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 ...
and one of his two “inflexible” rules was American ships MUST BE granted UNRESTRICTED entry into the West Indies
Considering that the Jay Treaty did anything but, yet still received Hamilton's backing, they must not have been "inflexible" after all.
I note you keep ignoring the fact that the democrats had prevented our ablest negotiator
Since when did a well-known hothead with no meaningful foreign policy experience and an unusual recurring propensity to find himself in the middle of duels become our "ablest negotiator" in the mind of anyone other than a fanatical idolater of his cause?
Your posts are full of this sort of patently absurd assumptions. It's all "Hamilton was our ablest negotiator, ablest economist, ablest financier, ablest military man, ablest this, that, and the other." Yet nowhere do you ever bother to establish that your characterizations of Hamilton are even remotely accurate, and more than once now it has turned out that the opposite is true.
Another farrago of falsehoods.
Nothing TRUTHFUL is part of a conspiracy.
Monroe and Beckley made sure the papers resulting from the investigation of the Reynolds’ affair went to Jefferson. WHY? If he was such a disinterested party would he have been concerned? Why did the info surface from Callender, Jefferson’s hired literary assassin?
Even your quote shows no invasion of any territories was contemplated except under imminent French attack. They were DEFENSIVE plans not offensive.
Jefferson’s encouragement of democracy is what I was referring to as his followers eventually lost control of spending. This is just as valid a statement as yours blaming Hamilton for our excessive debt something he never would have supported.
Tariffs were not the cause of the Civil War. People complained about taxes from day one but Jefferson’s avowal of policies which undermined the constitution provided the intellectual justification that the slavers dragged out to give their defense of slavery some moral weight.
On Feb. 4, 1784 H was one of the founding members of the Manumission society along with 21 members including Jay and Burr. Nor did he own slaves but rather tried to get the NY assembly to outlaw slavery. He suggested that members of the society free their own slaves. The suggestion was quashed. It is possible that his father-in-law gave his wife a slave or indentured servant but there is no record that a slave was with the family for long.
I was quoting from Robert Hendrickson’s biography of this amazing man. He admires Hamilton but does not hide his warts. Nor does he differ much from any of the dozens of biographers I have read. Hell, I will even read some you suggest.
Fortunately your hallucinations have no bearing.
Our army was not even capable defeating Indian tribes much less invade the Southwest. Nor would the increase in military force allow such an endeavor.
I have already explained the opposition to Adams negotiations with France. He objected to crawling back to France and saying “thank you, sir may I have another.” It had already been tried and the nation was furious at the humiliation our envoys were subjected to.
Hamilton was unwavering in the policy of Neutrality which infuriated the democrats.
Monroe and Beckley made sure the papers resulting from the investigation of the Reynolds’ affair went to Jefferson. WHY? If he was such a disinterested party would he have been concerned? Why did the info surface from Callender, Jefferson’s hired literary assassin?
Very simple. BECAUSE IT WAS TRUE.
It takes an astonishing level of hubris to believe that you can hold an office of high public trust while living the life of a sexual libertine, only to purport outrage when the opposition party gets wind of it all and spills it to the newspapers. Hamilton apparently had that hubris. So did Bill Clinton.
Lets see 1000 - 70 = 930 thought Jeffersonian math might disagree.
He was speaking of co-operating with Miranda against Spain not a US invasion. Although Jefferson’s followers did invade Canada a few years later.
Fortunately your hallucinations have no bearing.
...straight from the mouth of the same guy whose embrace of Hamiltonian economics puts him in the lonely company of Lyndon LaRouche.
Our army was not even capable defeating Indian tribes much less invade the Southwest.
I never said Hamilton wasn't delusional in his militaristic quests, did I?
Hamilton was unwavering in the policy of Neutrality
...except for that little bit about preemptively conquering Florida, Mexico, and all of South America from Spain, of course.
Nor did he own slaves
Even Chernow admits the evidence of this is inconclusive. Hamilton seems to have preferred to rent his slaves from others, much as one might rent a car or apartment today. It is well documented, however, that he bid on at least 6 slaves at auction on behalf of his in-laws.
William JEFFERSON Clinton took a completely different tact than Hamilton when his affair became public. HE DENIED EVERYTHING.
So fathering children with your slave is OK for Jefferson and did not preclude him holding “an office of high public trust while living the life of a sexual libertine...” Only Hamilton merits your condemnation. LoL.
BTW one of Jefferson’s oldest friends challenged him to a duel because of his improprieties with his wife. Even after decades had passed.
Don’t forget “ablest lawyer” and “greatest political writer”.
Lets see 1000 - 70 = 930
Yes. As in 930 pages of rough drafts, snippets, margin notes, and administrative correspondence surrounding the reports. Yet strangely, all the stats you claimed are nowhere to be found. Or would you care to post a link showing otherwise? Most of Hamilton's papers are online, after all.
Your projection is not supported by your quotation. Hamilton understood, as apparently you do not, that to avoid war you must build up the military.
Whatever Hamilton was he was not “delusional” about military matters.
So now an agent for a client is the same as owning slaves? Though I suspect your source of information and its certainty. There is no doubt that Hamilton was opposed to slavery.
It is mostly correspondence from writers who were answering his questions and giving their opinions.
The Reynolds letters were Hamilton's equivalent of the blue dress.
As to Jefferson & Hemmings (and briefly ignoring how that rumor came from the very same Callender you detest for publishing Hamilton's prostitution receipts yet apparently find credible when he was attacking Jefferson, thus again betraying your extreme biases), the most recent scholarship suggests that the evidence is at best inconclusive, and points toward another male relative living at Monticello as the likely culprit.
He was speaking to the soon-to-be-sacked Secretary of War about using the recently raised army so it wouldn’t go to waste. There’s no dancing around it - Hamilton had his eyes set on Spanish and French territory, and strongly hinted at military acquisition of each.
Nah. I think I’ll stick with “duplicitous sexual libertine with delusional dreams of military empire.”
Hamilton understood, as apparently you do not, that to avoid war you must build up the military.
...by preemptively sicking it on South America? As I stated and with John Adams' full concurrence, Hamilton was delusional.
And yet none of the detailed statistical analysis of the American economy you originally purported.
If Hamilton was truly anti-slavery, he had an odd way of showing it.
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.