Talk:Alexander Hamilton/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Relationship with John Laurens 2 historians agree AH was leading abolitionist 2.1 Hamilton not mentioned 2.2 Point of personal privilege 2.3 What Newman says 2.3.1 Hugh Knox 2.3.2 plagiarism 2.4 "like many abolitionists" 3 Jefferson 4 Expansion 5 Using scholarship 5.1 Larsen 5.2 Incompetence? 5.3 What Hamilton actually said 6 Unsourced and unsupported personal opinion 7 Yes Knox taught Hamilton 7.1 Myles Cooper 8 Monarchy 9 Weston 10 What's wrong with the intro 11 Avoiding Peacock Terms and Personal Attacks 12 Citation not found 13 And on a lighter note 14 The Gerrymandering of New York 15 Related RfC 16 Freeing slaves 17 Jay's treaty again 17.1 Who invented that? 18 Irresponsible editing 18.1 Some incidental notes

Relationship with John Laurens

Hamilton had an extraordinary relationship with John Laurens, whom he wrote that he loved. It has been suggested, by Jonathan Ned Katz and others, that this was a homoerotic relationship. In any case, it bears mentioning here. [1]

To accuse one of our Founding Fathers of being a homosexual based on assumption routed in a phrase 'loved' is not enough to establish it as fact. In fact, if you read the letters of our Founders, as I have to do my thesis in college, you would understand that the way men expressed themselves then (and woman for that matter) was quite different than our modern minds would perceive. --Northmeister 00:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree in saying that it is worth mentioning, even if it is noted to not be positively true. It seems fairly likely through the excerpts of letters I've read that his rleationship with Laurens was at the very least more than platonic. Also, being a homosexual isn't necessarily a bad thing. "To accuse one of our Founding Fathers of being a homosexual," isn't to say that he was a bad man. --theysangthesolo

Actaully Hamilton asked Laurens to find him a wife: [Mitchell p 199]:

Hamilton had commissioned his friend John Laurens to get him a wife in South Carolina, and gave specifications of his requirements. ... "She must be young--handsome (I lay most stress upon a good shape) Sensible (a little learning will do)--well bred. . . chaste and tender (I am an enthusiast in my notions of fidelity and fondness) of some good nature--a great deal of generosity (she must neither love money nor scolding, for I dislike equally a termagant and an oeconomist)--In politics, I am indifferent what side she may be of--I think I have arguments that will safely convert her to mine--As to religion a moderate stock will satisfy me--She must believe in god and hate a saint. But as to fortune, the larger stock of that the better."

Rjensen 10:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Good quote to indicate the times he lived. --Northmeister 18:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the o that was attached to economist in the above quote. I hope that I was correct in doing so and it wasn't a quaint spelling of economist that I don't recognize.

Hamilton used the o in oeconomist Rjensen 20:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe that Alexander Hamilton had a sexual relationship with his friend John Laurens, as it is well-known that Hamilton was, in fact, quite the playboy throughout his life. He was often in sticky situations because of his appreciation of the female sex, and everyone who knew him knew that. In fact, I believe it was his wife's good friend Dolley Madison who named a tomcat of hers "Alexander Hamilton" because of his wandering ways.

Some biographers have suggested a relationship with Laurens, or with Lafayette, before Hamilton's marriage. Hamilton's reputation as a philanderer was almost entirely from some years after that, as far as we can tell. They find the tone of the correspondence suggestive, even for the Age of Sentiment. I did not write it; but the present phrasing does have one advantage: Unless "intimate" is taken in a prurient sense, the statement is indisputable: Hamilton and Laurens were intimates and friends. Septentrionalis 17:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

historians agree AH was leading abolitionist

Hamilton has often been described as one of the 4-5 most prominent abolitionists among the Founding Fathers (along with Jay and Franklin). For example the main scholarly study is The Transformation of American Abolitionism: Fighting Slavery in the Early Republic by Richard S Newman (2002). on p 18 he says the NYC group was along with the Phily group the “most visible” in the country. He specifies Jay and Hamilton (along with Franklin and Rush) as the prominent statesmen who endorsed abolition. The same argument appears in William Jay, and the Constitutional Movement for the Abolition of Slavery by Bayard Tuckerman, (1893) P 23 which lists the five outstanding antislavery figures of the late 18th century, including Hamilton as one of the five. Likewise Horton (2004) and Littlefield (200) agree. Rjensen 22:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read Horton, who is writing a tertiary source. I do not see this claim. My eyes may be glazing; please quote the exact words to which you give this sense. If the present text said that Hamilton was a prominent statesman who endorsed abolition I would still edit for redundancy and so forth; but it does not: it says he was prominent as an abolitionist; a statement unsupported by even his most fervent biographers. I have limited WP time at the moment (as may be obvious); but I will consult the others as soon as I can.

The dispute over accuracy and PoV was not originally over slavery; no edit over slavery will completely settle them. I hope a statement of the facts, without peacockry, will settle the matter on that issue; but please do not remove the tags.

As an instance of PoV editing, I protest the suppression of the following passage:

He argued that the blacks were not as stupid as generally believed (and if they were, it didn't matter: "{the Russians would make the best troops in the world", if their officers weren't Russians.) Some biographers have acclaimed the liberation of those given muskets as abolitionism; Hamilton argues for it by pointing out that the British were already offering freedom to slaves who ran away and fought for them. ^[1]

This is both sourced, and (as the link will show) factual. The excuse for this suppression was that it is a pro-slavery PoV. If so, Hamilton was a peculiar abolitionist, for it is Hamilton's, and the quote is from him. I await an explanation that is consistent with Wikipedia policy.

The present text in the intro is as follows:

He opposed the slave trade and negotiated the deal that abolished the international trade in 1808. During the Revolution he urged Congress to enlisted slaves in the army (and then free them). As a lifelong opponent of slavery and top official of the country's leading abolitionist society he was one of the most prominent Founding Fathers in the abolitionist movement.

My objections to this are as follows:

• I see no evidence that he negotiated the slave-trade clause.
  • Neither Chernow nor Mitchell suggest any such thing.
• The clause did not abolish the slave-trade, and we should not say it did.
  • Garry Wills, Negro President 56-9 quotes Madison, Micholas, and Governoeur Morris as expecting the Southwest and the 3/5th clause would give the South an electoral majority. So this is not merely a point of detail.
• The sentence on the Revolution is misleading: it was one abortive project, to raise three or four batallions for one emergency, and it wasn't Hamilton's idea. If we were discussing John Laurens, this phrasing and placement would be proper.
• That he was a lifelong opponent of slavery is conjecture. There is no evidence either way before the Revolution, as Horton, and others state.
• That he was top official is peacockry,even in describing the Society secretary; Jay was President. Unless there is evidence elsewhere, it is unsupported by reliable sources; it is a slip of Horton in reading Brookhiser.
• That the New York society was "the leading" is peacockry; it is not even supported by Jensen's own summary above.
• The remainder of the sentence is either original research or (in the lead) undue weight given to a minority view; what even Chernow does not assert is not consensus. Septentrionalis 00:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Slave trade at Constutional convention. Pmanderson is right (I misread Mitchell 1: 411); the clause was an agreement to abolish the International slave trade in 1808, which happened on schedule.
2. Garry Wills etc: Hamilton lost out on the 3/5th rule.
3. Hamilton was a top aide to Washington and he made a formal proposal to Congress involving abolition (with Laurens). That is important to show AH’s dedication to abolition from early on.
4. Lifelong opponent is true enough. He was on record opposing slavery at age 15 [McDonald p. 10] – how young does one have to be? Horton p 19 quotes Hamilton attacking slavery in print at age 19
5. Top official–he was the #2 official after Jay.
6. New York and Philadelphia were the 2 leading abolitionist societies. (See the standard history by Newman p 18)
7. Prominent among Founding Fathers: not original research–comes from Newman book Rjensen 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The Constitution says: The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person (I,9,1) (and Article Five prohibits the amendement of this before it expires).
   • This is not an agreement to abolish, but an agreement to postpone consideration definitely. (If, as some think, the South felt certain of losing the vote when it came, this would be a tweak; but Wills shows that Madison and others expected to have a majority in the not-too-distant future, and Morris, at least, agreed.)
2. The draft plan he drew up during the Convention included the three-fifths rule (Mitchell, p. 401). There were many reasons for Northerners to oppose it; assuming it as anti-slavery is conjecture.
3. Top aide is redundant; Washington did not have a multi=level staff. He supported Laurens' limited (and abortive) proposal; to phrase this as through the proposal were general is misleading the reader.
4. please quote McDonald, with date of document. It is particularly undesirable to cite Hamilton by age.
   • Horton quotes a document opposing Parliamentary rule in the colonies as slavery. By this argument, Jefferson is an abolitionist.
   • None of the actions cited as Hamilton's opposition to slavery took place after 1788; none of them related to New York's actual abolition in 1799.
5. The assertion that he was secretary depends on a single tertiary source, written by a man who is out of his field, citing a source which does not support him. Even if true, it would not justify top man, but a top man.
   • On this matter, Chernow, who looked at the New York papers, is a secondary source.
6. So they were. The unmodified text did not say this, and it suggested that New York was unparallelled.
7. I do not have Newman with me as I type. I repeat, however, that there is a distinction between a prominent man who opposed slavery and a man prominent as an opponent of slavery.

