Talk:Alexander Hamilton/Archive 1

Alexander Hamilton removed from Good articles
This article was originally written to prove that Hamilton belongs on Mount Rushmore (see comments immediately after this), and it is still a panegyric. Only the Reynolds affair, of Hamilton's several scandals, is even mentioned. The article is also unverifiable, since where each claim is sourced is not mentioned.

Go to the bottom of the Talk:George Washington page and see the ranks for honored Americans. Does Hamilton have a rank anywhere from 20 to 60?? 66.245.115.51 00:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hamilton is America. He belongs more on Mount Rushmore than Roosevelt or Jefferson. People want to honor those who are excessively naive and can't accept a prophet.

Until Franklin Delano Roosevelt set Thomas Jefferson as pretty much the patron saint of the United States, Alexander Hamilton was considered as such. In fact his contributions to economics, especially the United States economy, affected the world eventually. Americans live in a Jeffersonian political system with a Hamilton economy. He might not have been one of the most honorable men, but he is extremely important, nonetheless.

Hamilton a spy?
"Inventing a Nation" by Gore Vidal repeatedly refers to Hamilton as "British Agent Number 7" and talks repeatedly about him passing significant information to the British during early Presidential administrations. I find the book hard to read and without citations, but a quick scan of the web finds me claims like "Hamilton's diaries were unearthed sometime in the last 20 years and show that he was a paid agent of the British while serving as the US Secretary of the Treasury." and "Hamilton gossiped freely with Beckwith and George Hammond, the first British minister to the United States." I'd like to know more, and either way the web hits suggest if this is false it would be good to mention to debunk.

This stuff is like the diaries of Adolf Hitler that made so much press but turned out to be forgeries. That is my opinion of Mr. Vidal's work based on my historic and political science background. Of course other's disagree, which is why I do not contest the inclusion or allusion to it here on the page at the moment. What can I say? Hamilton is not here to defend himself and has been under attack by the same forces who represented the same opinion at his time namely: free-trade and laizzee faire(sic) advocates who dominate economic opinion today. --Northmeister 20:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization question
I linked the words "Revenue Marine force" to the "Revenue Cutter Service" article. Should the word "force" be capitalized? --NoPetrol 00:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Faith-Based Encyclopedia
You're on the news: http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html -- Chris 73 Talk 05:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes and I added him as an explicit reference to that date. While some of his observations were correct, much of his analysis is misplaced.  He is however likely to know what he is talking about in this instance. - Taxman 14:20, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Being a former Editor in Chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica may have introduced a bit of bias in his selection and analysis as well. --mav 22:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * They're getting nervous about us. :) -- Decumanus 22:49, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
 * Hate to be glib but the only innacuracy he could nitpick over was a fact no-one knows anyway --Captainsubtext 16:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I dont think it matters how many perople know that fact, if we get it wrong, then it reflects badly on us, no matter how obscure a fact it is. tooto 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Err, the issue is that nobody knows what Hamilton's birth year is, so we weren't actually wrong... john k 07:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And why the hell is an article in a webzine critical of this very article cited here as a reference? A reference to what? The uncertainty about the year of his birth? That's mentioned on hundred of other sites, and is well-documented. No need to cite this one story. I'm removing it (again). -R. fiend 22:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The author of that article says "Hamilton himself used, and most contemporary biographers prefer, the latter year" [1757] in giving his date of birth. Don't you suppose Hamilton knew how old he was? Why don't we go with what Hamilton said it was, and refer to the other in a footnote? Jonathunder 00:38, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * It still is not clear. Having looked through several Hamilton biographies today it appears that most of the more recent ones had 1755 as the year of birth. According to one biographer he gave contradictory accounts of his age at various points in his life: "He himself, mentioning his age in several connections (each time approxiamtely), in effect assigned different years for his birth". He cites a few statements he made, putting his year of birth between 1754 and 1757, including: "...in a communication to the Christiansted newspaper, April 6, 1771, signed 'A.H.', he gave his age as 'about seventeen' (that is, born 1754)" (Mitchell, p.12-13). So it isn't clear, and I think the way we have it is the best for now. -R. fiend 01:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to the 1990s version of the encyclopedia Americana whiled Hamilton claimed to be born in 1757 most recent evidence suggests that he was born in 1755.--Gary123 8 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)

Removed sentence
I removed the following sentence: "General James Wilkinson had also approached Hamilton repeatedly with plans for filibuster expeditions along the Spanish frontier." If it's to be mentioned it needs some context. It was previously tacked on to the end of the section on Aaron Burr, and was a glaring non-sequitur. I encourage anyone to expand and re-insert it in an appropriate section. -R. fiend 17:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Birthyear question
There's some doubt as to Hamilton's birthyear (see Robert McHenry's review of Wikipedia). Someone beat me to noting it by a minute or so, but it would be useful if someone could include a new section in the main page noting the sources of the two years.

The text "While the day and month of Hamilton's birth are known, there is some uncertainty as to the year, whether it be 1755 or 1757. Hamilton himself used, and most contemporary biographers prefer, the latter year." in the article was a direct copy and paste from the article at http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html. Fixed now.

(Someone has reverted this change in wording, perhaps because it was overly verbose and not nearly as elegant as the sentence copied without permission from the critique article. The note still needs to be fixed, therefore.)

That same critique of Wikipedia points out this poor phrasing: "Arguably, he set the path for American economic and military greatness, though the benefits might be argued."
 * did wikipedia just get pwnd? &#9992; James C. 15:24, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)


 * I wrote the original note about the years in question, using my own phrasing and using a separate source. I guess someone thought a word-for-word copy from the critique article was better, for some reason. I reverted it to my wording, which has the advantage of not having to site the mentioned critical article, which seems a sort of asinine thing to link to. If someone wants to site the primary sources of the years in question then they should go ahead, but there is no point in siting another secondary source for general and widely-accpeted information such as this. -R. fiend 16:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * [Nitpicking: it's 'cite', not 'site'. mako 16:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)]


 * Quite right. I have to admit my proofreading of my own writing is more lax on talk pages. And it is a little confusing to cite a website. -R. fiend 17:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Currently, Mr. McHenry's article is being cited even though his article never actually uses the quoted passage as written between the quotation marks.
 * now that is fixed. If the source corraborates the data, it should be listed as a reference.  R. fiend, if you have another reference that supports that also, please cite it properly too, in the 'Reference' section, as is the accepted practice.  - Taxman 17:38, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * IMO McHenry's article is pointless to cite as a reference regarding the birth year discrepency. That article is only tangentially concerned with Hamilton and information about the discrepency in birth years in commonly available. If there is a better source that can be readily cited, that is fine, but IMO if we expect every little detail to be substantiated with a citation, then the list of citations will quickly overwhelm the article. older &ne; wiser 17:51, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Very true. It's ridiculous for an article like this to have only a single reference, and for that reference to be an article that basically says "wikipedia is crap". Of the hundreds of facts mentioned in this article, to list one source (let alone the hundreds that could substantiate the year problem) only for this one fact is dumb. If someone wants to cite a source for this, make it the original documents in question. -R. fiend 17:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It is not pointless. It verifies a contended fact explicitly. Until you have a better source properly formatted to verify the fact, please leave this one in.  Then please do go get the primary sources and properly format those.  McHenry is a relatively respected source, so his article being anti wikipedia is completely irrelevant.  You say you have another source for it, so add that.  A note without a citation to a primary or secondary source is nearly useless from the standpoint of verifying the material in wikipedia.  Having a well researched and properly cited project is an important goal.  Removing references doesn't help a bit.  Add or replace with better references, don't remove them. - Taxman 19:37, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Usually in situations like this, it's best to just put the more likely year of birth in the first paragraph, and add a footnote about the discrapancy. Either that, or articles would end up becoming something like, "Gracie Allen (born July 26 1895, 1897, 1902 or 1906 ...).--Fallout boy 03:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources and footnotes
It seems that there is a bit of confusion surrounding the use of footnotes. Let me just point out that footnotes serve two purposes: they can be used to cite sources, and they can be used for further explanation of a point when incorporating it into the main text would be disruptive. The latter is the use here.

