Atlas Forum

General Discussion => History => Topic started by: Akno21 on July 11, 2004, 06:27:21 pm



Title: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Akno21 on July 11, 2004, 06:27:21 pm
I'm just curious what people think of him.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: PBrunsel on July 11, 2004, 06:31:24 pm
Hamilton was an economic wonder for the new nation. The federal reserves building should be named for him. He just had too big of an ego. He wanted to be the Emperor of the USA. He had a plan, like Aaron Burr, to take parts of the Louisiana Purchse to start an empire that would stretch ever more southward into Central America, the Carribean, and South America.

Hamilton just was too big for his briches, but he helped the new nation remain financially stable. He cost John Adam's reelection in 1800, but he saved us from President Aaron Burr.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Akno21 on July 11, 2004, 06:34:26 pm
He definitly should stay on the $10 bill. If we put Reagan on anything, it should be the $1,000 bill, that way only people helped by trickle down economics and other economic policies of his will have to see it.  


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: opebo on July 11, 2004, 06:34:38 pm
Poor duelist.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Akno21 on July 11, 2004, 06:35:15 pm
Poor duelist.

He didn't attempt to kill Burr. He purposely fired astray.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: PBrunsel on July 11, 2004, 06:51:17 pm
Poor duelist.

He didn't attempt to kill Burr. He purposely fired astray.

He thought Burr would not shoot, but the VP did.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: True Federalist on July 11, 2004, 07:06:53 pm
He definitly should stay on the $10 bill. If we put Reagan on anything, it should be the $1,000 bill, that way only people helped by trickle down economics and other economic policies of his will have to see it.  

Actually, if I had my way, the only existing bill I would change would be to place Henry Clay on the $50.  All of the other bills have a good connection between the person on the fron't abd the scene on the back.

Now if we get some denominations higher than the $100 bill  I'd want them to be chosen from the following combinations:

John Marshall - The Court Chamber of the Supreme Court
Theodore Roosevelt - Old Faithful in Yellowstone NP
Dwight D. Eisenhower - Omaha Beach on D-Day

The main reason I would be against placing Reagan on our paper money is that there is no good reverse image to put with him.  The same applies to FDR as well.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: PBrunsel on July 11, 2004, 07:11:08 pm
He definitly should stay on the $10 bill. If we put Reagan on anything, it should be the $1,000 bill, that way only people helped by trickle down economics and other economic policies of his will have to see it.  

Actually, if I had my way, the only existing bill I would change would be to place Henry Clay on the $50.  All of the other bills have a good connection between the person on the fron't abd the scene on the back.

Now if we get some denominations higher than the $100 bill  I'd want them to be chosen from the following combinations:

John Marshall - The Court Chamber of the Supreme Court
Theodore Roosevelt - Old Faithful in Yellowstone NP
Dwight D. Eisenhower - Omaha Beach on D-Day

The main reason I would be against placing Reagan on our paper money is that there is no good reverse image to put with him.  The same applies to FDR as well.

The FDR dime was commisioned because FDR started the March of Dimes to cure polio. On the back of the dime you will see signs of the New Deal.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: True Federalist on July 11, 2004, 07:24:21 pm
The FDR dime was commisioned because FDR started the March of Dimes to cure polio. On the back of the dime you will see signs of the New Deal.
Yes, but those signs would not make a good reverse image for our paper money in the style of existing bills.  Coins and bills are two entirely different beasts.  I wouldn't mind seeing a series of presidential portraits on the half dollar since its reverse is based on the Presidential seal.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: ncjake on July 11, 2004, 09:49:48 pm
He was my favorite founding father


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 11, 2004, 10:30:25 pm
I'm just curious what people think of him.

First, he was a bastard both by birth and by practice.

Second, he was a lying, backstabing turd who wanted to turn the United States into an oligarchy.

Third, he wanted to stage a coup d'etat, using a senile Washington (who he sucessfully fooled) as a front man.

Fourth, he tried to establish feudalist in New York.

In short, he was the most sucessfull thoroughly evil man in the history of American poltics.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 11, 2004, 10:32:07 pm
Poor duelist.

He didn't attempt to kill Burr. He purposely fired astray.

Wrong.  He tried to kill Burr, but was more accustomed to back stabbing, and missed.