The present section on Hamilton and slavery is advocacy by special pleading and selective quotation. This does not belong on Wikipedia; use a blog - we can even link to it.

Hamilton not mentioned

I will add here: I pulled a random history of abolition off the shelf. Basker, ed. :Early American Abolitionists 1760-1820, which contains extensive historical reviews to set context. It mentions Franklin and Jay repeatedly; it mentions Hamilton three times:

• once to say that he, Madison, and Jay wrote the Federalist Papers.
• Twice in identifying Tench Coxe as Undersecretary of the Treasury.

It doesn't mention his antislavery activity at all. Septentrionalis 19:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Filler: Crusade against Slavery mentions Jefferson, Benezet, and Henry Clay on the Kentudky constitution of 1798. He doesn't ever mention Hamilton, and he mentions several societies without picking out the NY one. Septentrionalis 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Arming slaves : from classical times to the modern age, edited by Christopher Leslie Brown and Philip D. Morgan, mentions the South Carolina episode as one of a series of such proposals. It associates it with Laurens alone, and even calls him "a rather solitary proponent. Septentrionalis 15:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Point of personal privilege

As a point of personal privilege, I would appreciate a retraction of the "pro-slavery" personal attack. Quoting Hamilton's views does not mean I approve them. Septentrionalis 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What Newman says

The New York society joined its Pennsylvania counterpart as one of the most visible first-generation abolitionist organizations. Inaugurated in New York City in January 1784, the NYMS advocated the gradual abolition of slavery, established schools for free blacks, aided African Americans in courts of law, and fought to end the overseas and domestic slave trades. Like the PAS, the New York group received official incorporation from the state government and welcomed prominent statesmen into its ranks, including John Jay and Alexander Hamilton.

And on p.28:

New York’s John Jay and Alexander Hamilton (both members of the New York Manumission Society) held corresponding status in the PAS. (after similar mentions of PAS members from Massachusetts.

This is all he says.

• If browsing did not make clear that Newman is reading the PAS archives for the 1780's and 1790's, I would cite this as more evidence of Hamilton's inactivity. As it is, it is inconsistent with the implications of Jensen's edits that Hamilton was the anti-slavery Colossus.
• This does not say that there were the two leading organizations, but that these were two among the leading organizations.
• January 1784 puts Hamilton even further from the founding of the NYMS; it may be a misprint.
• The last sentence from p.18 is clear. Hamilton was a "prominent statesman" who joined the anti-slavery ranks.
• Mention of this PAS corresponding membership without anything to show he did anything with them, even attended while in Philadelphia, would be tendentious.

Septentrionalis 14:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Alas, it was a common tactic for proslavery spokesmen to ridicule and minimize the work of abolitionists. Pmanderson continues that unfortunate tradition.

So, to add anything less than laudatory about Hamilton is to support slavery. A convenient argument, but less than a syllogism - and a violation of WP:AGF. Septentrionalis 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hamilton was one of the 3-5 most prominent opponents of slavery among the Founding Fathers say the historians [Newman, Horton] & is denied by no-one. Hamilton helped set up one of the two most important abolitionist societies in the country, was elected secretary and president, drew up key petitions, and was active in its legal work and its boycotts. Pmanderson'squibbles are typical of anti-anti-abolitionists seeking to minimize their role in history. He demands I quote McDonald when he was the one who erased the McDonald quote. OK Here's McDonald p 10, saying Knox in 1772, "taught him to abhor slavery as the wellspring of many other evils." Or page 34: " In one crucial respect, however, his attitude never changed: he always championed liberty and abhorred slavery." (talking about black slavery)
  • Newman does not say this; Horton does not appear to say it.
  • Does McDonald present any evidence on page 10, or is this more conjecture? Septentrionalis 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hamilton as an officer of the Manumission Society. Several biographers say so: History of the Republic of the United States of America: As Traced in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton by John C. (John Church) Hamilton says AH was elected president of the group abou 1800 [p. 442] Also Nathan Schachner, Alexander Hamilton (1946), p. 183. As late as 1803 he was elected an officer [Hamilton Papers vol 26 p. 81]. Alexander Hamilton: A Life by Willard Sterne Randall calls him "a prime mover" in the Manumission Society. Randall says AH drafted the 1786 petition to the state legislature calling for the abolition of slavery--there were 9400 slaves in NY state. It passed the Assembly over furious opposition but was killed by the upper house [292-3] In Blacks in Colonial America by Oscar Reiss (1997) has details on abolition in every state, and says AH was elected Secretary (p. 85). The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846 by Charles Sellers says Hamilton succeeded Jay as President of the group. [p 128] Rjensen 15:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Jensen does present a lot of obscure reading. Since he does not represent Newman accurately, as seen above, I suppose I shall plough through all this.
  • If all this is so, why don't Mitchell and Chernow mention any of it? Septentrionalis 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

People who systematically go about ridiculing abolitionists are following a well-known proslavery agenda. That is nasty business and will be exposed. Newman lists the most important abolitionist leaders of the era and notes Mamumission Soc "received official incorporation from the state government and welcomed prominent statesmen into its ranks, including John Jay and Alexander Hamilton." I think "prominent statesmen" = Founding Fathers. Mitchell's bio in 1950s was written before the civil rights movement, and abolitionists had a very bad press then for causing a needless war [Civil War]. So Mitchell simply left out the details. We have a much different sensibility today and so people like Horton, kennedy, Randall, Littlefield etc pay more attention to his antislavery work. Rjensen 18:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This does not explain Chernow's omissions. Septentrionalis 02:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating! In my experience, ridiculing abolitionists has been the business of the Marxists rather than Southern Apologists, and pro-slavery is not a fault I normally ascribe to Marxists. Frederick Douglass deprecated most abolitionists as wanting, "Rain without thunder and lightning." Pro-slavery is not a descriptor I would apply to him. Personally, I think Hamilton and Franklin and crew did about as well as they could, but others are not so charitable for reasons that have nothing to do with liking slavery.

I will add that I grew up on books written in the 1950's, and if anything the abolitionists were lionized. The next current was that the Founders sold out the slaves to expediency, and only around 1980 did I start running into the attitude you describe. Obviously, your experience is different, and if you have done careful surveys of trends in the literature, I stand informed.