Inserting a paragraph between the year of birth and year of death at the beginning of the article would be very disruptive, so an explanation is given at the bottom.

People have been very anxious to cite a source, any source, for this, but such mundane facts as years of birth and death (even when they are not known with 100% certainty) do not need to be cited; one can get this information almost anywhere, and to pick one as the source is pointless.


 * Since McHenry's article is getting fairly wide publicity it makes sense to neutralize his criticism showing that in addition to size and breadth, the wikkipedia also has the advantage in speed over EB and can match it in accuracy. Jjk 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * True, but we already did that without the citation. -R. fiend 03:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, an encyclopedia article does not attempt to argue a point, and has no thesis; it attempts to convey factual information that is widely accepted (contrarily, if we decided to choose one year as the "correct" year of his birth, we would need a citation). Hence sources are not needed for most general statements. If one wants to mention what sources were used in the writing of this article, then that is fine, but I fear it's a bit late. Unless the users who contributed the bulk of the information in this article want to list them now, there is little anyone else can do. To mention what source may have been used (e.g. the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica) is silly.


 * The citation is not showing what source "may" have been used. It is showing the source that was used. Jjk 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Not really. I was the first one to add the note on the birth years, and I verified it with a different source. I don't even remember which one; google had several. The McHenry article first drew my attention to the problem, I did not take his word alone for it. -R. fiend 03:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, really. I verified on Nov 17 2004 and deliberately cited the source, disinguishing between your actions and mine. Jjk 12:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * As the discussion here and McHenry's original article all deemed the lack of a citation to be problematic, and the citation of McHenry's article seemed to be also problematic I deliberately looked up Hamilton's birthdate in the 1911 Enc. Brit. in order to be able to cite a respected source for the information. Jjk 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(In fact, arbitrarily using the 1911 Britannica for the year dispute is wrong, as it states 1757 as the year of his birth.)


 * I'm sorry. I'm not getting the point of this last statement, could you explain why the 1757 date should not be used or whatever it is that you are proposing is wrong with it? I fear I must be missing something obvious. Thanks. (1757 is the date most widely accepted by historians (McHenry) and this citation provides a credible source for that number.) Jjk 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * My point was that a previous editor used the EB as a source confirming that the year of his birth was uncertain, when, in fact, it says quite the oppsoite, and gives a year without any mention of uncertainy surrounding it. The alteration of the note (which I think may have been your addition) was better, in that it was used only as a source for the 1757 assertion. Still, as R points out below, using a dated EB as a source when many in depth biographies are mentioned just below does seem a bit silly. -R. fiend 03:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I cited 1911 EB as source for 1757. The Biographies are only mentioned and not cited. Please cite one of them if you prefer.  I don't have a preference for which reference is cited as long as we cite something. Unfortunately, until somebody goes and looks it up, (Sincerely, Thank you for offerring to do that below, by the way), we don't if any of the biographies deal with the uncertainty.  (They may have all done as McHenry says and taken 1757 as the historically accepted date. :-) ) Jjk 12:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why there is this strong compulsion to cite this one single fact out of the hundreds of facts in this article is beyond me. I notice no one is adding a source that verifies the year of his death. -R. fiend 20:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Because of the wide publicity that particular fact and this article are getting right now it needs to be addressed to reduce any damage from McHenry's criticism. I thought it was also Wikipedia policy, Cite sources Jjk 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * All facts in the article need to be cited if we want to be the most credible possible.


