Talk:Alexander Hamilton/Archive 4

Eventually
Plange suggested we use the word 'eventually' to describe the progression of the name to DR. You seem to have an objection, but have not stated what the objection is. Until you do, the dubious label is inappropriate and should be removed. Skyemoor 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Thomas Jefferson, where the word was suggested. It is not accurate; Democratic-Republican began to be used before Hamilton was shot, and was normal contemporary usage by the time Monroe was President. Septentrionalis 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are spotty references to the use of DRP around the time of Hamilton's fatal duel; what is your support for "normal contemporary usage by the time Monroe was President", especially at the national level? Skyemoor 00:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The OED and the Dictionary of American English, to start with; do you have a source which actually says otherwise, and if so, what is it? Septentrionalis 07:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Odd; above you said that the OED states is was the Democratic Party. You can't have it both ways; which is it? Still waiting for your evidence.  Skyemoor 02:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The OED has a quite long entry on Democratic, which cites both forms. Do try looking up a reference once in a while. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Federalist Papers
Hamilton conceived of the Federalist Papers and orchestrated their creation, recruiting Madison and Jay. Considering Hamilton also wrote the preponderance of the published tracts (well over 50%) there seems to be no justification to belittle this collective accomplishment by highlighting Madison's contributions here (he has his own Wiki entry, doesn't he?). While there is not much arguement that Madison's contributions were significant, nor is there much arguement that Hamilton's were at least equally so and, perhaps more poignently, there is still no absolute agreement as to whether is was Madison of Hamilton that wrote some of the most important entries (#51, for example). Therefore, removal of unjustified and misleading references of Madison in relation to the Federalist Papers that imply some sort of superiority should be removed.Shoreranger 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree in part, and disagree in part; claiming that Madison was predominant is a POV; c;aiming that Hamilton was predominant is also a POV; this article should say neither (or both, but the place for that is Federalist Papers, not here). Septentrionalis 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

1798

 * ''Hamilton proceeded to set up an army, which was to guard against invasion and march into the possessions of Spain, then allied with France, and take Louisiana and Mexico. His correspondence further suggests that when he returned in military glory, he dreamed of setting up a properly energetic government, without any Jeffersonians. Adams, however, derailed all plans for war by opening negotiations with France.[21] Adams had also held it right to retain Washington's cabinet, except for cause; he found, in 1800 (after Washington's death), that they were obeying Hamilton rather than himself and fired several of them.[22]

As for this paragraph, I don't think it's POV; the conclusion that Hamilton was considering a bold stroke after his return is Morrison and Commager's, as cited in 21; the reason Adams fired McHenry and Pickering is well-known. I sourced it to ANB, but I do not know of anyone who disagrees (on either point). If Shoreranger has a source, he should add and cite it. Septentrionalis 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Original Research
He admired the the success of the British system, and strongly denounced the mob rule first arising from the French Revolution, as Hamilton witnessed first hand how instrumental politically, financially, and militarily France had been in the United States securing independence through the American Revolutionary War.

This passage is original research from primary sources, and has the resulting flaws. It suggests, without source, that Hamilton's opposition to the French Revolution arose from its mob rule, which is clearly false: he opposed it before the reports of the May Days of 1793 reached the United States. I do not understand the intended meaning of "as Hamilton witnessed first hand how instrumental politically, financially, and militarily France had been in the United States securing independence through the American Revolutionary War". As cannot mean "while"; the French instrumentality ended well before Bastile Day, much less "mob rule". Whatever it means, it reads like more unsourced speculation. Septentrionalis 23:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Was Hamilton Eligible for Presidency?
The article states: "He worked to defeat both John Adams and Jefferson in the election of 1800 (although he himself didn't run because he was ineligible due to being born outside the US);"

I'm not disputing whether he should have been president but whether or not he was constitutional barred from the presidency. I don't think he was barred.

The U.S Constitution, Article Two, 1.5 Clause 5: Qualifications for office, says  "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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Was not Alexander Hamilton "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"? He attended King's College in the 1770's (now Columbia College, Columbia University) and was an officer in the Continental Army. By my count, he would have resided in what became the United States between 15 and 20 years when the Constitution was adopted.

(A Political Scientist 01:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC))

Hamilton was born in the "west indies", so he wouldn't have been eligible to be president. Our first few presidents were all born in the colonies, just as prominent founders of the country did not run for president, because they couldn't. --69.248.90.249 23:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I originally came to post the same question (you beat me to it by about 6 months), I read that same passage in the Constitution today and wondered if Hamilton had been in America long enough to be a naturalized citizen. A solid answer would be greatly appreciated. --Interested High School student

Duel with Aaron Burr
Seems to me that this section is a bit sympathetic to Burr and fails to even hint about the wealth of abundant primary sources that demonstrate Hamilton's intent to die at this duel in order to spare Burr's life. Aside from preparing his Last Will and Testament, Hamilton also wrote to his wife and friends explaining that he would not attempt to kill Burr since it went against everything he believed in.

