HBO To Air Goldwater Granddaughter's Bio Film -- Attacking Religious Right

You know, I got the same impression from reading the bio of John Adams.

his many, many letters

Let us assume that a Manny is a unit of measure.

How many manys in a Manny?

I am not doubting what you said. I read the bio of Hamilton that came out a few years back and was impressed by the man. However, recently reading the bio of John Adams - by David McCollough - the image given of Hamilton and Jefferson is not flattering. Have you read the Adams bio and if so, what do you think of what the author wrote of Hamilton?

As a side note, one snippet I remember from the Hamilton bio is the description of Burr. The author described him as an empty, working refridgerator - cold and empty inside.

I think it's equivalent to a peck.

During the last few years of his life, as dementia ate his mind, the MSM libbies delighted in dragging Goldwater's rotting corpse in front of cameras so he could go off on the "Religious Right."

I think his antipathy was due to his old timer's disease.

Liberalism regards human history as a "budding rose unfolding;" it develops teleologically until it reaches perfection (the "omega point") and then magically stops. And this programming took place without a Creator; in fact, the unfolding universe itself seems to be regarded as the creator.

Anyway, according to liberals, a "moderate," "centerist," "decent" person is one who keeps up with the unfolding of history (from the Tennessee Valley Authority to "gay rights") and a "dangerous radical" is a person who maintains his original position instead of changing with the times.

Sounds a lot like Hegel.

Apparently you know no more about Hamilton than the comic book version promoted by the Jeffersonians and other Leftists. Nor do you understand the difference between "worship" and appreciate. BTW Hamilton was one of the founders of the American Bible Society.

On every disputed issue between Jefferson and Hamilton not only was the form wrong but his errors were very damaging to our national development. He was wrong about excessive democracy. He was wrong about the course of future economic development for the Nation. He was a complete hypocrit and actually used the masses to serve the interests of the feudal aristocracy which he was a part of.
He had no understanding of either economics, finance nor our constitution. Jefferson was what we would call today a "limosine liberal" and the party he helped establish is a faithful reflection of his anti-militaristic views.

Burr was a nothing only known for killing a Great American Patriot and one of the greatest political thinkers since Plato. Your ignorant rants can't change that FACT.

You should move to Chicago since you like the corrupt Democrat Machine Boss so well. He is alive and well here ever ready to spout the class warfare swill which you must love to lick up. Nothing points out ignorance and idiocy better than hysterical ravings about geniuses like Hamilton and Marshall and praise for corrupt crooks and secondrate legal minds like Tweed and Tawney.

Congress voted to tax whiskey and most of the revenues came from the large New England distillerys but don't let that interfere with mindless class war bombast.

Jefferson was closer to the socialist tyrants you name than Hamilton. Look at his ravings about preferring the death of every person on earth save two in each country rather than to see the defeat of his beloved Reign of Terror. Stalin merely carried out his preferences.

Burr was a great embarrassment to his forefathers. A libertine, apostate and traitor but that is ok for his delusionary admirers. Hamilton's term was appropriate Burr was a "Cataline". Though you probably believe he was unjustly proscuted by Cicero.

Alexander Hamilton spent his entire adult life fighting to establish a nation strong enough to endure and grow strong. He forswore a great fortune to enter government service and had no commercial interests. Virtually every step he took, every sentence he wrote was devoted to the National Interest not serving a class. Class warriors, such as you, cannot understand such pure devotion. He spent almost the entire war as Washington's chief aide though he wanted a line command himself. He was by nature a military man. Hamilton recognized that the economy of the nation must be a balanced one and that the only way of freeing the US from European domination was to transform the third world economy imposed on it by the British empire. Jefferson's view would have ensured that imposed economy remained in control and led to a weaker country always dependent upon the European market and European imports. This is made clear when looking at the forces arrayed against each other during the Civil War. Just as Jeffersonian political/economic views led TO the Civil War they also ensured the Slavers ultimate defeat.

Jackson's financial folly in destroying the Bank precipitated a decade long depression topped only by the one in the thirties. It was a disaster for the nation which pulled out of it only through Mexican War spending and the discovery of gold in California. But Jackson was not long on sound thinking.