 * I agree, but as you note, this is problematic in the post creation phase. Jjk


 * This is one particular fact that is in dispute across sources, and is specifically called into question by a recent article, so it is valuable to cite. Again, removing the citation to a valid source adds no value to wikipedia, adding it is better than none. Primary sources would be the best, but again, something valid is better than nothing.  I agree the 1911 Brittanica is not the best reference for the date dispute since it doesn't even reference the dispute. Please put back the properly formatted McHenry citation until primary or better sources are found.  Or do you not have the better source you claimed you had, R. fiend? - Taxman 22:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * All facts do not need to be cited. Citing "Alexander Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury" is not the sort of fact that anyone should need to cite. Picking one arbitrary source to mention that is inane. The footnote for such a fact might as well read "1. Every single person on the planet who knows anything about the guy", because, let's face it, it's true. We have tens of thousands of articles on people, and we mention the dates of their births (or approximate dates when the exact date is unknown) without citing sources in every single one of them (maybe there are a handfull of exceptions, I don't know). Are those pages all flawed? I have in my hands the 1957 EB, and about the only times it directly cites a specific source is for direct quotations (which do need citations), although it does have a pretty comprehensive bibliography. So I'll tell you what I'll do. Tomorrow, if I have time, I'll go down to the library and find one of those biographies of Hamilton and I'll bet it will tell exactly what the documents are that give the different dates in question. I'll mention those documents in the footnote, and we'll have a valid and useful citation, as opposed to an arbitrary one that doesn't really explain anything. If someone can beat me to this, that's fine. -R. fiend 03:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This is an excellent idea. Please do. I support this completely. Jjk 12:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this article and the reference to EB felt silly, considering that it appeared right above a long list of biographies which, I presume, all detail the problem with his year of birth. In case none of them cite it, I apologise and kindly ask you to revert me. _R_ 02:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Lets leave that citation intact to neutralize the effect of McHenry's criticism until R. fiend gets the better citation installed. We don't know what any of those biographies contain and without any citation at all, all the readers visiting the page because of McHenry's widely publicized criticism will have no reason to disagree with him. This way it is partially neutralized until R. Fiend van put better info in place.  Thanks. Jjk 12:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have now fixed the footnote, so it explains why there is descrepency and gives two biographies that each address the question pretty thoroughly, but conclude different years as being the proper one. I hope the matter is settled now. -R. fiend 20:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, excellent work. I take it those two sources at least you have in front of you? For proper form any articles that have been actually used as references for the material in the article should go into a references section and those that haven't should go in something like a further reading section.  So I've created the references section. The 'Biographies' section is a bit misleading because those could either have been used in the article or not.  If you have them to refer to or they have in fact been used for material for this article please put them in the references section. And yes, ideally all other important or disputable facts in the article should be similarly cited. See WikiProject Fact and Reference Check for more, and also Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards for a possibly redundant project focusing on making Wikipedia more credible. - Taxman 21:15, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Reverting
Hi all, please read How to revert a page to an earlier version. Reverting is meant only for dealing with vandalism. Not for edits you don't agree with or for those that don't make an article clearly worse. Anything but obvious vandalism or clear worsening of an article should be discussed on the talk page before reverting. - Taxman 17:15, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I think you are misrepresenting How to revert a page to an earlier version. It states that You may wish to revert an article to an earlier version, perhaps because it has been vandalised or material has been added or removed inappropriately. I'd say that pretty accurately describes the disagreement over this article. I see no clear consensus here as to what is appropriate in way of citation. Certainly, persistent reversions are a bad thing, but that really has not been much of a problem in this case. Discussion is taking place here and without any clear consensus there is nothing that should preclude anyone from making a good faith edit to the article, so long as it doesn't devolve into an edit war. While you may see the inclusion of a particular citation as appropriate and beneficial, someone else may not share your opinion and feel that it is an inappropriate addition that clearly makes the article worse. So far as I can tell, NO ONE has used the rollback function, which is clearly a tool intended for fighting vandalism, but editing an article to add or remove disputed content is justifiable where there is no clear consensus. older &ne; wiser 18:04, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. For one thing you're ignoring much of the advice in the article "Note that reverts are not appropriate if a newer version is no better than the older version. You should save reverts for cases where the new version is actively worse." Yes the page is not entirely consistent, but are you seriously claiming a properly cited reference makes an article "actively worse"?  And yes it was reverted two times without discussion on the talk page.  I had left a message on the talk page noting the citation as soon as I added it. It was reverted without comment on the talk page. That is not a good faith edit. - Taxman 20:31, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, R. fiend has made all this moot (thanks). But what you describe as a "properly cited reference" is IMO anything but that. The McHenry piece was laughable as a serious reference and the 1911 EB really did adequately not address the discrepancy in birth dates. so yes, I very honestly think that addition of either of those citations made the page "actively worse". It was reverted two times!!!! OMG such an outrage! Among the worst edit wars ever seen. (Actually I think it was reverted more than twice, but with many intervening edits.) Give me a break. This never got anywhere near being a serious edit war. And there has been rather civil discussion on the talk page througout. I have not seen any recent edits to this article (aside from some obvious vandalism) that would qualify as not being good faith editing. older &ne; wiser 21:01, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Relax, I'm not claiming the worst edit war ever. Simply that reverting a non problematic edit multiple times is bad etiquette and not productive.  Not being a serious edit war doesn't mean it was a needed revert. If it was put in multiple times by different editors it is not likely to be that bad an edit.  Besides, the guy was former editor of EB, a generally respected source.  He is likely to have a good idea what he is talking about, and as it turns out he was correct.  And yes, it is now moot as to the issue of this specific citation, but not for the issue of unneccessary reverts.  Again, I mentioned the citation on the talk page as a made it.  Reverting without comment there is the bigger issue of poor wikiquette.  I'm really no longer arguing this specific citation, but just trying to help everyone reallize the policy around reverts so we can be more productive, not waste time reverting. - Taxman 21:27, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, but it was the citation was also removed by multiple editors, so it was not unproblematic. There was discussion on the talk page throughout this episode as far as I can tell. And if you are referring specifically to my reversion of your edit without my making a`specific comment on the talk page first, well I apologize, but I actually don't feel all that guilty about it. I had been monitoring the discussion here and felt that the re-addition of the citation was not warranted based on the discussion at that time (even though to that point I had not actively participated). I did not feel it was necessary for me to jump in with a "me too" when the substantive points had already been expressed. You yourself said you had re-added the citation without first checking the discussion .  I agree that it is always helpful to keep wikiquette in mind while editing, but I don't see that anything that transpired here came close to improper wikiquette. When substantive positions have already been expressed on the talk page, it is quite common to encapsulate the discussion in the edit summaries. older &ne; wiser 22:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

self-reference and non-reference
I removed this which violates Avoid self-references and the McHenry source, which is not a reference without the inappropriate self-reference. older ≠ wiser 17:14, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC) Someone mentioned Hamilton not honorable. Hamilton may have be the most honorable in a time when scandalmongering was the rule. If you consider his roll in the hay with a deceitful and manipulative woman as proof of his dishonor then perhaps men like Jefferson, Madison and Monroe should have partaken if only to gain some valuable and breathtaking understanding that Hamilton had for the development of his adopted country..

Proper form for the references
R. fiend, if you still have the sources in front of you can you add the publisher, date, and location information to the references? They look a little anemic at the moment. Thanks - Taxman 17:53, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * They do, but sorry, I used a university library that I could not sign the books out of, so I photocopied the relevent pages, and unfortunately I didn't consider the title pages. I actually expected they'd be included in the biographies section, and was surprised to find they weren't. I'd think that information must be available on the internet somewhere. If not, next time I'm down that way I'll see if I can find the information, but I don't think I'll make another special trip. If I still have the photocopies, which I think I do, I can be specific about the pages at least. -R. fiend 18:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you can find them online, at the publisher's site or amazon perhaps. I looked at one time, but I did not know which version/year you used.  If you're not positive either, a trip to check the book again would be ideal. - Taxman 18:53, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm going away for the holidays and am not going to get to that library before the new year. If you have the info on the books you might as well include it, regardless of the edition. I'm sure all editions include the facts I cited; they don't differ that much. -R. fiend 21:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Is the university library catalog online? If so all of this (except ISBN) should be there. JCScaliger 17:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

New photo?
I am new to Wikipedia, and I hope not to bring any wrath upon myself, but I would like to suggest that the portrait of Hamilton be replaced. I think John Trumbull's c.1806 is much more flattering, though I admit I know nothing of the comparative accuracy of the two.

The Reynolds Affair
Alexander Hamilton wrote the confession of his own accord. He gave a copy to each James Monroe, Abraham Venable, and Frederick Muhlenberg. Hamilton believed that Monroe was ultimately responsible for leaking the information to the press and never forgave him.

Arguing before Congress
While Hamilton did write up reports, did he really argue them personally before Congress? I have heard Chief Justice William Rehnquist say on C-SPAN that Hamilton was not allowed to argue before Congress, and that this set a precedent that made the American government system significantly different in style from the British system, where cabinet members make speeches before the legislature (e.g., some time ago, then National Security advisor Condolezza Rice nearly refused to testify when called before a Congressional subcommittee inquiry into the September 11th attacks). Also, I've read in the biography by John C. Miller "Portait In Paradox" that at least in the case of his Report on the Public Credit that Hamilton was not allowed to argue his report -- the report was read to Congress instead. The book also says that this established a precedent for future American governments.

I do not know if Hamilton --never-- argued personally before Congress, but perhaps the part that mentions his personal presence on this page could be removed -- it should be sufficient just to say that his reports were magnificent and had tremendous influence, and avoid the question of his personal presence.

Both Hamilton and Jefferson influenced Congress indirectly. Washington let his cabinet do this as a rule and did not originally call them together as a Group. Incidently, it was Madison who coined the phrase "Cabinet". --Northmeister 00:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton on Currency
This topic has been severely redacted non-neutral editors. There is a current debate over whether Hamilton should be removed from currency for his Federalist beliefs. There is a high profile movement that is attempting to replace Hamilton with Reagan.