This is not to say that there is no current debate among scholars on this topic, but I believe a fairer rendering of this section could be achieved to demonstrate the two views of this duel. As it currently stands, only one citation exists depicting one view, and that one basically refers to Hamilton as a liar, and this is a comment made by Burr. How unbiased and POV is that?! (Gaytan 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

Hello. I am a basic Wikipedia user and like to skip through the history pages. As such, I was astonished to find absolutely nothing in Hamilton's executive summary about the famous duel that took Hamilton's life. As a student of history and casual observer of other's historical awareness, I believe the duel to be not only one of the most important parts of Hamilton's life (for obvious reasons) but also the major fact about Hamilton that the widest segment of the world's population knows about or will be looking for at Wikipedia. It's as if I arrive at Lincoln's summarizing entry and not know whether or not he died a peaceful death of old age! Aaron Burr's entry surely mentions the fact that he killed Hamilton, so shouldn't Hamilton equally have at least one sentence in his opener mentioning the fact that he was violently killed with a handgun by the then Vice President of the United States??? Just my opinion. 210.20.86.85 05:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to complain about the duel being buried at the end of the article, but User:210.20.86.85 already commented above better than I could. So let me just second User:210.20.86.85's comments. --Billgordon1099 05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevis
I regret to see that my post here on Nevis did not register. I continue, however, to deprecate Shoreranger's insistence on saying that Hamilton "immigrated" to North America.
 * Nevis is in the Lesser Antilles; it is perverse to call it North America; it may well be closer to South America.
 * Hamilton did not "immigrate"; Nevis was a British colony, just like New Jersey. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

See North America for what is considered in or out. "Immigration", to my understanding, applies from one colonial possession to another, say from India to Canada. If so, then Nevis to New York is just as much so. If it makes anyone feel better, change "immigrate" to "migrate", but Nevis is still in North America, "perverse" or not.Shoreranger 04:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not English. North America begins by defining ts subject as a "continent", which means a continuous body of land before it means anything else. The Lesser Antilles are not even on the North American Plate.  The Straits of Cuba are 90 miles wide. As for "immigration", Shoreranger's understanding is both wrong, and insofar as it will suggest that the Thirteen Colonies had an INS to guard against entry from Nevis or Jamaica, very seriously mioleading. Reverting on both grounds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevis is certainly "English" at the time. The point is to make differentiating "British North America" as specifically the 13 colonies, when Nevis was both a British colonial possession and also in North America. See Nevis, specifically:

"On August 30, 1620, James I of England asserted sovereignty over Nevis by giving a Royal Patent for colonisation to the Earl of Carlisle. However actual European settlement did not happen until 1628 when Anthony Hilton moved from nearby Saint Kitts following a murder plot against him. He was accompanied by 80 other settlers, soon to be boosted by a further 100 settlers from London who had originally hoped to settle Barbuda. Hilton became the first Governor of Nevis. After the 1671 peace treaty between Spain and England, Nevis became the seat of the British colony and the Admiralty Court sat in Nevis. Between 1675 and 1730, the island was the headquarter for the slave trade for the Leeward Islands, with approximately 6,000-7,000 enslaved West Africans passing through on route to other islands each year. The Royal African Company brought all its ships through Nevis.[3]"

Again, see North America -- I will save you the effort and quote the most pertinent section here:

"There are numerous islands off the continent’s coasts: principally, the Arctic Archipelago, the Greater and Lesser Antilles, the Alexander Archipelago, and the Aleutian Islands. Greenland, a Danish self-governing island and the world's largest, is on the same tectonic plate (the North American Plate) and is part of North America geographically. Bermuda is not part of the Americas, but is an oceanic island formed on the fissure of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The nearest landmass to it is Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and it is often thought of as part of North America, especially given its historical political and cultural ties to Virginia and other parts of the continent."

See human migration, since "immigration" seems to be too specific and requires nation-states and may not include migration from one colonial possession to another. No inference of an INS was reasonably infered or in the slightest bit intended.Shoreranger 21:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing revert on these grounds, with correction to "migrate".
 * And Nevis, unlike Long Island or Greenland, is not part of the North American Plate; see Caribbean Plate. (I hope Shoreranger is not extending these innovations to Greenland, btw.; saying that Nevis is North America is merely silly; saying Greenland is can be offensive.) Since Hamilton is neither a tribe nor a bird, he didn't "migrate" either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the unusual requirement that Hamilton be a bird or a tribe to migrate, again, please see human migration to broaden those unexplained limitations, particularly (bolds added):

"Different types of migration include:


 * Daily human commuting can be compared to the diurnal migration of organisms in the oceans.
 * Seasonal human migration is mainly related to agriculture.
 * Permanent migration, for the purposes of permanent or long-term stays.
 * Local
 * Regional
 * Rural to Urban, more common in developing countries as industrialisation takes effect
 * Urban to Rural, more common in developed countries due to a higher cost of urban living
 * International

Human migration has taken place at all times and in the greatest variety of circumstances. It has been tribal, national, class and individual. Its causes have been climatic, political, economic, religious, or mere love of adventure. Its causes and results are fundamental for the study of ethnology, of political and social history, and of political economy."