Anyone who studies the history of the US should be clear that Marshall not only did NOT create judicial review but it was not even controversial and was solidly established by the reasoning within the Convention and the Federalist.
In FACT, the Supreme Court reviewed the Carriage Tax for constitutionality years BEFORE Marshall was even appointed.
Hamilton was the successful lawyer for the government's case. Without judicial review there is essentially NO Constitution.

Hamilton was one who acted to create and protect REAL Liberty not the rhetorical kind favored by Jefferson, all talk and no action. Hamilton put his life on line FIGHTING for Liberty not lounging around Paris while the bullets were flying. He spent the funds raised for his college education on uniforms for the militia unit he raised at the beginning of the war. It was so well outfitted and drilled that he caught the attention of Washington being in sharp contrast to the sloppy excuses also called militia. Alexander worked closely with Von Steuben in writing the Manual of Arms used by the US army for the next century or so and drilling the troops at Valley Forge. Von Steuben was also a devoted life long friend. Jefferson about that time was last seen fleeing the British and performed so miserably as Governor of Virginia that he barely escaped impeachment.

Rather than flatter the ignorant mob, like Jefferson did from his parlour sipping fine wines, Hamilton stood up and told the truth -that the mob is always dangerous and cannot be depended upon for justice or correct thinking.

Federalism died with Hamilton. It is interesting that you try and slander him with the Hartford Convention treason since one of the reasons he met his death was precisely because he had foiled a plot between some other Federalists and Burr which was designed at dividing the Nation. Knowing the two-faced Burr as he did (and they had an extensive experience together for 15 years) he knew that if he became governor of NY and linked up with those wanting to split the nation the US would have been doomed. Hence, the General went out of his way to insure he did NOT become governor. That was the final straw for Burr.

Hamilton did not even fire at him during the duel having become convinced that it was wrong to kill in that way. But Burr had no such nobility little wonder Washington believed him to be unreliable and untrustworthy. Few men have had judgment of men as accurate as Washington.

There is little dispute about Hamilton's parentage. Not that it matters.

He tried to help his father after he became powerful but the old man was too addicted to booze to take him up on his offers.

We are constantly being faced with the bilge these clowns spew. They are consistent though. Their ignorance of history, political theory and economics is total.

At one time I was an admirer of Jefferson then started to learn more about him and his enemies. The enemies were all much better people and sounder thinkers. Jefferson was a good cabinet maker and wood worker though.

Could any man have been more fascinating than Franklin? I don't think so. The greatest men of that era were Franklin, Washington, Hamilton and Madison.

And I'll toss in Patrick Henry and Paul Revere and Benjamin Rush and John Adams and hundreds of others for honorable mention.

While it is easy to sympathize with the New Englanders' reaction to Jefferson's utter incompetence and cowardice in facing the British and the French, Hamilton would have never supported secession. The disaster unleashed by Jefferson's ill-conceived embargo and drastic weakening of US military power crushed the economy of the nation.

What kind of fool believes that we should not have a strong navy? That our commerce should be carried by foreigners not by American shipping? That our naval power should be confined to gunboats along our coast? That there is no constitutional authority to purchase Louisiana? This is major league stupidity. Sounds exactly like modern day Democrats with their heads in the sand.

Jackson was a great military leader and totally devoted to the Union (he threatened to HANG the "nullifiers" in SC) and a complete patriot. Jefferson would have been the one "sniffing" at Jackson not me. Jackson believed in confronting his enemies head on not sneaking around the edges and shadows or retreating trying to avoid conflict like Jefferson.

It is sad when our beloved myths are destroyed by facts.

Could you imagine what Truman would have to say about homosexual marriage were he alive today?

Harry and Bess would not be able to contain themselves in denouncing that filth, that is what would be happening.

I'm still waiting for Lady Bird Johnson to say something.