Burr did the country a favor in sending  the thoroughly evil sob to hell.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: dbpman on July 12, 2004, 08:52:15 am
Hamilton was an economic wonder for the new nation. The federal reserves building should be named for him.

tell me you are joking right?  Hamilton hated with a passion fiat currency.. its bad enough they put his head on their worthless paper money but to add his name to a building promoting the US fiat system is a big disgrace for this man.
Quote
"To emit an unfunded paper as the sign of value ought not to continue a formal part of the Constitution, nor even hereafter to be employed; being, in its nature, pregnant with abuses, and liable to be made the engine of imposition and fraud; holding out temptations equally pernicious to the integrity of government and to the morals of the people."
~A. Hamilton

However I'm not a huge fan of Hamilton.  Nor am I a fan of his is idea of a central bank or a strong central government. If this country had gone to what Hamilton wanted we would be living in a Monarchy or an Aristocracy.  He hated the King of England but loved the idea of a Monarchy.  He thought that the rich and well-born should have a permanent role in controlling the masses.

There was also talk about corruption.  In 1792 he managed to get himself out of a congressional hearing on misuse of federal funds by shifting public focus to his adultery with Maria Reynolds.

Hamilton was all about Hamilton...Major womanizer and near the end of his life he even lashed out at his own Federalist Party and John Adams and commited what many considered political suicide by doing so.  
 
A very bright man but his inner demons got the best of him


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Akno21 on July 12, 2004, 10:38:49 am
He was big into press wars with Jefferson, they each had their own newspaper controlled by friends. I wonder how he would have been seen today, which party, how successful, etc.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 12, 2004, 01:48:01 pm
Poor duelist.

He didn't attempt to kill Burr. He purposely fired astray.

Wrong.  He tried to kill Burr, but was more accustomed to back stabbing, and missed.

Burr did the country a favor in sending  the thoroughly evil sob to hell.

OK that's some serious hate...talk to a therapist.

Read your history.

Hamilton was a liar.

Hamilton was a backstabber.

Hamilton sought to stage a coup d'etat using Washington as his front man.

Hamilton sought to reinstate feudalism in New York.

If you look at his record (yes he was a bastard), you will be hard pressed to find another major figure in American political history so thoroughly evil.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: PBrunsel on July 12, 2004, 01:54:57 pm
Hamilton was a liar.- It is true. He told Adams's that he would:

- not take controll of his Cabinet, he tried to until ,Adams fired half of his cabinet.

- not support Jefferson ever (did to not elect Burr).

- not support a different Federalist against Adams in 1800 (He did support his protege, Charcles C. Pickney)

Hamilton was a backstabber.- It's true, he wrote a letter abour how Adams aregued with his cabinet, was an adulterer, disliked Washington, and planned to set up an American monarchy. This letter in some ways cost Adma sreelection and split the Federalist into the Federalists (more moderate) and the Old Federalists (the super Conservatives).

Hamilton sought to stage a coup d'etat using Washington as his front man.- He tried to form a tropicla empire durring the Constitutional Convention and in 1803.

Hamilton sought to reinstate feudalism in New York- He tried to give the wealthy land owners sole voting reights in a Constitution for New York.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 12, 2004, 02:34:29 pm
Hamilton was a liar.- It is true. He told Adams's that he would:

- not take controll of his Cabinet, he tried to until ,Adams fired half of his cabinet.

- not support Jefferson ever (did to not elect Burr).

- not support a different Federalist against Adams in 1800 (He did support his protege, Charcles C. Pickney)

Hamilton was a backstabber.- It's true, he wrote a letter abour how Adams aregued with his cabinet, was an adulterer, disliked Washington, and planned to set up an American monarchy. This letter in some ways cost Adma sreelection and split the Federalist into the Federalists (more moderate) and the Old Federalists (the super Conservatives).

Hamilton sought to stage a coup d'etat using Washington as his front man.- He tried to form a tropicla empire durring the Constitutional Convention and in 1803.

Hamilton sought to reinstate feudalism in New York- He tried to give the wealthy land owners sole voting reights in a Constitution for New York.

Thank you for your post.

It seems that too many posters are ignorant of their history.

P.S. Hamilton WAS also a bastard.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: ijohn57s on July 17, 2004, 12:27:08 am
Alexander Hamilton would have loved nothing more than to be King of the United States. If not, dictator.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Akno21 on July 17, 2004, 08:59:41 am
Alexander Hamilton would have loved nothing more than to be King of the United States. If not, dictator.

Why did he never run for President? He had the chance, in 1796.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 18, 2004, 11:28:09 pm
Alexander Hamilton would have loved nothing more than to be King of the United States. If not, dictator.

Why did he never run for President? He had the chance, in 1796.

First, as foreign born (as well as a bastard), legally he could never assume the office.

Second, he was widely hated (for good reason), and could never be elected (even if the foreign birth were not a bar).

Third, he prefered to play Svengali (behind the scenes manipulator).


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 19, 2004, 10:53:28 am
Alexander Hamilton would have loved nothing more than to be King of the United States. If not, dictator.