The following observation is based solely on comparing the one source I have had time to read in full to what you, Rjensen, say it says. I don't see the claim that you find in Horton to the effect that Hamilton was one of the top N, for any N. I just don't see the words. Horton might well believe it, but we should not put words in our sources' mouths. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither do the other three. I have discussed Newman above. Tuckerman's nineteenth-century book makes a list of anti-slavery societies; the NYMS is duly listed, between the PAS and the abolition society of Connecticut. Littlefield discusses the mulatto abolitionist William Hamilton at some length; he has four paragraphs on Alexander, none of which say any such thing; founding member (and member of a committee) of the NYMS, but nothing about secretary. Septentrionalis 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have suggested the compromise that Hamilton was a prominent man who opposed slavery here [2] and was immediately reverted; this is what Horton and Newman appear actually to say. If Rjensen prefers silence, fine. More would be hyperbole and original research. Septentrionalis 02:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hugh Knox

McDonald's book (p.10) refers entirely to Broadus Mitchell's paper (ProcNJHistSoc. 69:88-115, and claims no other source or evidence. Knox, Princeton 1754, was minister of St Saba, and transferred to St. Croix May 1772; he spent some time there negotiating the previous fall, but there is no evidence he met Hamilton then. He set up the collection which sent Hamilton to the mainland, and they corresponded thereafter; some of this is lost.

• There is no evidence he taught Hamilton.
• One of his sermons was on the ill-effects of Negro slavery, but there is no evidence he was an abolitionist. The sermon was printed in 1768, so there is no evidence Hamilton heard it.
• He was on St. Croix, all told, six months before Hamilton left it.
• Hamilton had been working for Cruger, and suprisingly literate for two years, before Knox settled on the island.
• Hamilton is not mentioned in Knox's obituary, May 1790.

In short, conjecture, again. Septentrionalis 20:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In Wiki we rely on leading scholars, such as Forrest McDonald. He says "His influence upon Hamilton... was considerable especially in focusing and reinforcing his moral sense. Knox inspired Hamilton with a religious piety that lasted for some time, impressed upon him the dangers of drinking to excess, and taught him to abhor slavery as the wellspring of many other evils." so we go with that. Pmanderson's conjectures have not been accepted by any historian so Wiki must reject his original research. Rjensen 12:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The statements above are from Broadus Mitchell's paper, published as cited. This is McDonald's only source; Jensen is therefore reading between the lines of a tertiary source to find what the secondary source denies. This sounds like originality to me. Septentrionalis 17:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Knox's sermon (or rather quarter of a sermon) is part of a sequence of Christian household management: See Knox's Discourses on the truth of revealed religion and other important subjects. (London, 1768) II, 162-175, and the context. It is a characteristic example of how far one can go without being abolitionist.

• Slaves are held by lawful authority (II,109)
• Parents control their children and servants by divine right (II, 189)
• A belief in God will make them more obedient, and reuce pilferage.
• But these "poor unhappy unfortunates" will be judged equally with us at the day of judgment (and, yes, Knox's phrasing makes quite clear he is preaching to the owners)
• They are not dull and stupid, but appear so because they are in an abject condition and a foreign culture.
• They have faults, but these are the results of the absence of Christian instruction; and their swearing must be the results of white example
• We should be just in our severity to both children and servants; and he quotes Juvenal to the effect that domestic cruelty is a bad example to our children.

Without the element of divine right, this could easily become abolitionism; as in other fields, it became revolution; but it hasn't yet. Septentrionalis 17:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson is engaging in original research to refute established scholarship. That of course is not allowed in Wiki and cannot be tolerated. Rjensen 19:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a curious statement from an editor who has insisted on a statement which is supported by none of his four sources. It is even more curious from an editor who has just reverted a direct quotation from James Oliver Horton, Benjamin Banneker Professor of African History, as pro-slavery[3].

plagiarism

McDonald's words:

His influence upon Hamilton, during the few months he had him under direct tutelage, was considerable, especially in focusing and reinforcing his moral sense. Knox inspired Hamilton with a religious piety that lasted for some time, impressed upon him the dangers of drinking to excess, and teaching him to abhor slavery as the wellspring of many other evils.

Text: The Reverend Hugh Knox was a Princeton-educated teacher who directed Hamilton's studies and had a major impact on the young man, especially in focusing his moral sense, inspiring Hamilton's religious piety and teaching him to abhor slavery as the wellspring of many other evils. [4]

This is plagiarism. It also stigmatizes McDonald as a less than reliable source on this matter, since his only source (ft. 14, 368{ is Broadus's "excellent" paper; which expressly denies that there is any evidence that Knox taught Hamilton. The passage (in the originalMcDonald's original text) is a highly-colored, but accurate, account of Knox's views, as Mitchell and I read them. Septentrionalis 22:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Are you claiming that McDonald made this up out of whole cloth? When you say, "the original," do you mean the original of McDonald, or of Broadus? Robert A.West (Talk) 03:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• What McDonald is saying, while less than Jensen seems to think it is, is hedging. Can a (minor) member of your congregation count as being under "tutelage"?

• If so, McDonald's language is more or less justified, for we know what Knox's sermons were. (I suspect McDonald has not read them, and this is why the last clause is vague. Broadus Mitchell summarized as "ill effects of slavery").
• Mitchell also said that there is no evidence, either way, that Knox taught Hamilton. However, McDonald may well mean this, or be happy to suggest it. He may regard it as obvious that Knox would have done so; Hamilton did require some months of coaching even after he arrived in North America. It depends, I suppose, when Knox noticed Hamilton, and when Hamilton left St. Croix (I observe that Chernow has a conjecture on this.) Septentrionalis 16:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, where do you get the 200-1000 word stuff from? Fair use does not give any hard and fast rules on number of words; however, it is never fair use to lift a passage out of one work and pass it off as one's own writing in another. Either this passage should be modified to an exact quotation and quotation marks added, or it should be rephrased. As to Septentrionalis's substantive objection, it sounds like a serious problem -- akin to the problem with Larson that you discuss below. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rules: From Chroncile of Higher Education March 10, 2006: "A fact sheet on fair use written by the U.S. Copyright Office does not say that fair use is limited to a set number of words. It says fair use of a work is permitted for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research....And the guidelines say that 1,000 words or 10 percent of a work of prose, whichever is less, can be republished. But at least two publishers, Blackwell Publishing and Elsevier, advise authors and editors seeking to make fair use of a book to republish no more than 400 words." [5] Rjensen 03:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the above only applies to a properly-attributed quotation. Second, as your quotation makes clear, the figure is only a guideline, not a legal safe harbor. You can quote or you can rewrite, but please don't put forth other people's words as your own. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism rules are academic rules apply to individuals who take credit for original research when in fact they used someone else's work. It does not apply to collective projects like enyclopedias. In any case the sources are fully referenced and Wiki has very strict rules against original research. That is, Wiki says there is no original research on Wiki, and Wiki takes no credit whatever for original research.Rjensen 05:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:Copyvio. Taking language is only acceptable for purposes of comment or parody, and when the quotation is clearly indicated. This is neither; and further purports to make McDonald's words available under GFDL, which they are not. Septentrionalis 15:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In particular, Rjensen seems to confuse expression and ideas: Ideas cannot be copyrighted, but the particular expression of ideas in words can be. Original ideas are prohibited by policy, but articles that are original prose expressing existing ideas is mandated by policy. Also, from the Manual of Style, "Use quotation marks or indentations to distinguish quotations from other text." How much clearer do things need to be stated? Robert A.West (Talk) 03:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"like many abolitionists"

Can anyone source the claim that "many" abolitionists owned slaves. Perhaps many abolitionists were former slave owners, but it seems like the two are slightly incompatible. That would be like saying "like many vegetarians, he ate meat". savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If one counts the NYMS as abolitionist, see Chernow, p. 214ff. There was a proposal that they free their slaves, mostly some years in the future, and they voted it down and dissolved the proposing committee (of which Hamilton was a member). Septentrionalis 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

William Lloyd Garrison they were not; Hamilton used his position of Secretary of the Treasury to help track down one of Washington's runaways. (Wills, Negro President, p. 209). (She escaped, I'm glad to say.) Septentrionalis 21:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson

He rejected the states-rights, localistic, agricultural orientation propounded by his arch-rival Thomas Jefferson.

I find this inadequate and less than accurate as a description of the difference between their policies; consider Jefferson and the rights of Massachusetts. Arch-rival is melodrama. If I find a better short summary, I will change this. Septentrionalis 21:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

This, however, is an incidental; it does not constitute my objection to the article, or its tone. My objections to content are the omissions of

• The remainder of Hamilton's letter on Laurens' proposal, and the substitution of vague generalities for an actual discussion of what we know.
• Hamilton's projects for the army of 1798.
• The Hammond Affair.
• The gerrymandering of the New York elections of 1800.
• I do not see any point that tells in Hamilton's favor which has been omitted. If we find one, it can be added.