Shoreranger 19:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for another demonstration why Wikipedia should not be used as a reference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being so liberal with your opinions. Here's to hoping people who care about what Wikipedia is trying to acomplish and constructively contribute to that end are ever more successful. Perhaps then you will have less to complain about, if that is possible.Shoreranger 02:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No thank you for adding your unsupported falsehoods to Wikipedia. Alexander Hamilton never had an anti-slavery policy for the United States; he prefered the Union, and supported a gag rule in Congress as the necessary price for preserving South Carolina to the Union (and the Federalist Party, which he did not distinguish from the Union).  Try reading this article before you edit it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Special Relationship"
So, according to the recent edit, the sentence structure implies that Hamilton personally, himself, alone had a special relationship with the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I do not think that Hamilton constituted a nation unto himself.Shoreranger 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he did have a foreign policy of his own; but including the Hammond affair in full detail is not what I want to do today. I have inserted a clarification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Slavery, again
Hamilton was anti-slavery. There are a number of sources cited for that. Many anti-slavery reps. to Congress went along with comprimises to maintain the Union, that does not make them pro-slavery. Was Ben Franklin pro-slavery, then?Shoreranger 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hamilton was anti-slavery in New York, where almost every prominent man was; only one member of the New York legislature voted against all versions of emancipation in 1785. The difference between Franklin and Hamilton is that Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society petitioned Congress against slavery; Hamilton lobbied, successfully, to have the petition thrown out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hamilton was anti-slavery in New York, whiere most northern slaves were located, and where pro-slavery forces blocked all emancipation plans until 1799. Hamilton was active for years in fighting the slave trade, which was based in part in his NEw York City. He even crossed very bitter party lines to cooperate with his archeenemy Burr to fight slavery. Franklin was a slaveowner who supported slavery during the Revolution when Hamilton was trying to arm the slaves; Franklin indeed changed late in life and lent his name to other people's petitions but his Pennsylvania had few slaves.  Here's Ben explaining away slavery in 1770:
 * Franklin, "A Conversation on Slavery" Jan. 26, 1770. in Library of America edition: "New England, the most populous of all the English Possessions in America, has very few Slaves; and those are chiefly in the capital Towns, not employed in the hardest Labour, but as Footmen or House-maids.  The same may be said of the next populous Provinces, New-York, New Jersey, and Pensylvania.  Even in Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas, where they are employed in Field-work, what Slaves there are belong chiefly to the old rich Inhabitants, near the navigable Waters, who are few compared with the numerous Families of Back-Settlers, that have scarce any Slaves among them. In Truth, there is not, take North-America through, perhaps, one Family in a Hundred that has a Slave in it.  Many Thousands there abhor the Slave Trade as much as Mr. Sharpe can do, conscientiously avoid being concerned with it, and do every Thing in their Power to abolish it.  Supposing it then with that Gentleman, a Crime to keep a Slave, can it be right to stigmatize us all with that Crime?  If one Man of a Hundred in England were dishonest, would it be right from thence to characterize the Nation, and say the English are Rogues and Thieves?  But farther, of those who do keep Slaves, all are not Tyrants and Oppressors.  Many treat their Slaves with great Humanity, and provide full as well for them in Sickness and in Health, as your poor labouring People in England are provided for.  Your working Poor are not indeed absolutely Slaves; but there seems something a little like Slavery, where the Laws oblige them to work for their Masters so many Hours at such a Rate, and leave them no Liberty to demand or bargain for more, but imprison them in a Workhouse if they refuse to work on such Terms; and even imprison a humane Master if he thinks fit to pay them better; at the same Time confining the poor ingenious Artificer to this Island, and forbidding him to go abroad, though offered better Wages in foreign Countries.  As to the Share England has in these Enormities of America, remember, Sir, that she began the Slave Trade; that her Merchants of London, Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow, send their Ships to Africa for the Purpose of purchasing Slaves.  If any unjust Methods are used to procure them; if Wars are fomented to obtain Prisoners; if free People are enticed on board, and then confined and brought away; if petty Princes are bribed to sell their Subjects, who indeed are already a Kind of Slaves, is America to have all the Blame of this Wickedness?  You bring the Slaves to us, and tempt us to purchase them.  I do not justify our falling into the Temptation.  To be sure, if you have stolen Men to sell to us, and we buy them, you may urge against us the old and true saying, that _the Receiver is as bad as the Thief._ This Maxim was probably made for those who needed the Information, as being perhaps ignorant that _receiving_ was in it's Nature as bad as _stealing_: But the Reverse of the Position was never thought necessary to be formed into a Maxim, nobody ever doubted that _the Thief is as bad as the Receiver_.  This you have not only done and continue to do, but several Laws heretofore made in our Colonies, to discourage the Importation of Slaves, by laying a heavy Duty, payable by the Importer, have been disapproved and repealed by your Government here, as being prejudicial, forsooth, to the Interest of the African Company." (end BF 1770) Rjensen 08:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In 1770, Hamilton was a school-boy; and the major opponent of slavery was John Woolman, who was widely ignored (except perhaps in Pennsylvania). This is an exercise in irrelevant anachronism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Wiki contributors
"Lie" is a strong word and, when used in the context of anonimity on Wiki, its use as an accusation in edit comments amounts to cowardice in my opinion. I will not be goaded into sinking to similar depths, but I do recommend that such freely made accusations be avoided and that some Wiki administrator take notice of it when it occurs. I don't have the time to engage in petty squabbles.Shoreranger 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Depiction of Duel Inaccurate
The depiction of the duel is also inaccurate in that it places the shooters to close to each other. Each walked ten paces-at least three feet from center-which would make a distance of at least 60 feet between them, something not accurately depicted in the illustation, meaning they would have been at least twice as far apart.Tom Cod 05:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton's children
I found no explicit mention of Hamilton's offspring. He apparently had 10 children! I should think that would merit some mention! I will add something just to remedy that. Bigmac31 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He was married for twenty-four years in a pretechnological age, and his wife loved him deeply. What's the surprise? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The only surprise was that there was no mention of it at the time I wrote that, not that he had 10 children. Although in any age that is an impressive number of offspring, IMO. Bigmac31 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Verification
20-March-2007 (revised 20Mar07): The article ("Alexander Hamilton") is not presentedly protected from unregistered edits, so verification of tampered details can be an issue. Basic sanity-check facts:


 * Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755/1757–July 12, 1804) was an Army officer, lawyer, Founding Father, American politician, leading statesman, financier and political theorist. One of America's foremost constitutional lawyers, he was a leader in calling the U.S. Constitutional Convention in 1787; he was one of the two leading authors of the Federalist Papers, the most important interpretation of the United States Constitution.
 * Hamilton created the Federalist party, the first American political party, built up using Treasury department patronage, networks of elite leaders, and aggressive newspaper editors which he subsidized both through Treasury patronage and loans from his own pocket. Hamilton had 10 children. Aaron Burr shot him in the lower abdomen during the duel on July 11, 1804, and Hamilton died the next day.