Why did he never run for President? He had the chance, in 1796.

First, as foreign born...  legally he could never assume the office.


I believed this to be true for the past 40 plus years until someone on this forum brought it to my attention that he WAS constitutionally eligible. While it is true he was born in the West Indies, he was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was ratified. From Article II "No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the Office of President..." All your other points are well taken.

I stand corrected.

Thank you for the information.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: JohnFKennedy on July 24, 2004, 12:16:31 pm
Hamilton was indeed a bastard although this was a matter of circumstance really in my opinion.

His mother was married to a man she didn't love by the name of Lavein, their relationship went poorly and he took her to court and demanded she be imprisoned for "whoring". She was imprisoned for two years before fleeing away from her husban and son and meeting James Hamilton, fourth son of a Scottish Laird. The two of them had two children, James Hamilton Jr. and Alexander Hamilton.

Lavein wished to re-marry and filed for divorce from Rachel Faucette, Hamilton's mother. She feared to go to the hearing as she thought they may imprison her. Lavein was granted a divorce and she was never allowed to marry again.

James Hamilton and Rachel Lavein lived together for the first ten years of Hamilton's life. They were in effect married although could never be legally.

Hamilton's childhood was marred with problems. Brought up in virtual squallor, his father ran away from them, his mother died, his uncle and cousin both died while he was under their care, one committing suicide and he was left nothing by any, his uncle and cousin left him out of the will and everything his mother owned was challenged by Lavein for his son with Rachel. Lavein was a terrible businessman always losing money and made sure to secure a bit from Rachel's death, this was in fact the reason he married her, for some financial aid. He squandered away most of her inheritance.

Whether you like him or not, Hamilton was an impressive man, to rise from such humble beginnings in the West Indies to become a Founding Father of the United States of America is impressive.

By the way, he was also an abolitionist, a result of growing up in the West Indies where slaves outnumbered white people by four to one. Hamilton grew closely attached to one slave, the child of his grandmother's slave.

I respect the man and appreciate his actions for the USA in establishing the bank, the whole tax system and various other financial institutes and ideas still used in the USA today. I also admire him for his abolitionist views in a time when slavery was common and accepted by the majority.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 24, 2004, 01:20:33 pm
Sen. Kennedy,

First, Hamilton was a bastard, both technically (as you more elaborately noted) and in the vernacular, by his actions.

Second, I never suggested that he was not intelligent nor that he did not get away with manipulating a number of otherwise intelligent, honest and decent men.

Third, the bank of the United States was a political institution (unlike the current Federal Reserve System) and actually paid for publication of material attacking candidates by name.

Fourth, with respect to taxation, Hamilton was an early advocate of protectionist taxation.  Is this what generates your approval of his tax policies?

Fifth, there is a good question as to what constutes a founding father.  While Hamilton did pay a major role in the development and adoption of the constitution, he was NOT involved in the Declaration of Independence (and, BTW, was opposed to the bill of rights).

Sixth, yes, many major personages throughout history have risen from humble circumstances to places of power.  Hamilton was such a man, and so was Adolf Hitler.  To me, what matters is whether you use the power you achieve on behalf of freedom (defending it from enemies and advancing it wherever feasible) or whether you use your power to curtail freedom.  While Hitler was certainly far worse than Hamilton, both were basically bad men by the standard I just outlined.

Seventh, if you look hard enough you can find something good to say about just about everyone.  You took the occassion to say some good things about Hamilton.  One could as well argue that Ghengis Kahn accomplished some good in the long term by spreading elements of chinese technolgy (he himself was a Mongol), throughout much of the world.

Eighth, you go on at length about Hamilton's abolitionism.  He was hardly unique in this.  Benjamin Franklin was the leading abolitionist in the country in the late eighteenth, and early nineteenth centures in this county.  Moreover, while Hamilton may have wished to abolish black slavery, he DID attempt to reduce New York farmers to feudal peonage (fortunately, he was unsucessful).

In conclusion, on balance, Hamilton was a very bad man.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: JohnFKennedy on July 25, 2004, 08:53:56 am
In conclusion, on balance, Hamilton was a very bad man.

Well, each is entitled to his own opinion I suppose.

One question though Carl, why do you make such a huge issue of him being born out of wedlock and thus a bastard?


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 25, 2004, 10:32:28 am
In conclusion, on balance, Hamilton was a very bad man.

Well, each is entitled to his own opinion I suppose.

One question though Carl, why do you make such a huge issue of him being born out of wedlock and thus a bastard?

I was just waiting for some ignorant poster to dispute my point.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: ?????????? on July 25, 2004, 12:30:11 pm
In conclusion, on balance, Hamilton was a very bad man.

