Open Left

I'm watching a special on Hamilton as I type this. (0.00 / 0)

Well, I paused it.  But, I'm back to it, here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/h...

"I also posit that he was the first true American success story--a poor immigrant, who took full advantage of the opportunities and freedoms in this country to rise from nothing to great prominence, and gave much back in return."

Totally agree.  I've read a biography of him, but the show makes this even clearer for me.  I was just thinking exactly what you wrote.

Of course, in some ways this American mythos can be a force that keeps people down when it's not founded in reality.  (See, e.g.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/b...

.)  But that sort of optimism, in proper context, is one of the great things about this country.

---

by: MattD @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 01:28:06 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]

Heh, I watched the same documentary a few days ago (4.00 / 1)

I'd actually watched and recorded it a few years ago, when it first aired, and saved it to DVD (shhh, don't tell the DVR police...), and wanted to see it again after I started reading the bio. It's 2 hours, but he really does deserve a longer form treatment in a movie or series. In terms of his long-term impact on how the country developed as it did, he's clearly one of the most important figures in US history, possibly more important than Washington and even Madison.

--Washinton's Aide de Camp and essential to the war effort for his brilliant administrative skills and letter-writing to the continental congress requesting provisions and men.

--Led the crucial initial attack on Yorktown.

--Instrumental in organizing the constitutional convention, and then in its drafting and ratification, including, of course, being the primary author of the Federalist Papers.

--First Treasury Secretary, under Washington, where he consolidated the states' war debt and put the US on a solid financial footing, which was so successful that within a decade or two the US had the best credit rating in the world, which made possible the massive espansion it experienced in the 19th century (for good and bad, of course).

--Founded the US Customs Service.

--Founded the forerunner of the US Coast Guard.

--Founded the first US national bank, forerunner of the Federal Reserve.

--Founded the Bank of New York, the oldest bank in the US.

--Founded the NY Evening Post, one of the (if not the) oldest newspapers in the US.

--Major General of the US Army under Adams.

--Tought himself to be a lawyer in 6 months, becoming one of NY's top lawyers.

--When he died, his funeral was the largest at that time in NY history. Virtually the entire city turned out for it. Except, well, for THAT scoundrel (is Vidal's book worth the read?).

What am I missing? So much more. And he never made a dime improperly off of his vast government service. He is, in every sense of the word, the anti-Bush, anti-Blago. I can't believe that I'm only now learning about the immensity of his accomplishments and talents--and I majored in history! (But mostly in European history, and what US history courses I took were 20th century.) And I can't believe that he isn't accorded equal status in terms of importance as the others are. There isn't even a decent monument to him in DC.

OK, who do I write at HBO to get them to do a series on him? I picture Victor Garber playing the older Hamilton, don't know who'd be good to play young Alexander...

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 02:31:17 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]

Great summary. (4.00 / 1)

Yes, a most amazing man.  Jefferson doesn't come out looking too good in that documentary.

I think that he's probably the most underrated founder, with Madison being a close second.  I wonder if this always was the case.  In my own field, you see things happening during the 19th century that influence the way 18th century history is viewed today; I wonder if there was any sort of shift like that in the esteem of our founders.

---

by: MattD @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 03:49:06 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]

also the clause about the president having to be born in the u.s. (0.00 / 0)

may have been created to keep him out of power :)  also he supported the monarchy for life, is still studied for his ideas on development economics, and was a strong proponent of the national - as opposed to the federal.

and of course he helped con a lot of people into ratifying the constitution :)

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 16:20:47 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

Umm... (0.00 / 0)

Snark?

He did not support "the monarchy for life", whatever that means. It's one of the smears that his political enemies spread against him, like that he profited off off his government service (no evidence of it), was secretly an agent of the British (no evidence), and, perhaps most absurdly, was Washington's illegitimate son (no evidence).

This is a man who dropped out of college in order to enlist with the continental army, organized his friends into forming what has been the oldest continually commissioned artillery unit in the US military, served honorably and at the front lines in the Revolutionary War, and basically devoted his life to the US, without having profited off of it.

His two HUGE failings were that he had a talent for making enemies, and a lack of talent at politics. Ooh, and he had an affair with a woman who blackmailed him and was insane enough to divulge its most intimate details because he thought that it would exonerate him--it did not, and instead all but ended his political career.

That whole monarchy thing was one of those urban legends like how Washington had wooden teeth (ivory, actually, which, um, kind of makes sense) and Grant kept falling off of his horse because he was drunk. And I'm not sure what you mean by "was a strong proponent of the national - as opposed to the federal". He wrote the FEDERALIST Papers.

Oh, and the clause that you're referring to actually specifically made provisions for people in Hamilton's position, so he could have been president, at least constitutionally:

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.

And what's up with that last line?

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 00:38:13 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]

shows you how much i know abotu hamilton beyond innuendo :) (0.00 / 0)

i thought he supported washington cnotinuing to run forever, which is where the monarchist thing came from.  In any case, he was a strong propnent of statism (speaking relatively).

that's itneresting about the clause - i hadn't realised or had forgotten that.  will have revisit my history.

The last line was a reference to his writing the Federalist papers :) The whole point of federalism at THAT point was to create a stronger central government from where the articles of confederation had stood, and I think of the three main authors (i can't remember the third - jay?) hamilton leaned furthest towards a strong central government beyond what was eventually agreed to through that hideous series of compromises we call the constitution.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:14:14 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]

But "state" is not the same thing as "nation" (0.00 / 0)

I think that Hamilton saw the "nation" as one, as opposed to the 13 nation view that people like Jefferson held (from whom there is a direct line through Calhoun to the Civil War), united through a central state, but not necessarily dominated let alone oppressed by it, which was Jefferson's fear (not entirely without justification, given that at the time there had never been a non-oppressive central state), because of protections written into the constitution.

He was truly ahead of his time, in so many ways and on so many levels. If anyone actually played successful 11D chess in US history, it was Hamilton. Obama would be lucky to succeed at only 2 or 3 of those levels. He clearly understood that to succeed, grow and prosper, the country would have to have certain legal, financial, economic and administrative structures and processes in place, but was also wise enough to realize that there would have to be various protections and checks and balances in place to guard against tyranny and corruption. Clearly, he was somewhat more successful at the former than the latter, but he probably got it as well as was possible at the time, and created a solid framework for future reform.

And yes, Jay was the third author, but illness prevented him from writing more than a handful of chapters. It was mostly Hamilton and Madison's work.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 16:16:17 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

p.s. (0.00 / 0)

i think you underestimate his political skills :)

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:15:07 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]

I meant on a personal level (0.00 / 0)

Publically, he was quite masterful, although many of his reforms ended up creating him many political enemies since he pushed them through very aggressively, and eventually, he no longer had the political capital to push any more through--especially after Washington, his patron, left office--and basically left government. Perhaps this was the only way to do what he wanted to do, but clearly, his political style was not sustainable in the long run.

He was, really, the exact opposite of today's Dems in terms of political approach. He was the consummate partisan, to the point where he was viscerally hated by his adversaries--a favor which he returned. In a way, he was much more like Bush, in terms of being hyperpartisan, but with brains, logic and even heart. And look as what he had to show for it. So while I agree that he was politically very successful in getting his many reforms through, on a personal level, he ended up destroying himself politically in the process.

We could use a few Hamilton-like Dems these days. I.e. Obama's attack dog in congress, or as cabinet secretary--for progressive reform, of course.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 16:02:51 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]