As a side note to this issue overall: Though I admire Reagan for his: patriotism, saving Chrysler-Craftsman-Harley/Davdison etc, having the courage to go against free-trade zealot's in his administration-placing quotas on Japanese cars etc., and for helping us to win the Cold War including proposing the still needed SDI; he does not compare to Hamilton who was instrumental in getting the Constitution passed in New York, was a member of the Constitutional Convention, had served with distinction in the Revolution and helped establish the American System philosophy that built this country into the Arsenal of Democracy capable of defeating the Central Powers in WWI and the Imperial Japanese, Fascist Italy, and Nazis Germany in WWII. Thank God we listened to him and the voices of men like Clay, Lincoln, McKinley and so on to become an great Industrial power with the highest standard of living by 1900 of anywhere in the world. Hamilton belongs on Mount Rushmore in my opinion for the work he did to make America the great Middle Class country it became and that is now under attack by the same forces or advocates that opposed him way back when. --Northmeister 20:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Include content from 1911 EB and Making of America?
It seems to me poor Hamilton's article is being redacted to a stub, often for modern political reasons. There is so much public domain material available on his life that it is a shame to see the state of this now. Is anyone else in favor of incorporating public domain material to flesh this article out?

I suppose I am making of mess of it as I hesitate to remove the content of others. Maybe we need a Federal system here with checks and balances to reign in the anarchy.

I do think Hamilton's role as chief advisor to Washington during the Revolutionary War should be mentioned since this had a huge effect on the War. Also, Hamilton's command of French made him a chief liason to the French, who in the Revolutionary War were America's chief ally. Really important things are missing.


 * Yes, it doesn't mention his revealing cabinet secrets to a hostile ambassador before Jay's trip to England either. Samuel Flagg Bemis:Jay's Treaty was published in 1923, so I think he falls just into the modern copyright limit, but it can be summarized. Septentrionalis 18:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nor Hamilton's conduct in the election of 1800, in which he attempted dirty tricks against both candidates. Septentrionalis 21:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Redundancy?
Is it just me or does this article restate many of its points almost to a cut and copy effect? For example, "Later he secured a field command, through Washington, and won laurels at Yorktown, where he led the American column in the final assault on the British works. In 1780 he married Elizabeth, daughter of General Philip Schuyler, and thus became allied with one of the most distinguished families in New York." and further down the page "Leaving Washington's staff, Hamilton took command of an infantry regiment that participated in the siege of Yorktown, and led the assault that captured Redoubt #10. After the war he served as a member of the Continental Congress (from 1782 to 1783), and then retired to open his own law office in New York City. He married Elizabeth Schuyler (known as Eliza), heiress of a wealthy and influential New York family, on December 14, 1780"

George Washington's son?
Wasn't there a rumour going around during Hamilton's lifetime, that he (Hamilton) was a (bastard) son of Washington's? Mightberight/wrong 13:18 (AST), 30 October 2005. No, this is wrong. Washington did however, consider him a surrogate son. Washington came to trust Hamilton more than any other man, siding with him over Jefferson and Madison more than not in the early years of the Republic. Washington even came to rely upon Hamilton to handle his correspondance and the drafting of his Farewell Address upon the end of his 8 year term as President.

That is dishonorable to the Father of our Country and the Father of American economics to call him a bastard child of Washington without evidence. I've heard of no such rumor. Washington was fond of Hamilton and considered him like a son. Hamilton was Aide'de'Camp(sorry on Spelling my weak point) to Washington and grew to know each other during the Revolution or War for American Indepedence. --Northmeister 00:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hamilton was a bastard, and we don't know who is father was. Our job is not to "show respect" by omitting negative information. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If we have sufficiently notable sources for the existence of a rumor then we might want to include it. -Will Beback 19:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton wasn't a 'bastard' as you say. His father was James Hamilton and mother Rachel F. Lavien. If you don't know standard history you shouldn't be editing historical pages like this and the American System page. --Northmeister 00:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Alexander Hamilton, 1755–1804, American statesman, b. Nevis, in the West Indies was the illegitimate son of James Hamilton (of a prominent Scottish family) and Rachel Faucett Lavien (daughter of a doctor-planter on Nevis and the estranged wife of a merchant). Orphaned and impoverished at around the age of 12, the brilliant, ambitious youth went to the North American colonies late in 1772 and studied (1773–74) at King's College (now Columbia). In the troubled times leading to the American Revolution, he wrote articles and pamphlets espousing the colonial cause so well that the works were popularly attributed to John Jay." --Northmeister 00:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What is your definition of "bastard"? Here is what one dictionary says:
 * bas·tard (băs'tərd) n. A child born out of wedlock.
 * "Illegitimate" and "bastard" are synonyms. -Will Beback 23:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Point made. I stand corrected. Modern English has made a perjoritive out of that word. In any case he wasn't Washington's son. --Northmeister 04:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you were there, then I'd take your word for it. Minus an eyewitness, we have to depend on sources. -Will Beback 05:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Impossible. Washington was infertile. Equinox137 (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

vandalism
is it just me, or is this page rather highly vandalized?--Alhutch 20:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree and have added it to Most_vandalized_pages. --Aude 21:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to think that vandalism on Wikipedia is correlated to junior high school syllabuses. -Willmcw 23:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I definitely would not dispute that.--Alhutch 23:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

avoid POV about 21st century conservatism
This article is about Hamilton and his 1790s conservative policies. It is not about what policies some conservatives may want to follow today, and the latter POV does not belong. Bush, by the way, also seems to favor a very strong national economic policy & and national defense in a Hamiltonian way, so to say that ALL conservatives reject Hamiltonian strong national govt in 2005 is simply false. Rjensen 06:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure of the discussion but as per Bush, not true. Bush is a Free Trader, Hamilton was for the tariff and a protectionist. If you read the report on manufactures its program called for government intervention in the economy to stimulate manufacturing, Bush's system rooted in the policies of free trade and hands' off to business has lead to a situation of decline in manufacturing where our workers cannot compete with low wage China for example. On National Defense, your right. But then again, Hamilton wouldn't lie to the American people to start a war. --Northmeister 00:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of all quotes
An editor removed the Quote section from the article, saying they were not Wiki referenced. Fair enough. It would be nice, however,if someone with access to the facts could look up the quotes and properly reference/footnote them (and maybe add more if more are found that portray Hamilton's thinking). The removed quotes follow. Thanks Hmains 01:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

x=Quotations=x

"If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last.... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government." [Alexander Hamilton, Essay in the American Daily Advertiser, August 28, 1794]

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." 1787 after the Constitutional Convention

"We forgot." - upon being asked why there was no mention of God in the Constitution.

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."