Other critical dates/facts should be added briefly above for fact verification, when fixing any future flurry of vandalism reverts. -Wikid77 10:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

hi does any body know where to find a full body portrait of alexander hamilton
hi does any body know where to find a full body portrait of alexander hamilton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.254.226.232 (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Homosexuality
This is question on which some sources conjecture. Katz is not the only one; see Flexner on Hamilton and Lafayette. All osurces are guessing; but ir is improper, a violation of WP:SYNTH to invent our own arguments to confute them.

What we know is that Hamilton did not obey the Seventh Commandment, that he had ten (or was it an even dozen?) children and that his circle engaged some remarkably florid correspondence; his letters to Laurens are nothing to his sister-in-law. It is not our business to engage in further speculation; let those who get paid for it do that. It is our business to record the speculation and the refutations as they come out.

I have tolerated a half-sentence; although it is clear that, technically, mentioning that the letter Katz cites is about a prospective wife for Hamilton is a novel synthesis, and therefore original research. (To my mind, singularly unpersuasive research: if Hamilton were flirting with Laurens, discussions of marriage would fit perfectly; but it doesn't matter.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that Shoreranger object that this lacks consensus. It does; which is why we attribute it, explicitly, to Katz; it's his notion, although Flexner has a similar interpretation for Hamilton's friendship with Lafayette. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed this section, please see WP:UNDUE, specifically:
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
 * Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all
 * Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
 * --Roswell native 19:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Similar arguments are made by Flexner, one of Hamilton's major biographers. I find in looking for criticisms of this view that a review takes Chernow, another of them to be "coyly hinting" at Laurens and Hamilton being lovers. I wouldn't be at all surprised; Chernow is almost unreadably coy. As far as I recall, the other two or three don't discuss the matter. Mitchell wrote before Kats, in an age where such a suggestion would be unseemly; and McDonald is concentrated on politics and fiscal policy.  There is limited secondary literature on this question, but it does seem to split about evenly.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm writing for the enemy here. There is, and is never likely to be, hard evidence; and Trees' counterargument that this was the style of Hamilton's time is quite sound. (How far it goes is open to question; Franklin and Jefferson seem to have taken such a tone when in France, and when engaged in fairly serious heterosexual flirtation. Hamilton was younger than either of them, but his upbringing was more provincial - I have no idea if he even read Sterne, let alone Werther.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is interesting, but I still believe that WP:UNDUE directly applies. I'm certainly no historian or Hamiltonian expert, but the info about his sexuality (in the article and provided by you here on the talk page) indicates this view is held by only a small minority of those that are. As it doesn't appear there has been much scholarship around this other than those few people and there isn't really consensus even amongst that handful, an encyclopedic entry isn't the right place to include it IMHO. I also think that this biographical info and interpretation should be moved to the talk page until others weigh in on this and some sort of consensus amongst Wikipedia editors is reached. I'm not an "enemy" of including this information, but I am opposed to including it if it isn't a significant viewpoint. --Roswell native 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One and a half of the four major sources, and with the scholarship or the subject divided? I cannot agree that this is a small minority. I agree that the discussion could be shorter than it is; but then again, it was, before Shoreranger troubled these waters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, you've lost me with the "One and a half of the four major sources." There seem to be many more than four major sources on Hamilton just from the references for this article (understood that Chernow is a prevalent modern one). Also, do you have page numbers/editions/ISBNs for the refs that are cited on this topic (for easier reference)? --Roswell native 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Chernow, Flexner, Mitchell, and McDonald are the major current biographies. All are listed in the bibliography, with ISBNs except for Mitchell, who wrote before this became an issue anyway. Chernow supports this by implication; see Trees' review, fully cited. For Flexner on Hamilton and Lafayette, see his index; if I come across a copy, I'll add the page number. p.316. (Other biographies listed, like Brookhiser, use secondary sources; quite frequently they are what some Wikipedian had to hand.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

1755 or 1757
According the the PBS program American Experience, Hamilton was born in 1755. GoodDay 22:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately that isn't definitive.  ·:· Will Beback ·:·  23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton's religion
The obvious reference here seems to be Was Alexander Hamilton a Christian Statesman? by Douglass Adair; Marvin Harvey. The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., Vol. 12, No. 2, Alexander Hamilton: 1755-1804. (Apr., 1955), pp. 308-329. JSTOR URL, which argues that in early life he was an orthodox and conventional (but not deeply pious) Presbyterian - or else Knox and Livingston would hardly have sponsored him; from 1777 to 1792, he was completely indifferent, and made jokes about God at the Convention; during the French Revolution, he had an "opportunistic religiosity" using Christianity for political ends, during the Reynolds affair amounting to self-righteous blasphemy. After his misfortunes of 1801, he indeed converted; he did not join any denomination, but led his family in the Episcopal service the Sunday before the duel. Afterwards he requested communion first from Benjamin Moore, the Episcopal Bishop of New York, who declined because he was a duelist, and then from John Mason, a Presbyterian, who declined because Presbyterians did not reserve the Sacrament. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton's Jewish heritage
Why is Hamilton's Jewish heritage (through his mother) not mentioned in this article? --172.168.94.248 06:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The conjecture that his mother's husband was Jewish (by descent; they were joined in Christian wedlock) is mentioned. His mother, a Fawcett, was certainly not Jewish, and her husband was certainly not Hamilton's father. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No. I am not saying that Hamilton's mother's husband was Jewish, I am saying that Hamilton's actual mother was a Jew or of partial Jewish descent. --172.145.73.61 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know of no evidence for this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Then, as I understand it, under the conventions of the Jewish faith, Hamilton is not considered Jewish if his mother was not Jewish. As for "heritage" - if one shakes enough branches in a family tree we all have Jewish, Muslim, African, what-have-you heritage. Is an encyclopedia article really the place for "conjecture"?Shoreranger 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yorktown
Is it really necessary to suggest that Hamilton won the Revolution singlehanded? The war continued for a year and a half after Yorktown, and the British were perfectly capable of another expedition - and Washington guarded against such attempts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Yorktown only conveyed to me that Hamilton led the last charge in the last significant battle of a very long an bloody war, nothing more. At worst, a biased reading could extract a meaing that Hamilton led the charge that *ended* the war, but no reasonable reading could take away the impression that the entry implied Hamilton "won the war singlehanded". It never seemed to me that there was ever any serious challenge to the idea that Yorktown was the death-knell of significant British military attmepts to destroy the revolution, and that the remaining tiem between Yorktown and the 1783 treaty was due to diplomatic negotiation primarily and not continuing large-scale military hostiltities. Is this not correct? Shoreranger 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not the last significant battle; merely the last significant battle on the North American continent. The article on the War is remiss in omitting the Battle of the Saints. The British retained more than enough force for another try - if they had chosen to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?
"Ron Chernow has argued that Hamilton's father was a Nevis merchant named Stephens whose legitimate son continued to sponsor Hamilton in later life, unlike Hamilton, or his legitimate son, Peter." Shoreranger 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "unlike James Hamilton", I presume. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Federalist Papers