I also intend a general fact-checking, beginning with Morison and Commager. The tone has improved but needs work. Does anyone has a preference which of these should be next? Septentrionalis 02:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I will admit to one prejudice: I dislike claiming as facts assertions for which our sources have no actual evidence. Perhaps a section on biographical conjectures would be in order; I have two candidates:

• Hamilton's hatred of slavery in the West Indies.
• Flexner's psychological conjectures.

Perhaps also Hamilton myths, like the defense of the President of Columbia. Experience elsewhere shows that if such things are noted, with the reasons not to believe them, one has to do less reversion. Septentrionalis 02:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Using scholarship

Wiki's role is to present the best scholarship, and not to do any original research. That means that if a leading scholar makes a point about Hamilton we are bound to it, unless there is a dispute in the literature. (In which case we report the dispute and not try to arbitrate it.) The POV rules mean that efforts to promote a proslavery or anti-abolitionist agenda are not allowed on Wiki. Some recent edits run afoul of these rules by one editor who wants to ridicule abolitionists and indeed ridiculed black soldiers at one point. Rjensen 19:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We are also bound to say what the literature actually says; which the present version does not. And I deny that a statement credited to one secondary source, and denied by that source, is, at that moment, can possibly be the best scholarship - one side of a dispute, possibly. I admire, in the literal sense, Jensen's ability to detect ridicule; what edit can he be thinking of, the direct quote from Hamilton? Septentrionalis 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I got the point of the second sentence, but I am not sure. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A secondary source is in general better than a tertiary source based on it; when the tertiary source contradicts the secondary without explanation, this is especially true. Septentrionalis 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Larsen

Let's give an example of incompetent scholarship that crept into the article. A 1952 article by Larson in William and Mary Quarterly discussed (p 147) whether young Hamilton in fact was given charge of business affairs when the owner (Cruger) was away. The evidence rested on a dozens of letters. Larson said the letters were "baffling" and noted that he was not a handwriting expert and could not verify they were by Hamilton, therefore "for the lack of convincing evidence" he decided they were not by Hamilton andtherefore Hamilton was not really in charge (p 148). . Since then the experts at the Hamilton papers (Syrett et al see vol 1) confirmed the handwriting, as did Mitchell and most recently Chernow, who conducted extensive research in the West Indies. All biographers now agree that Hamilton did write the letters and that he was in charge of the business. All except one editor who still cites Larson's doubts and wants Wiki to reflect discredited 1952 speculation.

Rjensen 02:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the proper wiki process, at last: The statement was originally unsourced; I sourced it when I found it mentioned, and included the author's doubt; Rjensen has come up with better sources. I will check what these citations actually say, and amend accordingly. Septentrionalis 15:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Incompetence?

Hamilton was a lifelong abolitionist, going on record at age 19 against slavery, even though (like other abolitionists) he owned household servants. He collaborated with Laurens on a proposal to and arm a regiment of blacks under Laurens' command, and emancipate them. Hamilton brought the proposal to Congress, but it was rejected by South Carolina officials. He refuted arguments that blacks made incompetent soldiers and rejected the dominant racism of the era.[6] He publicly denounced Americans who demanded freedom for themselves but refused to allow it for blacks: "Who talk most about liberty and equality?... Is it not those who hold the bill of rights in one hand and a whip for affrighted slaves in the other?" ^[2]

As Horton, a leading African American historian, observes, Hamilton was moving toward a vision of a multiracial society and matched his actions to his beliefs. In 1785 he helped organize the (New York) Society for Promoting Manumissions. John Jay was president and Hamilton was Secretary; he later became President. This was the second abolitionist society in the country. It played the major role in abolishing slavery for the 9,000 black slaves in New York State in 1799. Hamilton, Jay and Burr — three of the most powerful men in New York City — organized boycotts to force businessmen and newspapers to end their connection with the international slave trade. In court, Hamilton argued on behalf of dozens of runaway slaves in pro bono lawsuits. In international affairs Hamilton supported Toussaint L'Ouverture's black government in Haiti after he revolted and overthrew French control. ^[3]

What Jensen's sources actually say:

• Horton:

  Yet Hamilton did not call for removal of blacks emerging from slavery. He is traditionally credited with envisioning an industrialized, urbanized America, but we might consider that he may have also envisioned a multiracial America. Of all the differences between Hamilton and Jefferson, perhaps their assumptions about the racial future of America were most telling. For a man who had grown up in a black society in the West Indies, a multi-racial New York or a multiracial America was not unimaginable.

  An argument from silence: Hamilton never said anything for the colonization of freedmen; therefore he might not have minded a multiracial society. A quite possible conjecture; but not what Jensen quotes Horton as saying.

• McDonald;

  Much of what he said about slavery at first was patriotic hyperbole, but beneath the talk about evil ministerial designs lay an intense hostility towards slavery in the more conventional sense. (No date is given.)

  In short, Hamilton is "on the record" as opposing the British; but McDonald sees a deeper sense.

  This appears to arise from a single short paragraph in the Full Vindication (McDonald gives no examples) which criticizes slavery in a manner not uncommon in the middle 1770's: Slavery was condemned by almost all the leaders of the Revolution. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, slaveholders all, made statements supporting the principle of gradual abolition. (McManus 152). McDonald's view is described in the present text. Septentrionalis 15:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Kennedy, 97-98

  Too long to quote, but a lengthy statement about the Manumission society, controverting any suggestion in Flexner's text that it was a do-nothing body. Since Flexner doesn't say this, the whole passage seems odd; he says it was a social obligation to belong to it. The only mention of Hamilton (other than refutanda from Flesner):

  Its lawyers, such as Hamilton and Burr, processed thirty-six cases of unlawful enslavement for blacks.

  Note that all the society's lawyers did three dozen, and since there were at least four of them (Chernow, p.239), dozens above is an exaggeration. Septentrionalis 01:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • And McManus: History of Negro Slavery in New York pp.168-170 (which is the sole source here) says something quite different, but perhaps more numerous. Septentrionalis 17:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  Flexner. p.39:

  a list of items, which are mostly included in the present text.

  p/259:

  This is the key to the matter; this is the letter about Laurens, which Horton justly describes as not quite egalitarian. Since Jensen links to a Bowlderized version, I shall quote it. Jensen insists on quoting parts of this; and leaving other parts unquoted. I really see no neutral reason why. Septentrionalis 00:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  Littlefield

  This is a mystery; what statements in the above text is Jensen citing Littlefield for?

  If it's Haiti, we really should also include that Hamilton also agreed to support the slaveholders of Saint-Domingue in 1791 (Wills, p.35)

This is a mass of exaggeration, even of the sources here, alll but one of which has a clear Hamiltonian PoV. There are other factual errors; but they will be cleaned up in rewrite. Is this incompetence, or what is it? Septentrionalis 01:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What Hamilton actually said

Alexander Hamilton to John Jay

14 Mar. 1779 (Papers 2:17--18) [7]
Col Laurens, who will have the honor of delivering you this letter, is on his way to South Carolina, on a project, which I think, in the present situation of affairs there, is a very good one and deserves every kind of support and encouragement. This is to raise two three or four batalions of negroes; with the assistance of the government of that state, by contributions from the owners in proportion to the number they possess. If you should think proper to enter upon the subject with him, he will give you a detail of his plan. He wishes to have it recommended by Congress to the state; and, as an inducement, that they would engage to take those batalions into Continental pay.