 * Quotations should be put on Wikiquote, not in the article. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Jay's Treaty Edits
The edition to this page about the Jay Treaty and Hamilton's warning the British about what the American delegations were going to do, smacks of a smear towards Hamilton, relating to a British diplomats personal diary without any other credible evidence to back it up from other sources, including inclusion in most biographies of Hamilton. That said, the edit did contain a reference (although I haven't read this author as yet), so MY BAD in taking it out. --Northmeister 16:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Bemis's source is Hammond's official correspondence with the British Government.
 * Bemis's book is still the standard work on Jay's Treaty, which is why I cite him rather than the more recent historians, who also cite him.
 * I knew the Hamilton hagiography industry had produced some dishonest (and execrably written) books, but I didn't realize it was that bad. Septentrionalis 04:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There are scholars that dispute this, but I will not contend this, as you have clearly cited your source. Good work at cites, even if I disagree with the factualness of Bemis premise and the origin of the correspondence and its intention. --Northmeister 04:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Category
Having a category for being shot by a vice president is useless categorization, I removed it. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, but the appropriate place to voice that is on the CFD vote of the category. If the category is kept, it should be comprehensive. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that decisions about what categories should appear on this article can be made quite adequately on this article's talk page. CFD is only about whether the category should be kept. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you deny that Hamilton was shot by standing VP Burr? Septentrionalis 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But thanks for discussing it. Septentrionalis 19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course not. But I'm also not suggesting that the article deny that fact. The information this category conveys is better provided by adding a link to Whittington in the prose of this article, if it's mentioned at all (when in reality the totally trivial connection between them is probably not worth mention in the context of a 32-kb article about Hamilton). Christopher Parham (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiments of Christopher Parham; the category has no place in Wikipedia (although it is pretty funny). However if there must be a category as such, it should be included in this article. I suggest we wait for the MfD is complete before removing it, and take specific discussion of validity of the category to the MfD page. --Hansnesse 21:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Link to deletion page Wikipedia:Categories for deletion --Hansnesse 21:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't really see why that's the case. Whether we have the category, and whether this article is included in the category, are two separate questions. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I am not sure what your arguement is then for removing it, if it is not a general concern that the category is useless (from your first note at the top of this page, an assessment which I agree by the way). To me, if the category is there by consensus (which will be determined soon), then is clearly should be linked to from this article.  Simply because the Hamilton meets the definition of the category, he should be included.  --Hansnesse 23:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The category shouldn't be on this article because it is useless. The result of the CFD discussion won't change the fact that it's useless, and even if the category is kept it doesn't prevent me from editing this page to remove a useless category. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the argument that I posted in the Cfd for my weak keep vote: this is something that a researcher might want to know someday (or even right now). It IS interesting to know the company that Mr. Whittington is in. While there are other ways for researchers to find such information, it's nice to have it in simple category format. Furthermore, removing this article from the category now, with an ongoing Cfd vote, could prejudice the vote, as Mr. Whittington would be the only member of the category otherwise. If the category is kept, it would appropriate to discuss whether to remove Hamilton from it then, but not with an ongoing Cfd vote. I am replacing the category for now. - Jersyko · talk  23:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If the intention is to link Hamilton to the single other article in the category, we might as well put in a link directly to Whittington -- save the user clicks in getting there. And CFD can look after itself; arguments that we need to tailor our encyclopedia editing in order to protect the quality of our deletion vote are likely to fall on deaf ears, at least in my case. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see someone else has removed the category from this page. This is a silly thing to edit war over, so I will not revert the change.  I do find it peculiar, however, that some feel that this category is so damaging to this article that it can't simply stay until the Cfd debate is over.  How is it damaging the article so badly that possible prejudice to the Cfd vote can be dismissed out of hand?  It looks like it will be deleted anyway (though perhaps there are enough keep votes for a "no consensus" conclusion), so this whole discussion might be moot. -  Jersyko &middot;talk 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Many users find a link by cat easier and more intuitive than a link at the bottom under See also; many feel the reverse. Cats are largely designed for the first reader, who should not be ignored. Jersyko, I'm not sure this form of mild vandalism should be ignored. Septentrionalis 03:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Just letting people know I have closed out the CFD with no consensous. I personally wanted the category gone, but the numbers simply were not there. Sorry folks. Whether this article stays in or out of the category is now up to you folks here on this article. OTOH, I would not be surprised to see the category up for CFD again before too long. Contentious categories that reach no consensous have a way of coming up again and again. - TexasAndroid 14:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been improperly speedied by MarkSweep, which has the advantage that the common property can be expressed in a less ungainly form. Would there be objection to, which would specify that it does not include shootings in the line of duty? Septentrionalis 02:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would object to such a category. And not just because it makes it sound like the officials may have been acting in, well, official capacity, or at least that's an invited inference. It simply makes no sense to have a category for "shot" or "shooter", since the parties may have been consenting participants in a duel, victims or perpetrators of murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, assault, etc. This is just not a natural category. Its boundaries are ill-defined and we will see constant debates about category membership. Not worth it for something that's of little encyclopedic value. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So waht is the opinion of those who actually edit the article? Septentrionalis 04:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My argument for keeping the category (I voted weak keep in the recent Cfd) is posted a few paragraphs up. Wasn't the result of the Cfd vote "no consensus"???  Why was it speedied, with the only speedy criterion cited being WP:SNOW (which isn't even a policy, much less a speedy criterion)? -  Jersyko &middot;talk 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Source needed
Source needed for sentence "Eliza's sister..." added by anonymous user for clarity of that sentence to put it into context. --Northmeister 19:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to Chernow, pg. 133 - what is the exact quote you are using in context? The sentence as it is set is not only non-notable for inclusion but out of context for the way it is presented.  Exact quote?  Just to add, the main point I am making is that whether Hamilton fell for Eliza's sister or not is non-notable for this article and should not be there as it is misleading. --Northmeister 20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me see; you have a page citation from a source which is outrageously biased towards Hamilton, and is testifying against that bias. You reject the claim so sourced. This passes beyond the defensible. Septentrionalis 18:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What? Don't put dispute tags on sourced material well established to make a point. I am reasonable, show me how the quote about the sister matters or is notable and I will listen to your argument? --Northmeister 18:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A reference to "Batra and Lind", with no title or page number, and otherwise unidenrified, is not a source. Using a single (and, if it  supports the text, polemical) source on an extensive and controversial topic is unbalanced. Including 21-century economic arguments in this article is deprecated; and reverting my first edit, identifying Hammond properly, was careless and irresponsible. Septentrionalis 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to clean up the argument regarding his legacy. The previous text wildly exaggerated his influence. Rjensen 22:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of well sourced material from several authors
Pmanderson, you've once again removed material without warrant, that was sourced well. STOP! --Northmeister 22:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On this matter, I agree with Rjensen, as follows. Septentrionalis 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Michael Lind is a source but not a very solid one. He's a popular writer--not a scholar or historian--and his ideas have not been widely accepted by scholars. This is an encyclopedia that is based on consensus scholarship. Lind is mostly interested in "Hamiltonianism" that is, ideas of OTHER people that were somewhat similar to Hamilton--but not actually Hamilton's. That is interesting material but does not belong in a biography.Rjensen 22:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Lind is published credible source. Not widely accepted by scholars, on Hamilton? How so? Lind, is speaking of those who took up Hamilton's ideas. The section in the biography speaks of Hamilton's influence on the United States economy. Lind is not the only author who has spoken of this influence. Are you denying Hamilton's influence?  By not mentioning this, or deleting it, you are basically saying he had no influence. Further, if you feel I am to POV, then let me know where, and offer improvements to my text, not wholesale deletion. YOu know I am willing to work to improve any POV I've let creep into my edits. Work with me. --Northmeister 23:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Lind is NOT well-sourced. He's a popular polemical writer, not a historical scholar. His ideas are offbeat and exaggerated and not part of the consensus. Please read some serious books before editing the history of ideas. (Lind has books out on Vietnam, Bush (a nasty attack), Lincoln, the Alamo, the living wage, and predictions for the future. Wiki has to do better--start with the bibliography. For history of economic ideas, Dorfman's 5 volumes explain Hamilton's influence in great detail. Lind never even read it. Rjensen 23:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be condescending. You should start with actual history. Lind, is a credible source - by wiki standards. --Northmeister 23:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wiki has higher standards. The point is that other historians do not buy his off-beat ideas--which rely on sweeping generalizations that he made up himself, and there is no reason for Wiki to promote them when there are so many good scholars out there. Rjensen 23:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've read his "Hamilton's Republic" and I didn't find it either off-beat, but rather well sourced, accurate, and containing passages from the actual authors themselves. You are skirting the issue about Hamilton. What I wrote is accurate, not only by Lind (I admit I rushed the sourcing, but if you want more I will surely provide it) but by others. You are essentially in whole-sale denial of Hamilton's importance to American economic history. I may have written to POV, that I admit, if you think so, and I approve of any efforts to improve my editing or to challenge what I put in. They way it was done with complete deletion was un-called for.  I am not doing anything more today, but I will not let this go. If it is sources you wish, you'll get them, even though if your familar with US history and economics at all, you should know better than to challenge this influence. So be it. --Northmeister 23:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. - I do like how you moved the material, and some of the edits you made - however. :) --Northmeister 23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What was Hamilton's influence. That's an interesting question but Lind is not the patient scholar who can tell us. His "book" consists of excerpts from politicians with a running commentary and little or no regard for the large scholarly literature. Lind could care less about scholarship--he writes polemics full of exaggerations. What was H's influence on Clay and Calhoun? Lind gets Clay wrong and misses Calhoun. Lind misses Gallatin and the debate over the Bank in 1816. He misses Hammond's great book on banks and politics. What was H's influence on Hamilton and the Civil War era? Lind invents an influence where it did not exist. He does that by talking about Hamilton-like ("Hamiltonian") ideas that in fact did not represent an influence by Hamilton himself. Lind picks up (from Huntington) the point that AH was influential on Croly, Roosevelt and Lodge, but misreads the Progressives policy. For example Lind misses Hamilton's influence on banking history, and wants instead to talk about tariffs, a much less important issue in economic history. All in all, he does a mediocre/poor job. Rjensen 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with some your commentary above. Though, you are right Lind speaks of the Hamiltonian influence based on Hamilton's economic philosophy. To completely discredit Lind, is wrong in my opinion and is based on your POV on economic history. Your statement about tariffs is absolutely misleading and wrong per economic history, especially of the USA.  What we are speaking of is Hamilton's influence per banking, per tariff's, per subsidies etc. The three Reports of Hamilton had a major impact US economic thinking - more so than Smith's Wealth of Nations. To deny Hamilton's place in the economic history of the USA is intellectual madness. --Northmeister 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bias and suppression
The top of this page shows that this article was rejected as a Featured Article candidate, by Peer Review, and as a Good Article. The reasons are largely the same: this is a piece of advocacy of Hamilton. (It is also riddled with non-consensus and off-topic claims about twentieth and twenty-first century economics, but that is a separate problem.)