 * '' were published in newspapers throughout the states and were influential in New York, and others, during the debates over ratification.

This makes two assertions:
 * that the Federalist was reprinted in all the states
 * I would regard it as within poetic license to exclude, say, Delaware; but this doesn't say so.
 * That this was done curing the debates on ratification.

Shoreranger's source says "They were reprinted in other newspapers in New York state and in several cities in other states". This is much less than the first, and doesn't assert the second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

William S. Hamilton
Hello. I am trying to work on an article on William S. Hamilton. This article states that he "claimed" to be Alexander's son later in life, I see this is sourced to a 2004 biography. Every single source I have come across, from the 19th century to modern day peer reviewed articles imply that he was his son, does anyone have any additional sources or pointers that might provide some additional clarification? IvoShandor 09:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Littlefield's paper (in the references) has a good deal on William Hamilton; but does not fully endorse the claim to paternity; I don't think it's available on-line, but I commend it. Most of the Hamilton literature is trash; and on this subject it is likely to be defensive trash (most of the rest of it is polemical muckraking). Unfortunately, WP:NPOV compels us to respect the opinion of published toadies like Chernow and MacDonald; sources asserting paternity would be welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's been my general assessment with a lot of popular biographers of many important historical figures. I am still piecing together information and such for the article but he's next on my list as far as figures related to the Black Hawk War go, which has been a focus of mine of late. Once I complete the article, I will see where the paternity situation stands regarding sources and such and then add whatever is relevant here. We can look at the sources individually, but it seems there are alot that assert the fact that Alexander was his father. IvoShandor 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So far I have found two books published in the 1880s that assert it to be true, or seem to take for granted the fact that it is, one is by a David W. Lusk, Politics and Politicians: A Succinct History of the Politics of Illinois (Google Books), two is by Parker McCobb Reed, The Bench and Bar of Wisconsin: History and Biography, with Portrait Illustrations (Google Books). This one here from a 1957 issue of the Wisconsin Magazine of History includes a letter from Theodore Rodolf which includes the statement that he met Hamilton's mother in 1841 in New York City, calling her "Alex Hamilton's widow." Apparently Rodolf was a one time political opponent of William S. Hamilton. This is what I have found thus far, I am still pouring over some other stuff via JSTOR and some other databases, I will keep you updated here. Let me know how you think those should be interpretted. IvoShandor 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Are we, possibly, talking about two different Williams here? The William in this article was a mulatto abolitionist, whose political activity was at least in part on the East Coast. If he was the son of Alexander, he was illegimate.
 * The WMH article is talking about Hamilton's legitimate (and quite white) widow, Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton (d. 1854); the footnote is about her son-in-law, Sidney Holley.
 * The other two sources agree in talking about William S[tephen] Hamilton, who came to Illinois about 1817. They are both the sort of local history, compiled from the memory of the subscribers, which were common in the late nineteenth century; they tend to repeat, uncritically, what the subscribers told them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I can't imagine why it'd be in a Wisconsin publication if it was a different William. That article also describes him as "swarthy" but doesn't exactly come out and say mulatto. I suppose it could be a different person. IvoShandor 19:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, all three of your sources appear to be the same person; but is he the William mentioned here? There was also a William S. Hamilton of Louisiana, here. Also a correspondent of the President of Princeton in 1808, who is certainly not the Midwesterner. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * British Apologetics in Evangelical Garb: Samuel Stanhope Smith's "Lectures on the Evidences of the Christian Religion" by M. L. Bradbury; Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 5, No. 2, Religion in the Early Republic. (Summer, 1985), pp. 177-195. JSTOR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I just assumed there would be only one William Hamilton that was claimed to be Alexander Hamilton's son. The one I want to write about is William Stephen Hamilton, who sources claim is Alexander's son. Some historical census records may help. IvoShandor 23:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think there is more than one William Hamilton laying claim to the title of Alexander's son? Another source that I have from 2006, (Google Books) says my William S. Hamilton was Alexander Hamilton's youngest son. IvoShandor 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that; after his son Phillip was killed in a duel in 1801, there was another son Philip, born 1802. Since your new source suggests William was born in 1802, I smell a Duke of Bilgewater. But I'll go look up Alexander's children.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not the youngest, the next to youngest son, born August 4, 1797. Hendrickson, Rise and Fall of Alexander Hamilton, p. 188, lists Alexander's nine children: The youngest was the second Philip, born 1802, six months after the death of his oldest son (there was also a daughter b. 1799). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The abolitionist, William Hamilton, made speeches in New York in 1809 and 1827. Definitely a different man; and he does not appear to have used an initial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So W.H. is not a son? Am I clear on this? Rise and Fall, this book confirms that William Hamilton was not a son of Alexander? IvoShandor 15:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two men involved. William S. Hamilton, who went to Illinois, is Alexander's son; but not his youngest son (it is possible he outlived his younger brother, but not by 1832). William Hamilton was black, and stayed in New York. He claimed to be Alexander's illegitimate son; whether this is correct is disputed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)OK, I just wasn't clear, the discussion led me astray. I wanted to make sure, especially after I read the sentence on "William Hamilton" here. Sorry I wasn't of more help on the contentious issue about his son on this page, but you have been most helpful in my endeavor. I had to ensure accuracy and figured this was the best place to do it. Thanks for responding to my original query on your talk page about this thread. I can now write that William S. Hamilton was Alexander's son. I will probably need to note that this is not the son of questionable paternity, which source do you think I should use? IvoShandor 16:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably Chernow, or Littlefield if you can find it. But it may be simplest to cite the birthdate and paternity from Hendrickson, above; and link to the dab page William Hamilton. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The footnote was misplaced; Chernow does not mention William Hamilton, just Eliza. I'll find a substitute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced addition
The following was added twice, unsourced to the article, by User:MAtchley911. I am moving it here.