It appears to me, that an expedient of this kind, in the present state of Southern affairs, is the most rational, that can be adopted, and promises very important advantages. Indeed, I hardly see how a sufficient force can be collected in that quarter without it; and the enemy's operations there are growing infinitely serious and formidable. I have not the least doubt, that the negroes will make very excellent soldiers, with proper management; and I will venture to pronounce, that they cannot be put in better hands than those of Mr. Laurens. He has all the zeal, intelligence, enterprise, and every other qualification requisite to succeed in such an undertaking. It is a maxim with some great military judges, that with sensible officers soldiers can hardly be too stupid; and on this principle it is thought that the Russians would make the best troops in the world, if they were under other officers than their own. The King of Prussia is among the number who maintain this doctrine and has a very emphatical saying on the occasion, which I do not exactly recollect. I mention this, because I frequently hear it objected to the scheme of embodying negroes that they are too stupid to make soldiers. This is so far from appearing to me a valid objection that I think their want of cultivation (for their natural faculties are probably as good as ours) joined to that habit of subordination which they acquire from a life of servitude, will make them sooner bec[o]me soldiers than our White inhabitants. Let officers be men of sense and sentiment, and the nearer the soldiers approach to machines perhaps the better.

I foresee that this project will have to combat much opposition from prejudice and self-interest. The contempt we have been taught to entertain for the blacks, makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason nor experience; and an unwillingness to part with property of so valuable a kind will furnish a thousand arguments to show the impracticability or pernicious tendency of a scheme which requires such a sacrifice. But it should be considered, that if we do not make use of them in this way, the enemy probably will; and that the best way to counteract the temptations they will hold out will be to offer them ourselves. An essential part of the plan is 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. This circumstance, I confess, has no small weight in inducing me to wish the success of the project; for the dictates of humanity and true policy equally interest me in favour of this unfortunate class of men.[8]

Horton is right; this is enlightened for 1779; if not quite politically correct now. So what is all this fuss about? Septentrionalis 00:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced and unsupported personal opinion

This unfortunate edit[9] , with its somewhat disingenuous edit summary ("fixing details") ensconces three unsourced and unsupported claims in the intro.

• Although he was deeply committed to the principles of republicanism
  • Unsourced.
  • This is inconsistent with Michell, p.434 based on Hamilton's speech to the convention. Even if one considers only what Hamilton saw as practical for the United States, it is deeply misleading not to acknowledge that Hamilton regarded a President-for-Life and life Senators as "republican".
• Along with his feind [sic] John Jay, he was the most conspicuous Founding Father in opposing slavery.
  • Unsourced.
  • Unsupported; even Jensen, the other day, claimed he was fourth or fifth.
  • Improper for WP, and inherently POV.
  • And, incidentally, almost certainly false. Dr. Franklin outshines both of them; Burr did more, as did Troup and Smith (Chernow, p. 214 ff, Mirchell p.353)
• plan devised with a friend,
  • Unsourced.
  • Chernow (p.121); and Mitchell, p. 176 describe it as Laurens' plan.

No statements so controverted belong in the intro. The second one, as a pure statement of Jensen's opinion has no place in WP ar all.

And while I'm looking at this, describing a man who was one of thirty-two attendees at the second meeting (Chernow, 214; Brookhiser 175-6) as a co-founder of the NYMS is stretching the word beyond its elastic limit. 14:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong wrong wrong on all counts.

1 Hamilton's devotion to republicanism in the 1790s was exemplified by the letter to Washington quoted (and by McDonald's book in elaborate detail). Not to mention the Federalist Papers which every scholar in 200 years has cited as an ur-source of American values. The otriginal research by PmAnderson is not credited by scholars.

2 Along with John Jay he was the most conspicuous Founding Fathers -- he is repeatedly listed in the standard reference works like Newman. (The only possible competitor was Franklin, who died too soon to be important in abolition. Franklin was in no way more conspicuous that Hamilton on slavery issue.)

3 Mitchell says AH "participated with a friend John Laurens" in the project. Text says that Hamilton took the emancipation plan to Congress, which is correct--he --not Laurens--made the argument to Congress.

4 AH was a founder of the Manusmission society, the #3 signature, a repeat officer as Secretary, Counsellor and President. Rjensen 14:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The "original research" here consists of looking up Mitchell and Chernow and seeing what they say. That Hamilton supported republican principles for the United States is clear. To suggest that the secretary of the Convention was inventing Hamilton's monarchism is misrepresentation; Chernow and Mitchell agree that he made the speech on hereditary monarchy (with a legislature of Life Senators and commons) as the ideal, but unachievable, government.
2. He is mentioned twice by Newman, and I have quoted both references in full above. They do not support this statement or anything close to it.
   • Despite Franklin's early death, Newman mentions Franklin four times, and calls him eminent.
3. "Took" is misleading, "wrote" is accurate; and "Laurens' plan" is a quote from Mitchell.
4. This is cherry-picking the highest ranks from authorities who disagree. Chernow, who consulted primary sources here, has none of these. Septentrionalis 15:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If Jensen were serious enough to leave dispute tags alone, I would probably have left these, pending discussion. Septentrionalis 15:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Knox taught Hamilton

Historians agree that Knox educated Hamilton:

• Chernow p 35: Knox threw open his library to Hamilton, encouraged him to write, and prodeed him towards scholarship
• Mitchell: An immediate sympathy sprang up between them. Both had the taste for study and literature in a community more given to

ledgers and litigation. Alexander's gifts were obviously to be his reliance, and probably from the first Knox was alert to contrive means of fulfilling the boy's ambitions. Plausibly, a further influence of Knox was on Hamilton's noticeable early piety We may think that Hugh Knox influenced Alexander to support the cause of the American colonies....The evidence points to Hugh Knox as proposer and organizer of the plan to send Alexander to America. Mitchell 1:33-34

• McDonald: "An immediate sympathy sprang up between them. Both had the taste for study and literature in a community more given to

ledgers and litigation. Alexander's gifts were obviously to be his reliance, and probably from the first Knox was alert to con- trive means of fulfilling the boy's ambitions." p 33

• Miller p 6 " Hamilton's [hurricane] letter left no doubt that he had faithfully absorbed the religious instruction of his Presby

terian spiritual guide. "

• These are not independent: Chernow cites Mitchell; McDonald copies him. I will check whether he used quotation marks. Jensen's citation of McDonald is a slip of the editor.
• More importantly, none of them them say, or mean, "teaching". Miller concludes what is doubtless true, that Hamilton was a member of Knox's congregation.

Please quote sources for statements they actually assert. Septentrionalis 15:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Quibble quibble. Indeed it was Mitchell who wrote "An immediate sympathy sprang up between them. Both had the taste for study and literature in a community more given to ledgers and litigation. Alexander's gifts were obviously to be his reliance, and probably from the first Knox was alert to contrive means of fulfilling the boy's ambitions." p 33 Pmanderson seems to think teaching = sitting in a classroom. That is not how teaching works of course. It is the interaction of student and teacher that matters, and historians agree Knox had a major intellectual and moral influence. Rjensen 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Those who wish to publish conjectures should do so under their own names; Wikipedia should stick to the accurate, the consensus, and the verifiable; and it would be nice to keep to things for which there is actual evidence. Knox was his clergyman, his "friend and patron". To suggest, as Jensen has been trying to do, that Knox conveyed some esoteric doctrine, is to go beyond the evidence. Knox's sermons were neither abolitionist nor revolutionary; he specifically avoided discussing the powers of the temporal magistrate, even when drawing the parallel between him and the Christian householder. Septentrionalis 16:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Conjecture? Nonsense. Our job is to go with the scholars--Mitchell, Syrett, McDonald, Miller, Chernow. When they say XXX we report XXX and do not try to refute their conclusions, as Pmanderson repeatedly tries to do. Thus to quote McDonald p 10 regarding Knox: "His influence upon Hamilton, during the few months he had him under his direct tutelage, was considerable, especially in focusing and reinforcing his moral sense. Knox inspired Hamilton with a religious piety that lasted for some time, impressed upon him the dangers of drinking to excess, and taught him to abhor slavery as the wellspring of many other evils. Most immediately important, however, was the orientation of Knox's faction of the Kirk: in a manner of speaking, the fifteen-year‐old Hamilton fell in with a group of revolutionaries" That's history, that's what we report. Rjensen 16:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If "tutelage" = "education", it's McDonald's conjecture. It's unsupported by his (secondary) source, by argument, or by evidence. It should be mentioned; but it should be given no more weight than a single evidence-free conjecture deserves. A special section on McDonald's Hamilton may be warranted, since it seems to differ from everyone else's; but if so, we should report what he said. And its status as McDonald's opinion should be indicated. Septentrionalis 17:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Struck; the other paragraph appears to represent consensus of authorities. Septentrionalis 01:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, in strict usage, "tutelage" does not mean the education given to a 17-year old who has met a payroll; still less does it mean the graduation-address meaning of education which Jensen accuses me of ignoring. If we don't insist on compelling McDonald to mean this, we have the following genuinely consensus set of statements among the authorities, and McDonald agrees completely with Mitchell's paper, which he praises:

• Hamilton was in Knox's congregation;
• Knox lent him books,
• Knox encouraged him to write for the paper, which Knox helped edit
• Knox preached sobreity and about the evils of slavery
• Knox helped arrange for Hamilton to go to the mainland.
• Knox had great influence on Hamilton.

