over a two year period at the peak of his political career...
...and you think it's a greater "wrong" that Hamilton's enemies supposedly violated a set of unwritten "political mores" (of which you have provided no evidence that they even existed) by letting word of it leak to the press.
How Clintonian of you.
His physicians said he was a very sick man not likely to live much longer in any event.
Interesting, to which I'll add the following: rather than his son's death, do we know for certain that Hamilton was not dying of something else such as...let's say...syphilis? We know for a fact that he was a serial adulterer. And we also know that Hamilton paid a Reynolds thousands of dollars for access to his wife, so he obviously had no problem with prostitution. Combined with his well documented mood swings and mental degeneration leading up to the duel, I don't think we can rule it out!
Back in WWII days...I think the prevailing terminology among us common folk would be...ina pig’s @$$, Ron Paul is wrong!
It sounds as though, had you been alive during that period, you would have been a loyalist.
Most of them probably would have been. There’s something about government that makes people have an unusually strong affection for its continuity. 90% of the time it can be attributed to either the intoxicating effects of its power or the dependency effects of its handouts. The other 10% are simply crazy.
So I think he took a chance to die for the Union by removing the greatest threat of secession once and for all.
Have you ever considered the possibility that it was Hamilton who was actually the greater threat to the future of the United States? Of all the major founders, none was more reviled by his peers than Hamilton. And that includes the next four presidents. Not just Jefferson, but Madison, Monroe, and even John Adams all had one thing in common - none of them could stand Hamilton. All generally concurred that he was hot-headed, had questionable morals, was exceedingly ambitious in his political machinations, and possessed a highly manipulative character.
So perhaps it wasn't Hamilton that saved the union by tarnishing Burr, but Burr that saved it by eliminating Hamilton.
There is no evidence of Hamilton charging Burr with incest nor that it was the reason for the challenge. Burr would not specify what his complaint was even after being asked. He intended to kill Hamilton no matter what. This was not allowed within the code duello.
Maria came to H with the story that her husband had deserted her. It was later that the husband BLACKMAILED HIM. Just to be clear.
Hamilton’s father?
Where do you get your idea that there was a second gun? That is contrary to everything I have seen about the duel plus it does not fit the dueling standards which called for participants to have equal weaponry hence the choice from a dueling set which the challenged got to make.
There is nothing in your quote indicating any pistols other than those belonging to Church. And your reasoning is far-fetched and contrary to the evidence.
There is no question that H intended Burr to believe he was going to fire at him. Nor is there any doubt that H’s shot was so wide of the mark that he, an excellent shot, did not shoot at Burr.
While rumor may suffice for your condemnation. I have seen no real evidence of any “serial adultery”. There is only one confirmed affair - the Reynolds one.
Certainly had syphilis been involved Jefferson’s attack dogs would have discovered it. Not that they had any problem with spreading falsehoods by the ton.
I have never denied any of H’s flaws.
Even claiming a conspiracy does not excuse H allowing it to succeed.
Those who love to attack one of our greatest revolutionary heroes really shouldn’t make claims about another’s “toryism”.
“Manipulation”, “hot-headed”, “questionable morals”, “ambitious”? At least one and often more of those labels fit the presidents you list.
Very few of the Founders could stand against Hamilton in debate. None worked as hard or rapidly as he. Jefferson called him a “colossus”. There were more who admired him beyond all but Washington than hated him. Virtually everyman who became his friend stayed his friend for life.
NOTHING mattered more to Hamilton than protecting and strengthening the Union and none other than Washington did more to create it.
Why are you on a site wherein the people love the USA and will defend it? Anti-Americanism is more popular on DU. Check it out you will find kindred spirits there.
With that attitude I could ask you the same thing, why are you on a site called "Free Republic"? Maybe you could create your own site called "Constitutional Dictatorship"? I am sure to visit, not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.