Well, each is entitled to his own opinion I suppose.

One question though Carl, why do you make such a huge issue of him being born out of wedlock and thus a bastard?

I was just waiting for some ignorant poster to dispute my point.

That was kind of cold Carl.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 25, 2004, 06:43:00 pm
I did not mean to disrespect Kenndy, but, expected one of the ignorant lefties to defend Hamilton.


Title: Re:Alexander Hamilton
Post by: JohnFKennedy on July 26, 2004, 06:12:27 am
I did not mean to disrespect Kenndy

And I did not take it as such. :).


Title: Re: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: 5fins on September 07, 2008, 06:33:55 pm

We as a people aspire to live up to Jeffersonian ideals but we live in a Hamilton world.


Title: Re: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 07, 2008, 06:46:25 pm
A good guy. Gets a far worse rap than he deserves.

And what does CARL have against bastards?


Title: Re: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: The Mikado on September 07, 2008, 07:26:46 pm
Like most of the Founders, mixed, leaning positive.  I give Washington a pretty uniform positive, and Aaron Burr a pretty uniform negative (shooting Hamilton is only one of the reasons I dislike Burr), but the other Founders all had ups and downs.  Hamilton (like Adams) correctly saw that the French Revolution's promise of "liberty" was a mere facade, and was a strong proponent of a more cohesive union, a goal I strongly support.  On the other hand, his views on class were simply scary, and he did have...certain very broad ambitions (as did, oddly enough, his archenemy Burr).


Title: Re: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Daniel Adams on September 07, 2008, 07:44:40 pm
He was a great man. Understood that the ideals of the French Revolution were not those of the American Revolution. Was an abolitionist but knew that compromises with Southerners had to me made, for slaves had a greater chance of being eventually freed if a national United States government was established. Sure, he failed to see that strong state governments are just as important, if not more so, than a strong federal government, but overall my opinion of him is positive.


Title: Re: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Torie on September 07, 2008, 08:22:57 pm
Next to Washington, Hamilton in the end I think was the most important founder I think. He was way ahead of time on understanding economics, and was critical in helping the fashion a nation out of bits and pieces.


Title: Re: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: 5fins on September 08, 2008, 01:28:59 pm

JFK once ponder how our young small nation had three of the greatest minds of the 18th century. He went on the name them Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton.

I believe Hamilton should be up with Adam Smith as one of the founders of modern economics thought. We are lucky he was never President because he believed corruption was the lubricant that made government work. He did spy for the British while he was in government but he did save our nation financially, while lining his pockets.

I could go with Washington adored him and that's good enough for me.


Title: Re: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: True Federalist on September 18, 2008, 09:52:01 pm

We as a people aspire to live up to Jeffersonian ideals but we live in a Hamilton world.

As did Jefferson.  Jefferson himself used Hamiltionian means to pursue his Jeffersonian ideals.  If Jefferson had not done so, there would have been no Louisiana Purchase (at least not without a Constitutional amendment) and no Embargo to name the two major actions of Jefferson.


Title: Re: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 14, 2008, 12:51:46 pm
I've got a mixed opinion of Hamilton.  He had his positives, and his negatives, like most of the Founders, actually.


Title: Re: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Psychic Octopus on December 14, 2008, 04:06:34 pm
He was also my favorite founding father. It's a shame he was killed, he had much more to do. It's also too bad he could never become president because he was born in St. Croix. Hamilton vs. Madison in 1808 would be great.  Hamilton would win also, and the War of 1812 would be avoided. probably.


Title: Re: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 14, 2008, 04:07:40 pm
He was also my favorite founding father. It's a shame he was killed, he had much more to do. It's also too bad he could never become president because he was born in St. Croix. Hamilton vs. Madison in 1808 would be great.  Hamilton would win also, and the War of 1812 would be avoided. probably.

But he was a citizen when the Constitution was adopted.  I think that meant he could've been President.


Title: Re: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Neinrein on December 18, 2008, 09:52:12 pm
I'm just curious what people think of him.

Horrible elitest. Believed that it was the job of the common man to sit back and docilely follow the instructions of the rich


Title: Re: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: WillK on December 18, 2008, 11:20:50 pm
... Hamilton vs. Madison in 1808 would be great.  Hamilton would win also ...

Would he really win?  I dont think he was that popular.


Title: Re: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 19, 2008, 01:46:56 am
Not in 1808, at any rate.


Title: Re: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Psychic Octopus on December 22, 2008, 09:41:04 pm
Except his elitist part, I disagree with that.


Title: Re: Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Dodger Blue on December 30, 2008, 01:43:22 pm
Not really positive, not really negative.