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 ...
Where have I ever said I hated the Union? When have I ever extolled and praised terrorist traitors? When have I justified attacks on US forces?
There is nothing to criticize me for unless you are opposed to nationalism and patriotism.
There is nothing to criticize me for unless you are opposed to nationalism and patriotism.
South is just a direction. Your pretenses not withstanding it was never anything but.
The whole world laughed at its pretensions or made money from them.
Just confirms the belief that no idea is too foolish to rope in the suckers and ignorant.
“Manipulation”, “hot-headed”, “questionable morals”, “ambitious”? At least one and often more of those labels fit the presidents you list.
Only if your world revolves around fetishizing over Hamilton. And yours apparently does.
Of all the major founders though, Hamilton was far and away the one most despised by the others. When four different presidents who diverge dramatically in their own politics nevertheless agree that Hamilton is a scoundrel, chances are it's because he's a scoundrel and not the other way around.
There's even a word for it. P-R-O-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N.
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.
Tell ya what. Go stand in front of a cop, pull out a gun, and fire it "wide of the mark" in his general direction. Hell, fire it straight up in the air. And you can even write a note announcing your intent to fire it off mark and leave it in a little envelope on your pillow for somebody else to find after you do it.
Assuming you survive the inevitable barrage of bullets your action provoked, there is not one courtroom in America that would find the cop unjustified in returning fire at you out of the legitimate belief that you threatened him first, making his action a matter of self defense.
NOTHING mattered more to Hamilton than protecting and strengthening the Union and none other than Washington did more to create it.
Funny. One could similarly argue that no framer did more than Hamilton to sow the seeds of sectional division that nearly destroyed that same union in the Civil War.
And to paraphrase John Adams, Hamilton's attempts to essentially draw the United States into the Napoleonic Wars on Britain's side as a means of strengthening the union were tantamount to insanity.
He was also scheming to draw the United States into the Napoleonic Wars when Adams finally cut him off and cleared out his cabinet of the Hamilton loyalists. The previous 2 year "reign of witches," as Jefferson accurately dubbed it, had shown everyone what Hamilton's real vision of America was all about: the Alien and Sedition Acts, the attempted mobilization of a standing army to invade Spanish and French North America, a new federal Stamp Tax that was virtually identical to the one that sparked the rebellion against Britain, new federal land and property taxes spawning Fries' Rebellion in Pennsylvania, the arrest and imprisonment of opposition newspaper editors for "sedition," and the early stages of a scheme to forcibly purge the Jeffersonians from government.
Hamilton was an ambitious autocrat with a hot temper and even signs of insanity. When Burr shot Hamilton, it was the inevitable result of decades of recklessness and blustery on Hamilton's part. Despite his disingenuous claim to detest dueling in the note he wrote before his death, Hamilton had been involved in some form or another with at least 10 threatened duels that were averted at the last minute. Among his intended targets were sitting President John Adams in 1800 and future President James Monroe in 1797. That he got himself into a duel with sitting Vice President Aaron Burr in 1804 was thus neither out of the ordinary for him nor unsurprising when it happened.
Hamilton only lasted as long as he did by playing Wormtongue to Washington's Theoden. But practically every other founding father of any significance detested the guy, and with good reason.
Which Revolutionary war hero have I attacked, you arrogantsob?
Adams despised Hamilton because he found him doing his job when he would go to Braintree for months at a time at which point his cabinet turned to Hamilton for answers to complex issues. So he was pissed that H was essentially president for the first three years of the Adams’ administration. He also despised him because he was Washington’s favorite and principle advisor ON EVERY ISSUE. Adams was also extremely jealous of Washington and every bit the “hot-head” H was.
Madison worked closely with H until Jefferson’s return and was more Hamiltonian than Hamilton when the CC began. Virtually every point he disagreed with him involving principle Madison was in the wrong. Madison had to admit that the National Bank was necessary and had it rechartered after the financial disaster ensuing from the War of 1812. This was the biggest policy disagreement between the men and Madison was shown to be completely wrong.
Jefferson was envious of anyone with a superior mind to his and despised anyone standing in the way of his manipulation of the democracy. Jefferson was superior to Hamilton only in his political scheming and manipulation and his opposition to the policies necessary to strengthen our new nation would have been fatal but for Hamilton. Washington grew to despise Jefferson due to his dishonesty and lack of integrity.
Monroe was just a Jeffersonian puppet willing to hate what his master hated and love what his master loved. About the only good thing he did was serve as an officer with Hamilton.
The four you mention were as flawed as H if not more so and the last three. Most of their opposition to H came because he was the greatest threat to their own power.
None of his enemies came close to producing state papers of such immense importance to the development the modern capitalist economy as were those of Hamilton.
Blackmail and prostitution are not the same thing.
Two grand juries indicted Burr for the murder of Hamilton.