I propose to edit in this sense. Septentrionalis 20:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Myles Cooper

The incident in which Hamilton saved the Tory President of Columbia from a patriot mob by oratory is accepted by McDonald (p.14), Mitchell (I 75), Chernow (63), and Flexner (78). Flexner even answers the objection that Cooper wrote a poem about the incident and didn't mention Hamilton.

Yet Rjensen deleted this consensus statement[10] If we are bound to follow the consensus of the authorities, why?

I await an explanation, with interest. Septentrionalis 21:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Monarchy

On the other hand, Jensen ignores the clear text of historians on a far more important issue: Mitchell distinguishes quite clearly between Hamilton's "ideal" government, the parliamentary monarchy, and his requirements for the "republican experiment". (Howe's paper addresses only the latter, and doesn't narrate the quarrel before 1792.) The present text of the intro is incompatible with this distinction. Septentrionalis 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Weston

I must congratulate Jensen on depending on Rob Weston's paper. The journal says that it was written by an undergraduate; and the paper argues, quite plausibly, that Hamilton was ambivalent about slavery. Citing for other views takes ingenuity. Septentrionalis 23:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Although Weston does have an excellent idea on how to express the several points of view involved here.Septentrionalis 23:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the intro

Since I find the present text of the intro unsqatisfactory in several places for different reasons, discussed throughout this talk-page. I discuss it at length here.

He rejected the states-rights, localistic, agricultural orientation propounded by his arch-rival Thomas Jefferson.

• Inaccurate, and partisan, as an account of Jefferson's policy. How much respect did President Jefferson show to the rights of Massachusetts? I will rephrase when I find a better one. Arch-rival is melodrama; and would be in any case Burr.

Along with his friend John Jay, he was the most conspicuous Founding Father in opposing slavery.

• A statement of opinion. Should not be in article unless it were scholarly consensus; not in header unless overwhelming consensus. Jensen has yet to find even one source that actually says so.

and was a cofounder and president of the country's second abolitionist society.

• cofounder is an exaggeration; Hamilton was one of 32 at the second meeting; Chernow, 214
• second is false: the Quakers of New York were organized for abolition long before; see Mc Manus; the Pennsylvania society was first formed 1775.
• President is misleading and badly sourced.

Although he was deeply committed to the principles of republicanism

• False without in the United States; all his biographers acknowledge his speech to the Constitutional Convention holding monarchy the ideal form of government.

his political opponents repeatedly alleged he was a secret monarchist who wanted to bring back the British system. Madison referred to him as a Tory; Jefferson called him a monarchist. Intemperate charges were commonplace in the era

• Implies that the Jeffersonian charges were groundless, which is absurd. Madison took the notes on his speech at the Convention; Hamilton had been supporting and associating with Tories for years.

Hamilton made sure the Federalist newspapers were equally nasty in their attacks on the Jeffersonians. [2]

• Suggests (falsely) that the Jeffersonian papers began the nastiness; there was no Jeffersonian paper until 1791 (ANB, Freneau, Fenno}

I shall revise, and defend the revisions, unless this is answered.Septentrionalis 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

He rejected the states-rights, localistic, agricultural orientation propounded by his arch-rival Thomas Jefferson.

• Inaccurate, and partisan, as an account of Jefferson's policy. How much respect did President Jefferson show to the rights of Massachusetts? I will rephrase when I find a better one. Arch-rival is melodrama; and would be in any case Burr.

Along with his friend John Jay, he was the most conspicuous Founding Father in opposing slavery.

• A statement of opinion. Should not be in article unless it were scholarly consensus; not in header unless overwhelming consensus. Jensen has yet to find even one source that actually says so.

and was a cofounder and president of the country's second abolitionist society.

• cofounder is an exaggeration; Hamilton was one of 32 at the second meeting;
• second is false: the Quakers of New York were organized for abolition long before; see Mc Manus.
• President is misleading and badly sourced.

Although he was deeply committed to the principles of republicanism

• False without in the United States; all his biographers acknowledge his speech to the Constitutional Convention holding monarchy the ideal form of government.

his political opponents repeatedly alleged he was a secret monarchist who wanted to bring back the British system. Madison referred to him as a Tory; Jefferson called him a monarchist. Intemperate charges were commonplace in the era

• Implies that the Jeffersonian charges were groundless, which is absurd. Madison took the notes on his speech at the Convention; Hamilton had been supporting and associating with Tories for years.

Hamilton made sure the Federalist newspapers were equally nasty in their attacks on the Jeffersonians. [2]

• Suggests (falsely) that the Jeffersonian papers began the nastiness; there was no Jeffersonian paper until 1791 (ANB, Freneau, Fenno}

I shall revise, and defend the revisions, unless this is answered.Septentrionalis 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No don't revise--the statements are quite accurate. PManderson alas began by using proslavery tactics to ridicule abolitionists and blacks, and now expands to tar Hamilton.

1) certainly true: :He rejected the states-rights, localistic, agricultural orientation propounded by his arch-rival Thomas Jefferson. " and yes Jefferson was the arch-rival and even founded a whole party to fight Hamilton. Burr of course was an enemy at the end. 2) :Along with his friend John Jay, he was the most conspicuous Founding Father in opposing slavery. supported by new book by Davis, Inhuman Bondage p 154, as well as major Horton article and major exhibit at NY Hist Society that emphasizes AH role. I don't believe anyone (except maybe Jay) has received this much attention for abolitionist activity in the late 18th century. Note that recent scholarship sharply dimninishes role of Franklin.[11] 3) absolutely true : and was a cofounder and president of the country's second abolitionist society." See Newman book Cofounder: he was #3 on the list; president is attested by several scholars. PManderson's intense POV is showing here 4) Republicanism in the US, agreed. 5) "Hamilton had been supporting and associating with Tories for years. " well not in 1774-1783 when he helped destroy the Tories. He did favor reconciliation with the many Loyalists who remained behind. 6) literally true: :Hamilton made sure the Federalist newspapers were equally nasty in their attacks on the Jeffersonians." Article already cleary states: "party newspapers that bolstered Hamilton's position and excoriated the opposition. He supported partisan newspaper editors such as John Fenno and Noah Webster." Rjensen 19:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks are still deprecated; this one is already grounds for a RfC; there are other remedies for repeated incivility.

Rjensen's comments would be far more legible if he would format them. Either <br> or the left-justified string of control characters (including the autonumbering #) would be a help.