One of the things that prevents the improvement of this article is the systematic reversion of any and all material critical of Hamilton. It is not the business of Wikipedia to make nominations for Mount Rushmore. A list of these efforts, past, present, and to come, should be kept here.

Angelica Church is not the most serious of these; but that makes the situation even more serious. Septentrionalis 14:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Suppressions

 * Hamilton grew extremely close to Eliza's sister Angelica Church, who was married to a Member of Parliament.
 * Removed as unsourced, despite clear indication of source on this talkpage. (Chernow's biography, p. 133)
 * Identification of George Hammond as British Minister to the United States (and so a diplomatic representative of a hostile power); not a minister of religion.
 * Mention of the decision to keep the information Hamilton gave to Hammond secret; revealing it to the British weakened Jay's hand even further, and it is this aspect which (rightly) shocked Bemis.

What is to be done?
If this continues, I will raise the question of whether this unencyclopedic article is in fact any improvement over starting over. Septentrionalis 14:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Suppression of the full discussion of Negro equality in his letter to Jay about Laurens' project. 16:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

James Madison
Can you please provide references concerning Alexander Hamilton being persecuted by James Madison? James Madison was a Federalist. He was a proponent of strong federal govenment. Please don't confuse this whole issue with unsupported assertions. Thanks. Katy
 * Madison was a close ally of Hamilton in 1787-88, but they broke and became political enemies in early 1790s. The story is covered by all bios and Sheehan, Colleen. "Madison V. Hamilton: The Battle Over Republicanism And The Role Of Public Opinion" American Political Science Review 2004 98(3): 405-424. Rjensen 10:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have read many biographies on Hamilton and I would absolutely not classify Hamilton as being Persecuted by James Madison. James Madison was the leader, along with Thomas Jefferson, of the opposition party to the Federalist. Madison was also the leading partner in the writing of the Federalist papers; however, he eventually came to be the leader of the Republican party(Not the same as the modern Republican party founded in the 1850s). Madison and Jefferson, and other adherents to the Republican thinking, did not act as a formal party as we now understand them to be. However, they were undeniably opposed to the Federalist, of which Alexander Hamilton was the unofficial leader.

Deletion
This paragraph is unacceptable; leave such rhetoric to Chernow's turgid hagiography:


 * ''He also, Chernow argues, came by his lifelong hatred of slavery there. His Caribbean homeland kept an enormous slave population down by iron laws and exemplary acts of terror. Hamilton knew slavery close up. That knowledge, not materialism, underlay his later barely-veiled contempt for the supposedly idealistic agrarian theories of the Jeffersonians. Hamilton knew their ideal society was built on the very real backs of black slaves. He rightly saw modernity and capitalism dooming that system.

Regards. Septentrionalis 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * why is it unacceptable? It speaks directly and accurately to a major issue, citing a leading scholar. Something like it has to go back in. Rjensen 21:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Leading scholar?? Chernow?? Have you looked at his notes? He doesn't rely on primary sources . (despite his publisher's puffing), nor on secondary sources, but on partisan popularizations. Something on Hamilton's views on slavery should certainly be included; but it should be specific, and rely on actual citations from Hamilton's writings. This conjecture is not it; this is piffle; and "supposedly idealistic" is partisanship. Septentrionalis 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Whitewash!
I have already discussed this in the sections immediately preceeding; but perhaps I should be more explicit. The following paragraph is one of the few genuinely sourced sections in the article, and it represents the statements of Samuel Flagg Bemis, a Republican supporter of Hamilton, and a real historian, as accurately as I can in a few words. It was repeatedly deleted without discussion by an editor of whom I had previously had a favorable opinion.


 * ''before John Jay was sent to England to negotiate Jay's Treaty, President Washington discussed with his cabinet whether it would be useful to join the Armed Neutrality against England if the United States could not get reasonable terms. They decided it was not; but to keep this secret. Hamilton revealed this information to George Hammond, the British Minister to the United States. (Jay in fact bluffed in London, threatening to join the Neutrality if the United States' terms were not met, but as the British knew he was bluffing, this tactic failed.).

Although every element of this is from Bemis, and repeated by later historians, I am not inflexible about the phrasing; if the deletion had been brought here and discussed, as a serious editor would have done, that would have been simple.

The following recent sentence also strikes me as simply bizarre;if it is intended to suggest the Federalists only struck back, it is false:

Hamilton vehemently denied these charges; he made sure the Federalist newspapers were equally nasty in their attacks on the Jeffersonians.

Fenno was publishing, and publishing bile, before there were any Jeffersonian newspapers. .

This article has always been a panegyric and a whitewash; it failed FAC, PR, and GA for that reason. If it is to be kept so, the least Wikipedia can do is admit it. These pervasive omissions, and assorted errors, should also be noted.