''Historians have speculated for decades about Hamilton's mental state at the time of the duel. A growing number have speculated that it was actually Hamilton, not Burr who in fact pursued the duel. With Hamilton going as far to make accusations of a possible sexual relationship with his daughter Theodosia Burr, something Hamilton knew tho be ludicrous, but cruel enough in nature as to demand Burr's attention. As the theory goes by 1804, Hamilton was semi-suicidal. He was no longer the once authoritative power-broker of the previous decades, he was also encountering various financial difficulties that left him teetering towards bankruptcy, as well as emotional trouble with his mentally unbalanced daughter, and most compelling; his eldest son Phillip, had been killed in a duel with a prominent Democrat-Republican named George I. Eacker, after the two had engaged in a bitter quarrel at Park Theatre only three years before. ''IvoShandor 23:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Newburgh Conspiracy
It simply is not accurate to say Hamilton was a member of the 'Newburgh Conspiracy'. I have read a fair amount of secondary and primary bios and other books on this. No Hamiltonian or Revolutionary War scholar would say that Hamilton took part in "a number of Continental officers plotted to mutiny and march on Congress to set up a stronger government". The pages that you refer me to in the Chernow bio (yes I have read them--have you?) do deal with the discontent of unpaid soldiers and officers, as do many other biographies. The Chernow bio also states in several ways that Hamilton mediated the dispute and get the long unpaid soldiers some measure of the compensation they were promised. Hamilton and was in fact on a commission that heard the Newburgh soldiers' grievances. He also corresponded with Washington on the subject. In his correspondence with Washington--as all of these bios note--Hamilton points out that he certainly did NOT want armed overthrow of the government. What Chernow's bio, other bios, and the actual primary sources all bear out was that Hamilton counseled Washington do let Congress be a little bit afraid that those officers were willing to march on Congress if they were not paid as a BLUFF. Washington did not support this.

Accusing a Founding Father of trying to overthrow the government in a coup against all available credible historical info is something that deserves to be removed. It is demonstrably false. It is NOT censorship. Please don't start an edit war. I just want this article to be properly sourced. All major sources secondary and primary bear out what I have just said.

GoldenMean 19:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Such touching faith. He planned to march on Philadelphia after victory in 1798, as Morrison and Commager say. In your reading (did you really read all of the couple dozen volumes cited as references?), did you include that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to hear people knowledgeable about Hamilton weigh in on the Newburgh situation. Also, to PmAnderson: I don't have a problem including your statement as long as you rephrase it to reflect the reality of the subject. Your source may well say something to that effect, but everything I have ever read that is currently respected historical reference contradicts your assertion that Hamilton was involved in any way at all in plotting a coup. Please read my explanation and respond here.

GoldenMean 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

GoldenMean
Has been revert warring because of what he can't believe, above. Sorry, the generation of 1776 was human; Hamilton as much as any of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * first removal
 * second removal
 * third removal, a direct revert.

It is unacceptable for you to rename my discussion topics from their original names seen below, and stick them under a subheading of my name as if you started the discussion about me, when in fact I began the discussion topics because I wanted other people to weigh in on the subjects. And to crown it with your groundless charge again---people, the info was moved, not removed, and I put it in exactly the spot PmAnderson asked. PmAnderson, please knock it off and just deal with the genuine issues of content. Pretty please. GoldenMean 09:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

GoldenMean 09:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton's Religion
I removed the blatant unsourced editorialization within the religion section that accused Hamilton of ""opportunistic religiosity", using Christianity for political ends, during the Reynolds affair amounting to self-righteous blasphemy". There is no source for that at all. I added the cn tags for the portions of the section that could be sourced. Hamilton was a very religious figure in his own way, particularly towards the end of his life, as I added and tried to source in my edits.

I am restoring most of my edit that merged duplicated material concerning the specifics of Hamilton's last rights/communion fiasco into the paragraph on the duel and death. It was almost verbatim twice in the article. It could be moved from the duel section to the religion section, but it shouldn't be listed twice. I also sourced a part of last rights sentences, so if you want to move it into one section or the other, great. Thoughts?

GoldenMean 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire section is and was a summary of Adair and Harvey's paper, as clearly cited. They agree that in the last years of his life, after Philip's death and the end of Hamilton's political career, he did become a Christian - as is stated. As for verbatim tear-jerking quotations from Chernow's book, the fewer of them the better, especially if he does indeed lie by omission, suppressing the Presbyterian minister.


