Yates was passed over by Morris for the position which Hamilton eventually took. He resented this appointment and complained that he had not been sufficiently rewarded while H received what HE should have (he later had to admit he was wrong about this after learning H took no pay for his work.) When you quote Yates please do not pretend that you are quoting an impartial or even fair source. You are quoting an inveterent enemy of Hamilton. Given that TRUTH the statement can be properly evaluated. And thus entirely discredited by honest men.
Yates unsuitability for the office was simply stated: "that it was Necessary the Receiver of Taxes should be able to Look Continentally. He should have Continental Eyes, should not be under governmental Regulation etc. (state)"
Thus, a toady of Clinton was completely unqualified for this post given that they had worked diligently to work to prevent the excise taxes NY collected from being transferred to the Confederation as had been agreed to do earlier. Clinton's factotems had no concern to strengthen the Union.
And you neglected to fully tell the rest of the story which in no way redowns in Yates' favor or against Hamilton. Hamilton's correspondence to Yates had him eventually agreeing with H as to what the job entailed then H (knowing that such assent was contrary to the Clintonites) OFFERED YATES THE JOB knowing he would have to turn down the job he had just sought. After H had made him look the fool he erupted with the misleading and dishonest crap you posted.
I am arrogant enough that being called arrogant causes me no alarm or concern. Like Hamilton, however, I am also honest.
Of course. He said he wouldn't submerge his own opinions and will in Morris's -- but then perhaps you're enough of a modern organization-worshipper that you mightn't have seen anything wrong with that.
When you quote Yates please do not pretend that you are quoting an impartial or even fair source.
I didn't say that I did, only that he reports the substance of the conversation, and historian Main vouches for it.
You are quoting an inveterent [sic] enemy of Hamilton.
Of course he would be, after being insulted like that.
Given that TRUTH the statement can be properly evaluated. And thus entirely discredited by honest men.
Not so. Honest men will see that Hamilton was exactly what people who knew him well, said he was.
Yates unsuitability for the office was simply stated: "that it was Necessary the Receiver of Taxes should be able to Look Continentally. He should have Continental Eyes, should not be under governmental Regulation etc. (state)"
I.e., somebody (you don't say who) thought he should be more......Hamiltonian in his outlook. So what? I think George W. Bush should be more Reaganesque in his outlook.
Clinton's factotems had no concern to strengthen the Union.
Now it's your words that will have to be weighed against other evidence, as you are again displaying blatant bias and Hamilton-worship.
And you neglected to fully tell the rest of the story which in no way redowns in Yates' favor or against Hamilton. .....then H (knowing that such assent was contrary to the Clintonites) OFFERED YATES THE JOB knowing he would have to turn down the job he had just sought. After H had made him look the fool he erupted with the misleading and dishonest crap you posted.
And just how the hell does that redound to Hamilton's credit, please? He was being a skunk and playing someone false.
Leaving aside the question of whether you placed the conversation I quoted correctly in time (Yates recounted it in a letter of Oct. 19, 1782), it seems to me that the conditional nature of the offer of employment was enough in itself to make anyone say no. And no, it shows exactly what I said it did, about Hamilton.
I am arrogant enough that being called arrogant causes me no alarm or concern.
Congratulations. Just don't bleed credibility all over me.
So, lentulusgracchus and GOPcapitalist, you job description has apparently changed again. If you want to be critical of Hamilton (or is his name Titan? Colossus? come on!), you need find firsthand authority. (New rule #1292:) Such firsthand authority can not have been openly critical of Hamilton, or else he is automatically discredited.
And don't forget rule #1175: Any evidence of real-world failures concerning economic interventionism or successes of it's opposite may be dismissed out of hand.