However, I would rather clean up the article than mark it as one of the several examples where Wikipedia has failed to write decent political articles. Septentrionalis 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

slavery
The following sentence appears to be unsupported, and incredible:
 * (From the discussion of the Constitutional Convention):  Finally, Hamilton strongly advocated the abolition of slavery

Mitchell's discussion of Hamilton, slavery, and the Convention consists of a half-sentence (and index entry) suggesting Hamilton's support for the 1808 compromise that postponed the discussion of the slave trade for twenty years. This was probably statesmanship; any discussion of abolition at the Convention, on the other hand, might have destroyed it. But it does not support the sentence now in the aricle. Septentrionalis 20:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hamilton was a longtime opponent of slavery. Elkins & McKitrick (p 99) write that during the revolution Hamilton and his South Carolinian friend and fellow-aide, John Laurens, both of whom detested slavery, devised a scheme for enrolling South Carolina slaves in the army, and in urging it upon John Jay, thePresident of Congress. Hamilton wrote: "An essential part of the plan is to give them their freedomwith their muskets. This will secure their fidelity, animate their courage,and I believe will have a good influence upon those who remain, by opening a door totheir emancipation." The South Carolina legislature, as mighthave been expected, would not hear of it.

Biographer Forrest McDonald [p. 34] says:
 * In one crucial respect, however, his attitude never changed: he always championed liberty and abhorred slavery. Much of what he said about slavery at first was patriotic hyperbole, but beneath the talk about evil ministerial designs lay an intense hostility toward slavery in the more conventional sense. In support of Laurens's plan to recruit several battalions from the slave population in South Carolina, Hamilton wrote a strong letter to Jay, then president of the Continental Congress. Renouncing the bigotry that prevailed in regard to blacks, which "makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason nor experience," he argued the egalitarian position that "their natural faculties are probably as good as ours" and the culturally deterministic position that their intellectual shortcomings stemmed only from a "want of cultivation." It was an essential part of Laurens's scheme, he said, "to give them their freedom with their muskets. This will secure their fidelity, animate their courage, and I believe will have a good influence upon those who remain, by opening a door to their emancipation." Thus from "dictates of humanity and true policy equally," Hamilton was an abolitionist, and on that subject he never wavered. Rjensen 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And Laurens' reasons for doing this are perfectly clear: to secure an army for South Carolina (and a command for himself, but that is a laudable ambition). Freeing the slaves you arm gives them an incentive ro fight on your side; and is invariable in the classical instances, with which both men were familiar. To call this evidence of abolitionism is to call Sextus Pompeius an abolitionist. Septentrionalis 23:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, we are talking about Hamilton here. And we have solid statements by leading scholars. Rjensen 23:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And Hamilton's reasons for supporting his friend are equally clear; and equally laudable. Septentrionalis 00:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As one recent historian notes:
 * "The Manumission Society was a a "real working organization" it circulated petitions, awarded prizes for tracts which it printed and distributed, sponsored lectures and orations, and, most important of all, exposed violations of the laws against the slave trade by placing watchers to report purchases and to spot ships known to participate in the trade. Its lawyers, such as Hamilton and Burr, processed thirty-six cases of unlawful enslavement as legal counsel for blacks.... Burr, Hamilton, and Jay in organizing "boycotts against merchants and newspaper owners involved in the trade. . . . The Society had a special committee of antislavery militants who visited newspaper offices to remind publishers of the unwisdom of accepting advertisements for the purchase or sale of slaves. Another committee kept a list of persons who either participated in or invested in the slave trade . . . and urged members to boycott anyone listed." [Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson: A Study in Character by Roger G. Kennedy - Oxford University Press. 2000. page 97-98] Rjensen 00:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Does he cite any examples of Hamilton actually doing anything, as Mitchell cites for Burr, Sands and "others"? Septentrionalis 00:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In one crucial respect, however, his attitude never changed: he always championed liberty and abhorred slavery. Much of what he said about slavery at first was patriotic hyperbole, but beneath the talk about evil ministerial designs lay an intense hostility toward slavery in the more conventional sense. In support of Laurens's plan to recruit several battalions from the slave population in South Carolina, Hamilton wrote a strong letter to Jay, then president of the Continental Congress. Renouncing the bigotry that prevailed in regard to blacks, which "makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason nor experience," he argued the egalitarian position that "their natural faculties are probably as good as ours" and the culturally deterministic position that their intellectual shortcomings stemmed only from a "want of cultivation." It was an essential part of Laurens's scheme, he said, "to give them their freedom with their muskets. This will secure their fidelity, animate their courage, and I believe will have a good influence upon those who remain, by opening a door to their emancipation." Thus from "dictates of humanity and true policy equally," Hamilton was an abolitionist, and on that subject he never wavered

The first sentence of this paragraph is mere conjecture; the remainder is selective quotation. For both parts, we should describe points of view, rather than quoting them (especially one-sidedly). Septentrionalis 00:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ''Finally, Hamilton strongly advocated the abolition of slavery.

This sentence remains unsourced. If it refers to Laurens' troop, it is redundant, and does not belong in the discussion of the Constitutional Convention. If not, what is the evidence for it? Septentrionalis 01:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What Chernow actually says
Rjensen must be quoting from memory; an always dubious practice. What Chernow actually says about Hamilton's activities at the Manumission Society is as follows, by page:


 * The society was formed Jan. 25, 1785, by nineteen men, of whom Hamilton was not one. He attended the expanded second meeting. (214)
 * Hamilton was one of the members of a committee (November 1785) that proposed that the society themselves gradually emancipate their slaves, mostly between seven and thirty-five years thereafter; Hamilton's share in the report is unclear, although Chernow does not let this stop him calling it Hamilton's. (The general meeting voted it down anyway.) 215
 * He was elected to the standing committee to lobby for an end to the slave trade out of New York. This is the only mention of office within the Society. 215
 * He signed the petition against the slave trade (March 1786). So did most of New York politics, including Federalists and anti-Federalists alike. 216
 * He attended a meeting of the society in August 1787 and one in 1788. 239
 * He was on retainer as lawyer for the society from 1788 until his death 239, 581
 * He was mentioned by the Society as buying a slave for his sister-in-law. 581

Out of these slender materials, the text has erected the following:


 * ''He opposed slavery and as as secretary of the Society for the Promotion of the Manumission of Slaves was one of the three or fourn most prominent Founding Fathers in the abolitionist movement.

This comprises a partial truth and several falsehoods. He was not secretary. It is fairly clear that not all members of the Society were abolitionists, as opposed to meliorists. He was not third or fourth most prominent even in New York; Jay, Burr, Troup, and Smith were clearly before him, even by Chernow's account. There were strong and successful abolitionist movements in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, which included Franklin and Adams.Septentrionalis 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Horton
What does Horton's article actually say? The copy in my local research library has been stolen. Septentrionalis 20:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (Whatever it says, it can hardly justify the present text; Hamilton cannot have been prominent by virtue of an office unknown until two years ago.) Septentrionalis 21:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Jensen has provided this link. from an exhibition catalog. This is the wiki spirit. The claim of fact about the Manumission Society is as follows:


 * Hamilton was among more than thirty New Yorkers who, in January 1785, formed the New-York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and Protecting Such of Them as Have Been,or May be Liberated. With John Jay as its president and Hamilton as secretary, this organization sought to end slavery ... and so on, about the activities of the Society.