 * Please read the footnotes and the sources cited in them before you edit again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already recently reread all the sources except the article (I don't have JSTOR access anymore) but I will take your word for its content. If you want to summarize their paper, more clearly note it as a summary of that paper. e.g. "So and so claimed...." It is somewhat 'weasel wordy' and ambigously cited as it was (I don't know if you wrote that or not--if you did PmAnderson, it was not a personal attack). I don't object to the inclusion of the info that he became a true believer at all, just the non-NPOV and unsourced stuff. I think there should be a lot more about his religion, just that it should be sourced. Rewrite the religion in a clear and sourced way, that's fine--just stop blanking me, and keep the summary NPOV, and free of editorializations. The strongly-worded editiorialization and unsourced material is what I objected to, and what I (and I would hope, everyone) will always object. GoldenMean 21:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be justified if the conclusions are disputed, but I do not see that they are. There is a multitude of really bad Hamilton literature; much of it evades the question by emphasizing the piety of Hamilton's last years; but that's not the same thing. If you have positive assertions of Hamilton's faith between 1776 and 1801, cite them by all means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, PmAnderson, in case you missed it: This info ALL exists in the Duel/Death section conveying the exact same material (and I believe, with the same source). This duplication of info predates my involvement in this article. I have not removed it, I merged it into its location in the Dueling section. Again, IT ISN'T GONE. It's in the Dueling/Death section. GoldenMean 21:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But it should be under Hamilton's religion; not all of his contemporaries would have turned to a Presbyterian, even as second choice. GoldenMean's text gives a much firmer denominational commitment than the facts will warrant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The blanked text is:
 * In his early life, he was an orthodox and conventional, though not deeply pious, Presbyterian; had he not been, Knox and Livingston would hardly have sponsored him. From 1777 to 1792, he was completely indifferent, and made jokes about God at the Convention. During the French Revolution, he had an "opportunistic religiosity", using Christianity for political ends, during the Reynolds affair amounting to self-righteous blasphemy. After his misfortunes of 1801, he indeed converted. In this period, he asserted the truth of the Christian revelation; one of his letters suggested a Christian Constitutionalist Society. He did not join any denomination, but led his family in the Episcopal service the Sunday before the duel. Afterwards he requested communion both from the Bishop of New York and (when he declined) from a Presbyterian minister.<:ref>The whole paragraph summarizes Adair and Harvey: "Christian Stateman?" passim.

Please observe the wording of the footnote, as adjusted after GoldenMean's second blanking. All of this, including the argument about Knox, is from Adair and Harvey. Nevertheless, GoldenMean has added citation tags, while removing the citation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, it was moved, not blanked, and its back now, and the duplicate is gone from the 'Duel' Section, where I had initially moved it. It was initially unclear to me that whole 'religon' section was actually just a summary of one journal article. I most seriously objected to the part saying Hamilton's religion "amounted to self-righteous blasphemy". But that's mercifully gone now, and rightly so. In any case, Pmanderson's grievance in the religion section would seem to be resolved since I have decided not to substantially edit the two tagged sections, just to ask people what they think, and to contribute--this, combined with good faith on Pmanderson's part should stop any budding edit war.

That brings me to my grievance: I have labeled the religion section as factually disputed, though perhaps NPOV would have been a better tag. The wording of that section, except for the part at the end, is, according to Pmanderson a summary of one journal article. This summary terms Hamilton's religion as "opportunistic" and "using Christianity for political ends". Perhaps that is the case, but for such contentious accusations, I would think other sources and examples would be required, such a characterization comes off as (indirect) editorializing.

The religion section has a lone footnote referring to the journal article, but obviously one article that contains controversial claims shouldn't be summarized and passed off as a self-sufficient, balanced Wikipedia subsection. That seems like a 'weasel words' way around evidence or citing the more commonly-accepted, balanced secondary sources that thought biographies are supposed to be largely based on to avoid too much original research, or information of questionable veracity from infiltrating wikipedia.

For example: if a journal article said "Hamilton was a deceptive, treasonous weasel who worshiped the devil with gusto, it would not be OK (to my way of thinking) to summarize that article, and place it in Hamilton's Wikipedia article under the 'religion' section as if it were an established fact in such a way as: "Hamilton was a well-known liar and devil worshiper." That statement would then be properly annotated, but does that make it OK as info for the article? I use an over-the-top example, of course, but what do others think?

GoldenMean 08:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Find a reliable source who says something else about Hamilton's faith between 1777 and 1801; I looked, and I was unable to. That's the Wiki method. Adair and Harvey have been cited some 200 times; this is no random journal article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Newburgh
In this case the blanked text is as follows:
 * he was one of the civilians took part in the Newburgh conspiracy, in which a number of Continental officers plotted to mutiny and march on Congress to set up a stronger government. Washington wrote him a strong letter of rebuke for "playing with such incendiary matters as an army."<:ref>Garry Wills, Cincinnatus, p.6. American National Biography, "Alexander Hamilton".
 * The quotation is from Wills; the facts from both. Please note that the ANB life is by Forrest McDonald, one of the four important biographers mentioned above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added the standard modern history of the politics of the Continental Army. If necessary, I will go find Richard Kohn's Eagle and Sword, which did the primary research; but I trust this will suffice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson, thanks for trying to clarify your addition to the 'Newburgh' section.

TO EVERYONE ELSE: I think this section could REALLY use some extra eyes, ANY eyes. I don't care if you worship Hamilton, think he's Satan, or anything in between. I would REALLY appreciate attention to the 'Newburgh' section by anyone who would consider their knowledge of Hamilton or early American history at least 'decent' and can source their additions. Right now it just isn't quite accurate or NPOV. I have been blanked over and over, and attacked over and over, and I'm sick of it. Have fun, and improve the article.