1. I repeat, this is a parody of Jefferson's actual policies; it will be replaced when I find a better short description. The melodrama about arch-rival is frivolous, and inconsistent with Hamilton's decision in 1800.
2. This is not the work of a serious editor.
   • As Robert West said above: Horton does not call Hamilton one of the top N, for any N. This includes N=2, which is the present text. If Rjensen will supply the passage to which he ascribes this force, I will read it.
   • Davis's words are (loc. cit.): "No less significant is the fact that many national leaders including Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, John Adams, John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, and Rufus King, slavery as an immense problem, a curse, a blight, or a national disease."
     • This not only fails to support the claim that Jay and Hamilton were exceptional; it denies it.
   • The reference to the exhibit is not a verifiable citation; and an exhibit on Hamilton is not required to give due weight to Franklin, Burr, or Adams - it would be unkind to compel them to discuss men on whom they have no room for displays.
   • As for Waldstreicher's essay, it makes two actual points: that Franklin's antislavery does not put him on a pedestal above his contemporaries, and that Franklin did not come unequivocally to any such conclusion until late in his life - which is the same decades the other Founders did. Some editors might protest this besmirching of an abolitionist; I will simply agree, for what it is worth.
3. Newman's two mentions of Hamilton are already quoted above. Neither supports the disputed portions of the present text. The remainder of this consists of Rjensen's claims about primary sources, and his guesses at their significance. My POV remains a preference for statements actually supported by reliable secondary sources.
4. Nice to see agreement on something; will so alter.
5. None of this red herring makes Madison's conclusion groundless or supports the bias of the present text, which is therefore undefended.
6. Misleading the reader in the intro, in the hope that he will catch the explanation some paragraphs below, is unacceptable.

This all adds up to additional voices in the actual consensus of scholarship; Hamilton was prominent among the Founding Fathers (which the rest of the article implies anyway) and Like many of them, he expressed his detestation of slavery. I am still willing, for the sake of compromise, to up the second to abolitionist. What's wrong with that? Septentrionalis 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Both the Continental Army and the British freed slave recruits. It took Washington "the first year of the war" to agree to this (see the cited page of McManus); but then it was easier for the British: they didn't have to pay compensation. I don't really care which we say, but they're not the same thing. Septentrionalis 16:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding Peacock Terms and Personal Attacks

Peacock terms are generally deprecated in Wikipedia, even if sourced. In the same vein, I quote from Waldstreicher's essay, "We might ask, in other words, whether these debates about the relative virtues of Founders are doing anything besides increasing our obsession with the Founders and their personal traits. The very question has its biases toward smoking guns, moral judgments, individuals, and their last words." He doesn't think much of the tendency to rank, and on reflection, neither do I.

This whole most-prominent-abolitionist thing is really a tempest in a teapot. The article should focus on what Hamilton did, and what he said. He was prominent: no argument. He worked for abolition and had meaningful accomplishments befitting his station: no argument. Would "abolitionist" have been one of the top three adjectives that a voter in 1800 would have used to describe Hamilton? We will probably never know -- the sources cited so far are silent on that point.

Part of editing is selection. I have enough Franklin biographies on my shelf to dispute numbering Hamilton in the top two, and Catherine Drinker Bowen doesn't even mention Hamilton when she enumerates abolitionists at the Convention. We could devote half the article to the dispute, which would be undue weight to an unimportant issue. The whole question of where Hamilton ranks is peripheral and divisive at best. IMO, it adds nothing to the article.

Rjensen, as for your renewing the attack upon Septentrionalis as being pro-slavery, that was incivil and unjustified, whatever the article should look like. I note that you cite Waldstreicher's points about Franklin, which are remarkably similar to those Septentrionalis raises about Hamilton. Special pleading aside, why should he be called pro-slavery and you not?

Rjensen, please apologize to Septentrionalis, and please climb down from the Reichstag before this gets more carried away than it already has. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen's recent edit puzzles me.

• Why call an extensive revision a tweak?
• Wny this proliferation of peacock terms at all?
• Hamilton helped end the export trade in slaves out of New York; why suggest this was international? The obvious market was the South; the less obvious dodge was to "sell" a slave in New Jersey and "lease" him back, to evade NY legislation. (see McManus)
• Why claim credit for forming Jay's Treaty? The British formed it; if any American helped shape it, it was Jay. ("the treaty Jay had negotiated" McDonald, p. 315.)

And above all: Is Hamilton's reputation so fragile that this mess of exaggerations, and misleading claims, is needed to bolster it?

To be clear, I removed the mass in part because Hamilton's reputation doesn't need it. Septentrionalis 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Some comments. Franklin is no longer considered a major antislavery figure (See Waldtreicher), but Hamilton is, as testified by Horton's major statement and the major exhibit at the NY Historical Society.

1. Hamilton shaped the Jay treaty more than Jay did or anyone else, So he gets credit.
2. people who use proslavery tactics and call blacks stupid are getting themselves in hot water. Pmanderson needs to apologize and promise not to do that again. I will not apologize for loudly complaining about blatant racism.
3. Hamilton played the central role in stopping the international slave trade out of New York City
4. Wiki does not use 50 year old popular history (Bowen)--when we have dozens of better sources. It's an example of poor research skills displayed by Pmanderson. (For example he erased material about AH's business skills based on long-superceded sources, while ignoring very good recent work by Chernow.)
5. Readers expect Wiki to summarize how historians evaluate their subjects. Hamilton as one of the dominant figures 1787-1800 is unusually important. Abolitionism is especially important (the slavery issue has recently badly hurt Jefferson and now Franklin, and raised Hamilton's esteem.)Rjensen 01:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen has left a remarkable number of misattributions for a polemic on research skills.

We have all read Waldstriecher; two of us disagree that he says any such thing, on different grounds. What sentence does Rjensen see this as having this force?

1. Unsourced fantasy; not even McDonald says that.
2. I regret this indefinitely repeated personal attack; I trust it will be reconsidered.
   • stupid is Hamilton's word (so if this is blatant racism, then Jensen's argument falls to the ground anyway).
3. There has beem no evidence, and it is unlikely a priori, that there was any significant international slave trade out of New York in 1785.
   • if this is based on calling New Jersey and the Carolinas other nations, it is deceiving the reader.
   • If it is based on the scope of the law, it is disingenuous. The export of slaves to Mars would be illegal too. Would this justify "interplanetary"?
4. I did not cite Bowen.
   • If I had, so what? The records of the Constitutional Convention have not changed since 1966. (2006-1966 = 40)
   • This comes poorly from a man who will cite a popular history from 1893, like Tuckerman.
5. As far as I can tell, no historian has ever made the evaluation which Jensen insists on; certainly none has been cited. Even if one had, WP:Peacock and the principle of undue weight would argue against the position he wants to put it in. Septentrionalis 17:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation not found

The present text says:

More than any of the Founding Fathers (except perhaps Jay), he expressed detestation for slavery.

This would appear to be Rjensen's original research. What the source cited (David Brion Davis: Inhuman Bondage p. 154) says is:

No less significant is the fact that many national leaders including Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, John Adams, John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, and Rufus King, slavery as an immense problem, a curse, a blight, or a national disease."

If anything, this contradicts the text. Septentrionalis 20:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Horton says it wasn't Jefferson; Waldstreicher says not Franklin. Not Washington [12] and [13] Not Madison Madison [14], Adams [opposed slavery privately] or Morris [maybe--he did fight it at the ConCon but not otherwise] so that leaves Hamilton and Jay [15], as the text says.

What Waldstreicher says is that there was no "it". The rest of this posting is the sort of novel synthesis that Wikipedia: No original research was written to prevent. Septentrionalis 22:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And by adding in Flexner, the same "logic" will prove "it" was Washington (Rjensen's sources against whom actually say: he "led by example" with "a blueprint to end the 'Peculiar Institution'") , since it wasn't Hamilton. This is why Original Research is banned. Septentrionalis 00:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This edit [16] adds the sentence:

One piece of evidence says 1855: probate papers at the time of his mother's death include a statement by a relative that he was thirteen (ie born in 1855), so biographer Mitchell (vol 1 p 11-12) prefers 1755, However biographer McDonald notes that Hamilton was not present at the probate hearing, which spelled his mother's name wrong, so he insists on 1757 (which Hamilton himself insisted on) [ref:McDonald 366]

which suggests that "biographer Mitchell" is alone in so saying; but the first words of the indicated passage from McDonald are: "Most historians now give January 11, 1755, as Hamilton's birthday". Is this the act of a serious editor? Septentrionalis 00:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And on a lighter note

Happy Hamilton's semi-birthday, everybody! Septentrionalis 21:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Gerrymandering of New York

A fuller account would read:

New York, like other states, had its legislature choose its Electors for President, and the legislative election of April 1800 had been largely fought on the issue of whether Federalists or Democratic-Republicans would be chosen; and Aaron Burr won them, by letting the Federalists announce their candidates first. Few prominent Federalists chose to leave New York to spend three months in Albany, but Burr had arranged for the most eminent Jeffersonians to stand, including George Clinton and Horatio Gates.