This is not an independent source, as its notes demonstrate.
 * It cites Brookhiser, p.176 (rectius 175-6)
 * Brookhiser calls Hamilton "chairman of the Ways and Means Committee" which reported that the society should free their own slaves. This is the special committee of November 1785 above, which Chernow says not only had its report rejected, but was summarily dissolved.
 * Chernow also mentions "ways and means", IIRC not capped.
 * Reading Brookhiser alone, the translation to "secretary", while unwarranted, would not be unreasonable.
 * Brookhiser, like Horton, has missed Chernow's first meeting. This "founding" meeting is Chernow's second meeting, as the numbers in attendance show. Brookhiser is more precise, and says Hamilton + 31. Septentrionalis 23:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Horton's other points of fact seem to be: Do these make an abolitionist? Horton himself remarks that he shared #3 with Jefferson; IIRC also 1,2, and in due course 4. Septentrionalis 00:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Hamilton grew up among slaves.
 * 2) Hamilton denounced George III's government of the Colonies as slavery.
 * 3) He regarded slavery as evil.
 * 4) He argued that the capacity of blacks was equal to whites
 * 5) he opposed the colonization of freedmen.
 * 6) He supported relations with Haiti.


 * Abolitionist? I would say so -- Henry Ward Beecher did little more than speak at manumission society meetings for most of his career, and that was later in the day.  Prominent as an abolitionist?  That does not seem supported by Rjensen's own source.  The most prominent Founding Father to be an abolitionist?  I would certainly give priority to Benjamin Franklin, and I would hate to try to justify ranking Hamilton above Jay, or even Burr, in the era.  I'm not sure the assertion is worth the effort. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And whether or not we three editors would conclude so, most prominence is a novel synthesis. When I return to this shortly, I intend to insert the facts, and let the reader make his own judgment about prominence. That the New York Society was any more prominent than the Pennsylvanian is another matter which WP should not be deciding for the reader. Septentrionalis 21:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

On another note, it is not serious to remove tags when edit-warring over a controversial matter unless there is an overwhelming likelihood that the edit will resolve the controversy. Septentrionalis 21:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hamilton literature
"The long tradition of Hamilton biography has, almost without exception, been laudatory in the extreme...The result has been to depict an almost spotless champion...Those little satisfied with this reading of American history have struck back by depicting Hamilton as a devil...." The author of this excepts himself, of course; but we need not.

Nevertheless, this is the state of play; and the only safe course here is to mine both sides for facts, and report the views when necessary. Departing from this is more damaging to this article than the suppressions.

Laudation of Hamilton is not evidence of seriousness; all too often, it is evidence of solemnity and self-importance. Septentrionalis 01:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that this article included an estimate of Chernow's book as unusually well-written. This is manifestly improper. Even among the wilderness of trash on Hamilton, it is also false.


 * Had he [Johann Lavien] presented himself as a Jew, the snobbish Mary Faucette would certainly have squelched the match in a world that frowned on religious no less than interracial marriage.


 * This occurs on page 10; and the illiteracy and conjecture seen here continue throughout the book.
 * It is news to me that the early eighteenth century frowned on religious marriage. A competent writer would have recast.
 * The evidence given for Mrs. Faucette's character consists the fact she appealed to the chancellor of the Leeward Islands for her separation decree. Who else, pray? Septentrionalis 15:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * More to the point, the references section is part of the article, and NPOV and NOR apply to it as much as to any other section. Offering an unsourced (and therefore probably personal) opinion on the merits of a book is as improper when the book is a source as when the book is the subject of the article.  Robert A.West (Talk) 16:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I intended manifestly improper to cover that; but thank you for making an unfortunately necessary point explicit. Septentrionalis 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Madison on debts 1790
Madison said the people who took government paper during the war deserved 100% repayment, and people who later bought the paper at a discount (say 12%) should be repaid not 100% but the discounted price of 12c. Hamilton responded that it was fraud to repay your debts at 12 cents when you could pay 100%. Here's Madison's key letter:
 * Madison To Edmund Pendleton. NEW YORK, March 4, 1790. "The House of Representatives has been chiefly employed of late on the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury.... The plan which it proposes is in general well-digested, and illustrated and supported by very able reasoning. It has not, however, met with universal concurrence in every part. I have myself been of the number who could not suppress objections. I have not been able to persuade myself that the transactions between the United States and those whose services were most instrumental in saving their country did, in fact, extinguish the claims of the latter on the justice of the former; or that there must not be something radically wrong in suffering those who rendered a bona fide consideration to lose 7/8 of their dues, and those who have no particular merit towards their country to gain 7 or 8 times as much as they advanced. In pursuance of this view of the subject, a proposition was made for redressing, in some degree, the inequality. After much discussion, a large majority was in the negative." Rjensen 22:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The text here is:
 * ''James Madison and Thomas Jefferson strongly opposed Hamilton's financial plans, arguing that a bank was unconstitutional, that the original debt holders often sold their certificates and the new owners --who mostly lived in the North--did not deserve full payment.


 * Well, I should not edit from memory either.
 * Nevertheless, this is another exercise in selective quotation.
 * It dates from March 1790; and there was a period when everybody, including Jefferson, approved Hamilton's plans. Quotes from this honeymoon do not represent the grounds and nature of Madison's opposition, nor Jefferson's.
 * I trust that when I return to this sentence, it will no longer suggest that only the Jeffersonians could be seen as acting in a sectional interest.
 * The artful phrasing, which glides over the fact that many of the beneficiaries of Hamilton's measures were oligarchs from Charleston, is unacceptable. Septentrionalis 20:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson does not like scholars (or Hamilton), but he is unable to cite any scholar supporting his extreme personal views. That's just POV and has no place in Wiki. Rjensen 21:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, my views are middle of the road; they have not changed much since I was a member of my college's conservative debating society. My view of Hamilton is this side idolatry, but this page has already stated his good points; somewhat to excess. The text on Madison's views was from memory; but everything said in this section of the talk page is from Morison and Commager, p. 286-296 (1967 edition). Septentrionalis 23:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reference. Mentioning it sooner might have avoided needless friction. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is massive documentation in articles and books by Horton, Litelfield, Kennedy and McDonals--all fully cited; Pmanderson has been erasing these and ridiculing abolitionists. Nasty to have to deal with proslavery editors in 2006. Rjensen 22:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do Wikipedians have to make such leaps of illogic? The world is not divided into those who worship and those who hate .  Frankly, I am getting quite weary of people who cannot envision good-faith reasons for disagreement.  Do you have evidence that Septentionalis is actually in favor of any form of slavery, or are you just lashing out in frustration in response to his going over-the-top with "whitewash"?  On this page, he has argued that Hamilton was too wishy-washy to be termed an "abolitionist" -- hardly a pro-slavery stance.  As for your edits, Horton (the one source that is FUTON) does not support all of your glowing language, such as the comparison of Hamilton to other Founders.  I will reserve judgment until I get a chance to hit the library on the weekend of the 4th and check other sources.  (Appropriate timing, somehow.)  Robert A.West (Talk) 22:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If "whitewash" is deprecated, I will reconsider it. But I used it to describe, for example, the excision of the Hammond affair (well-sourced); and the addition of such sentences as this:
 * ''Hamilton was, Chernow writes, more fluent in French than Thomas Jefferson, the great Francophile.

Charnow may well say this, sneer and all; but Wikipedia should not. Septentrionalis 00:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)