If you enjoy this topic you may find the following letters interesting and/or helpful. They are the April 4, 1783 letter of Washington you quote indirectly about "playing" with the army comments (the 'incendiary' part is actually a slight misquote of a cited source in the paragraph as I write this).|Link to Washington - April 4, 1783 Letter to Hamilton], and the two letters (sent simultaneously) from Hamilton to which Washington's April 4th letter was a response. Hamilton sent Washington a letter on (March) 25th which introduced and enclosed another writing on the situation of the unpaid soldiers/Newburgh Conspiracy [|March 25th Correspondence from Hamilton to Washington (Click on the first result--it won't link directly](The second, attached letter Hamilton mentions in his first letter can be read by clicking the hyperlinked 1 on the web page containing Hamilton's first letter--it says how on the webpage).

Where I am coming from: Every book I have ever read on the period mentioning Hamilton essentially seems to agree that Hamilton's willingness to let Congress believe the soldiers were closer to armed insurrection as a means getting them their back pay was a bad idea. Further, they seem to agree that Washington thought it was important to keep even a bluff of a military uprising out of the whole situation, and told Hamilton of this (much to Washington's credit). But they also generally agree (and Hamilton states this clearly in his correspondence) that Hamilton was working against the actual threat of armed uprising, and that both men wanted to get the soldiers some form of back pay without violence.

Finally, I REALLY would like to get other peoples' input on this paragraph's accuracy. ANYTHING. This has gotten way too personal. If anyone else reading this has access to these books, or access to JSTOR, take a whack at the section, only good can come from it. I am going to stay out of this article, except to label it as disputed just so that more people will have a look the Newburgh section, contribute based on reliable sources and historical consensus. Sorry for the long response. Thanks for reading. Good luck.

GoldenMean 04:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, what it needs is an editor whose standards of judgment are not, as GoldenMean's avowedly are, "If I can't imagine a Founding Father doing such a thing, it can't have happened."


 * It would also help if he had consulted any of the secondary sources cited, of which the present text is a precise and careful summary; instead of, as he has, done original research in primary sources. ("Incendiary" was Wills' word, not Washington's - such slips happen; but the present text hass collated with Lender et al. and with the indicated text of Washington's letters).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, enough personal attacks. Stop insulting me, labeling me, and insisting to me and everyone else what my motives really are. Stop ascribing to me quotes of things I didn't say or do,, or things that are vaguely ad hominem, or less than on-the-level. Stop altering the talk page to portray yourself in a more favorable light/alter peoples' perception of events or their order. People can read just fine.

I know you have good intentions for the article, ok? I know your wikipedia technocratic skills dwarf my own. But the issue has always just been the veracity of the material as detailed by the consensus of something resembling mainstream historical writing. Please, stop saying I don't consult sources, I do, I have, I will continue to. That will be the case no mater what you say. That I quote Chernow a lot is just a result of the fact that I own it, and its one of the newest, most widely acclaimed and exhaustive (818 p.) Hamilton bios. I know you hate the book, but it is a very credible, widely accepted source, though not the only one of course. I object to parts of those two paragraphs because of what I have read, not because of what I want to/not to believe. I will give them more time to be looked at, changed. We can resolve this fairly, I know it.

GoldenMean 03:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Chernow? I applaud your tenacity at wading through 800 pages of such prose as Had he [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 takes the stereotype of the irreligious eighteenth century to new depths.) More serious is the oleaginous apologetic on at least 700 of those pages.  No wonder you have presented the appearance of a hagiographer; you've been reading one. (I of course accept your word that you do not so intend; although I can only judge by your edits.)


 * Chernow's popularization received, and deserved, appalling reviews in the professional press; we cite one of them (on the question of Hamilton's homosexuality). But provide a citation of a source which gives a different account of Hamilton's religion in middle life, or his involvement at Newburgh, and we will include them also; as it is, I can only follow the consensus of the sources I've seen.


 * I have been patient, and waited for Labor Day, on which most editors concerned with this article will be busy. But there is a limit; edits based on (and sourced to) mainstream sources should not be tagged indefinitely on the basis of "I don't believe it" and "I read it somewhere".    Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton's reputation
The claim that Hamilton's reputation was obscured in the nineteenth century is very longstanding in the article, but I'm not convinced. Whigs and their heirs continued to praise him; most of the reason he seems unmentioned is that the only Whig we read is Lincoln. While I'm about it, I removed the claim that Lodge and Roosevelt were opponents; they were allies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, wholeheartedly. DukeOfSquirrels 17:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

William S. redux
William S. Hamilton has been created, following the discussion on this page. Any additional input from anyone would be appreciated. It is still a work in progress (pretty rough, needs copy edit and expansion etc etc, so be nice). I added a sentence to the page here about him in the "Family life" section. I didn't add a footnote or anything since the article on William is pretty well referenced. If you want a note, you can steal one from the William S. article or just use the Hendrickson book. IvoShandor 07:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism.
Could anyone confirm if this edit is vandalism? Thanks. Aowpr 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's a recurrent problem: is Jay one of the chief authors of the Federalist Papers when he wrote only six of them? "Two" is probably better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Artillery company
The following passage: ''he raised his own artillery company of sixty men in 1776, a company which is the only unit from the Revolutionary War still in service with the American Army. Drilling them, selecting and purchasing their uniforms with funds he helped raise, and winning their loyalty, they chose the young man as their captain'' seems unnecessarily fulsome, and the claim that it is the only Revolutionary unit still serving (a NY artillery company?) is unsourced, and has been tagged since May. I have trimmed; if someone can source the claim, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroes
From the first paragraph - "he was and is widely acknowledged to be the sexiest of the Founding Fathers" - this article is about making a hero. Heroes belong in mythology, not history. --Kjb (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am quite certain that was vandalism. Shoreranger (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)