Adams despised Hamilton because he found him doing his job when he would go to Braintree for months at a time at which point his cabinet turned to Hamilton for answers to complex issues.
Gee...an unelected ex cabinet official with no title or office who was recently disgraced in a major sex scandal starts pretending one day that he is President of the United States, and you see nothing wrong with that? Or why the real President might be slightly upset about it? Or why the real President and his next three successors might view such a person as a "threat" to their power and justifiably so?
Hamilton's insubordination pushed him closer to the verge of treason than any of the people he accused of the very same under the Alien and Sedition Acts. He wanted Adams to be his puppet as he led the country into an empire-building war with France. Adams justifiably said no. And he would have been equally justified for that matter to order Hamilton arrested, given the schemings that were going on in his private letters to Wolcott.
Nor do I care that Hamilton positioned himself as Wormtongue to Washington's Theoden. It says little to redeem Hamilton from being despised by practically every single other major founding father, and only proves that even Washington had his faults.
As to Hamilton's supposedly "superior mind," you delude yourself. Even a cursory review of his writings reveal Hamilton was a muddled second-rate thinker who misunderstood basic principles of economics and frequently contradicted himself without even realizing it. For a notorious hot-head who had been a principle in no less than 10 previous abortive duels to write on the eve of his 11th that he detested dueling is simply laughable. And yet that is what Hamilton did, apparently unaware of just how silly such a claim was coming from him. That is not a sign of brilliance, arrogantsob. It's a sign of questionable sanity.
No doubt that strengthening the new nation pissed off the “states-rights” and those profiting from the collapse of national power. Thank God, his policies strengthened the nation so much that the RAT Rebellion (which owed more to Jefferson’s thought than anyone particularly Hamilton) was defeated never to raise its ugly head again.
Hamilton NEVER tried to ally the US to Britain EVER. That is the kind of lie which has sullied his reputation for over two hundred years. He ALWAYS maintained that allying with either European power would be destructive to our nation particularly is government finances since the whole system was conceived to depend upon peace.
I am surprised that you would try and peddle such an obvious canard which surely you know is false. Are you unaware that Hamilton was the principle author of W’s Farewell Address which stipulated that alliance was unwise and warned that such an alliance was likely to lead to splitting the country.
Thwarting the Jeffersonians’ schemes with France is not the same as “...draw[ing] the United States into the Napoleonic Wars on Britain’s side...” nor is criticizing Adams blunders in diplomacy with the Frence. Hamilton would agree that alliance with England would have been “insanity”. There is not a shred of evidence honestly evaluated which would support your contention or his enemies. But truth rarely mattered when H was being attacked.
I am old but not that old. I was speaking of the attacks on Hamilton.
None of his enemies came close to producing state papers of such immense importance to the development the modern capitalist economy as were those of Hamilton.
What utter bull. Hamilton was a rambling, economically illiterate neo-mercantilist. His policies obtained political popularity for the same reason that mercantilists normally do - they're great for dispensing the favors of government to politically connected interests. But capitalist economics they are not, and no credible economist today on the free market side of things considers Hamilton a sound thinker.
The people who think fondly of Hamilton's economics, on the other hand, are illustrative of his folly in their own right: the Keynesians, who tolerate him as a forbearer, and the LaRouchies who practically worship him.
Hamilton NEVER tried to ally the US to Britain EVER.
Right. And I suppose you think that little Jay Treaty episode simply never happened. Half the reason France even attempted its XYZ stunt came from Tallyrand being pissed off at the Jay Treaty's extremely pro-British (and pro-dependency) commercial clauses.
Hamilton’s advice could have been ignored and probably would not have even been sought had Adams been around to do his job.
Hamilton was opposed to the A & S Acts and advised Congress not to pass them.
Democrats had a scheme to challenge Hamilton to duels until one of them killed him. None of these challenges were really legit since they did not involve personal honor but were just a means to kill a political opponent. When word got around about these plans they were dropped. H’s view of dueling at the end of his life was not the same as it had been earlier.
Compared to Jefferson’s activities in opposition to the administration he was VP in H’s actions were nothing.
Now you are peddling the Washington was a “dupe” line to account for his immense regard for Hamilton? Any other slanders you hope to sell today?
Hamilton was the principle author of the greatest political writings since Aristotle but not smart enough for you, LoL.
He never specifically wrote on economics outside of development and was principally concerned with government finance laying a program which allowed our nation to become the leading economic power in the world. His brilliance was attested to as much by his enemies as by his friends even Jefferson had to admit he was personally honest and was of such a stature that he called H “...a host within himself...” and a “...colossus...”
As to his alleged unpopularity with Democrats and Adams who cares? None of them did as much for our country as H and none could face him in an honest debate. Not the sneaking Jefferson, the weak Madison or an Adams consumed with envy of a man who was everything he was not.
Burr was a revolutionary war hero too, yet I don’t see you suggesting that entitles him to carte blanche for his later shortcomings.
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.