And so is insinuating that it gave Alexander Hamilton, a disgraced unelected former cabinet secretary with no office of his own and no legal authority to do much of anything on the president's behalf, the "right" to step in his place and begin stirring up trouble.
Nor is your comparison to Jefferson a valid one. Jefferson was, after all, Vice President and LEGALLY ELECTED as such. Hamilton was NOTHING after he resigned in 1795 and had no right to act.
As to Washington, he was no more a dupe than Theoden. But like Theoden, he also had a Wormtongue.
Hamilton was the principle author of the greatest political writings since Aristotle
Since that bizarre and almost comical assessment is coming from somebody who fetishizes over Hamilton, it must be taken with a heavy grain of salt. As previously noted, NOBODY credible in the economics profession takes Hamilton seriously today (and don't try to backtrack on that either - YOU called him the father of modern capitalism, and now you're trying to separate him from economics?). Hamilton is tolerated by Keynesians and adored by the LaRouchies, but with each of those "endorsements" I need only note res ipsa loquitur.
1) Nothing was illegal about the cabinet seeking advice from Hamilton. None of them had to take it.
2)Washington remained in close contact with his underlings when he returned to Virginia.
3)We were in an undeclared war with France while Jefferson was VP and he was scheming with the French for much of that time.
4) Theoden was UNDER THE SPELL of Wormtongue returning to his senses only after he left. His enemies accused Washington of being under the spell of his staff (Hamilton) even as early as the Revolutionary War.
5) I never called H “the father of modern capitalism” though I will call him the father of modern government finance in America.