In May, immediately after the election, Hamilton and his father-in-law wrote John Jay, who had left the Supreme Court to be Governor of New York, suggesting that the outgoing Federalist legislature be recalled, and pass a bill, dividing New York into districts to vote for Electors directly; he enclosed a map of the proposed districts, five or six of which could be counted on to pick Federalist Electors; which might well be enough to decide the election for the Federalists. Jay endorsed Hamilton's letter: "Proposing a measure for party purposes, which it would not become me to adopt", and did not reply.

I think a shorter version will suffice. Septentrionalis 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Related RfC

SB Johnny has made a proposal to settle the RfC related to this article at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Rjensen#Keep_it_here.... Septentrionalis 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As noted in the RfC, I find Septentrionalis version strange and inaccurate. Rjensen's version should be restored.Ultramarine 02:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your grounds; so far these edits look like an unjustified piece of meat-puppetry. Septentrionalis 12:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I support Rjensen and will take a look at related articles also.Ultramarine 15:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If Ultramarine actually finds something to say about Alexander Hamilton, he is of course welcome to join the discussion. Septentrionalis 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen has stated the problems very well already.Ultramarine 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let us be more precise. Do you agree with everything Rjensen has said? If not, what would you disagree with? What would you add? Septentrionalis 13:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Freeing slaves

It would on the whole be helpful if Rjensen would consult the listed references for statements. McManus spends some time describing the British efforts to enourage slaves to run away from their masters and fight for the British on the promise of freedom; more than he does on the Continental enlistments. I don't see why Rjensen disbelieves this; the danger of their doing so is cited in Hamilton's letter. Furthermore, since the injury was to colonials and rebels out of the King's protection, the British had every reason to do so. (I have seen no source on what they did with runaway slaves belonging to Tories; presumably it depended on the political influence of the owner.) Septentrionalis 13:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Jay's treaty again

designing the Jay Treaty in 1794 that promoted trade and resolved issues left over from the Revolution

citing Elkins and McKitrick. What they actually say (as consensus, and they are right) is that Hamilton "devised Jay's instructions", a very different statement.

Those instructions left Jay, who would be negotiating at some 3000 miles from Philadelphia, an enormous amount of latitude, and a rock bottom minimum (EK say sine qua non, 412). Jay, who had a very poor negotiating hand, came in very close to that minimum - in part because of Hamilton. In the process, he failed to resolve most of the grievances and points of principle left over from the Revolution, and made a substantive concession on the carrying trade from the West Indies which was unnecessary (the Senate refused to ratify, and the British accepted the change loc. cit.).

In short, this statement is not supported by its authority - or by any other. (Rjensen writes as if Jay's Treaty were a credit to Hamilton; how he comes to that conclusion is another mystery.) Septentrionalis 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton designed the Jay treaty and Jay negotiated it. "The leading role in the devising of Jay's instructions, as has always been known, was played by Alexander Hamilton. The main principles were initially blocked out at a meeting on April 21, 1794." They explain in detail how all the main prinsiples were wroked out, primarily by Hamilton. By the way it was NOT British custom to free slaves--who invented that?

Bemis (Jay Treat p 212) insists on "how thoroughly the ideas of Hamilton dominated the negotiation, even more strongly than they had controlled the early informal diplomacy with England and the official negotiations between Hammond and Jefferson. Hamilton's influence was now practically unlimited." Rjensen 00:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen quotes correctly statements which do not support his text. But I see no reason not to cite what Elkins and McKitrick actually said. I shall even refrain from adding, as controversial, Hamilton's evaluation of his instructions as a "crude mass". The value of Jay's Treaty, which is even more controversial, does not belong in the intro. Septentrionalis 01:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Who invented that?

Alexander Hamilton. "But it should be considered, that if we do not make use of them in this way, the enemy probably will; and that the best way to counteract the temptations they will hold out will be to offer them ourselves." Letter on the Laurens project, pasted in full above.

The statement is made explicitly by McManus: History of Slavery in New York. 153-8, and by Arming Slaves pp.192-3; the sources cited in the text Rjensen reverted. I should add Elkins and McKitrick p. 411. If some contrary statement can be adduced, the Continental Army's practice will be sufficient, but I see no reason not to follow the sources. Septentrionalis 01:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

there were no combat slave battalions in the US Army, and only one (briefly) in the british army. The latter was a matter of British welcoming American runaways. Hamilton's proposal involved Ameerican slaves with owners' approval. Rjensen 02:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• It would be less misleading to say that there were no slave battalions of any kind; much of the enlistment of slaves was of individuals, and the First Rhode Island was mixed. Septentrionalis 12:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• No version of the text has ever covered their military duties.
• Yes, of course, this was a matter of the British welcoming American runaways; what does Rjensen read as saying anything else?
• Rjensen's last sentence is contrary to several sources which describe Laurens' project as a "draft" (with compensation to the owners). Septentrionalis 02:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Irresponsible editing

This edit [17] is so irresponsible as to approach vandalism. in order to fix a quibble about one word, which could have done as simply as a reversion, Rjensen has not only removed sourced text; he has left the note, adorning words which are not mentioned in the sources. Septentrionalis 00:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The British and Americans welcomed runaways, but that is not the issue. The question is forming slave combat battalions, with the cooperation of the salve owners. It almost happened--Hamilton did get Congressional approval for 3000 troops. Rjensen 00:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The First Rhode Island was raised in 1777; it was originally planned as a slave unit (although it wound up containing other troops as well), and was raised with compensation to the owners. If Rjensen had read Arming Slaves, p. 193, as cited, he would have seen this; so I must assume that he has not. (Knowing American acceptance of runaways is open to question; it is not supported by any text I have supported, and would have hurt relations with those men of substance whom it was always Hamilton's intention to conciliate.) Continued deletion of sourced material (especially if it leaves the footnotes deceptively alleging claims which the text cited does not support) is a form of vandalism. Septentrionalis 14:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The First Rhode Island regiment did contain 96 slaves. The Hamilton-Laurens proposal approved by Congress called for 3000 slaves--quite a difference when fighting a war with armies of 2000 to 8000 soldiers. Rjensen 00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

142 slaves and more free blacks and Indians, but it's the principle that counts; and how exactly does "three or four batallions" become 3000 men? Describing a project opposed by the South Carolina delegation as approved by the Continental Congress is bizarre.

Also, this compares apples to oranges. The Rhode Islanders planned on two battalions of slaves, and didn't get them. Laurens planned on three or four; who knows how many he would have gotten?

In short, Laurens' plan (and all the authorities call it that) was neither the first such plan, the first plan designed for Congress, nor the first plan to be realized - nor would it have been if it had been realized; the key point (of freeing enlisted slaves) was standard practice on both sides.

It was one of a series of plans of this kind. Hamilton wrote a letter in favor of it. In the process, he made some laudable, but not uncommon, remarks about Negro equality, sufferings, and the prospect of emancipation. He also made some remarks not now politically correct, to deflect criticism. These are the facts. Why inflate them? Septentrionalis 00:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Some incidental notes

Sergeant's plan made be found in full at Taylor:Adams Papers 4:454-5. It has large similsrities to Laurens':

• Sergeant wanted to enlist, arm, and free slaves.
• He asserted their equality with whites, when out of "their Condition as Slaves that stifles every noble Exertion."
• He answers objections, including ones Hamilton doesn't address:
  • How do we compensate their masters? (take their price out of their pay).
  • How do we trust slaves with weapons? (make sure they are outnumbered; once they're free, it won't be a problem.)
  • What do we do with them afterward? (there's room on this continent for a free black settlement.)
• He wanted Congress to do this; that's why he sent it to Adams.
  • It was shot down because South Carolina would never go along (only faster).

Regards Septentrionalis 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

McDonald (p. 177) records that the PAS (under Franklin) petitioned Congress to abolish slavery. The New York Society of Friends petitioned Congress against the slave trade. The NY Manumission Society did nothing. Septentrionalis 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)