Adams hated Hamilton initially because H tried to make sure that there was no tie between Washington and Adams for the presidency in 1788. This would be avoided by a few votes being cast for a candidate other than Adams. This prudent advice of H's was taken as a personal affront by Adams (as he was wont to do). When he later became president he inherited the cabinet which Washington had assembled. That cabinet had developed the habit of running everything through Hamilton even though he was no longer in the government. Adams was not aware of this. So for the first three years of his administration Hamilton ran the government as much as Adams.

Adams became aware of it and demanded their resignations. Of course, his habit of leaving Washington for months at a time to go home to Braintree did not help prevent such a practice.

Adams' vacillation about confronting France eventually provoked Hamilton into a fit of madness wherein he attacked Adams as "unfit" for the presidency in a private letter which Burr's minions pilfered from the mail and printed several months before the election. This may have helped Jefferson win the election it certainly could not have helped Adams.

Washington demanded that Hamilton be made second in command when the Army was being prepared for war, this made Adams do an about face and tone down the bellicosity. France, upon noting Hamilton would be the actual commander also became more receptive to peace.

Adams was a very prickly man and not friendly to those who did not share his high opinion of himself. His immediate dislike of Hamilton came more for personal reasons than policy. And he must have greatly resented Washington's high regard and great love of Hamilton and the fact that the Washington administration's policies almost all originated with Hamilton.

Burr was concerned about nothing but personal advancement and was a phony through and through. Women found him irresistible. Hamilton was correct in calling him despicable. He was instrumental in helping the Big City machine develop its methodology of vote stealing, vote fraud and corruption. The methods he and Tammany Hall developed have been used for over two hundred years to keep the Democrat Party strong.

Yes, indeed. Jefferson played an early and important role as well. He was the Rhetoritician of the Revolution and should be honored for that.

HBO is so far to the left. Its no surprise to me...

Good info. Thank you.

Your anti-Federalism has broken my heart!

The Federalist Party, and the Whig Party after it, was the direct ancestor of the Grand Old Party, and all of them represented the commercial, capitalist, loose-constructionist, implied powers, protectionist, central bank tradition (ironically, today's loud-mouthed "Hamiltonians," Pat Buchanan and Lyndon LaRouche [mach shemam!] always leave this last element out of their prescription for America, since the "banks" are controlled by You-Know-Who).

I don't worship Washington, Hamilton, Lincoln, or any human being, and I am quite willing to tear up the entire Constitution for Theocracy any day. But as long as we are under the Constitution, let us remember that Hamiltonian loose-constructionism was every bit as legitmate interpretation of that document as was Jefferson's (and today's conservatives') strict constructionism (plus, unlike Jefferson, Hamilton actually helped write it!). I am a rural person myself and have no desire to see the entire population urbanized, and I'm even a critic of capitalism, but Jefferson's America would indeed have been a dependency of Europe and the rest of the world rather than a self-sufficient nation.

Plus let it never be forgotten that it was the New England Federalists, the alleged ancestors of Ted Kennedy, who were alarmed at the prospect of Jacobinism in America. It was New England Federalist preachers who preached against the Illuminati and Jacobins while Jefferson was an utter enlightenment deist and rationalist whose religious beliefs literally frightened people at the time. This is not to argue that Washington and Hamilton were religious guides in any sense of the word (Washington's chr*stianity is vastly overrated), but when it comes to the Founders and the early republic I will pick the Federalists every time over the Jeffersonians.

I would like to make a few remarks about "judicial review."

There is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court ruling that this or that law exceeds Constitutional bounds (as it did during the early days of the New Deal). The problem is the Bill of Rights, which Hamilton opposed. What was intended to be a list of things the Federal government could not do inevitably mutated into positive grants of rights by the government which naturally means the government has the right to enforce them. In other words, "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" naturally eventually became a grant of power to the Federal government to outlaw school prayers and forbid high school principals to edit the "f"-word out of student newspapers (the Fourteenth Amendment, which is often blamed for this phenomenon, merely speeded the process along). The Bill of Rights converted then US Constitution from a simple rulebook for the Federal government into a work of political philosophy.

This is not Hamilton's reason for opposing the BoR (and since he was an avowed loose constructionist, his own reason seems a bit specious), but I believe it is sound. I also believe it is silly to try to undo every disastrous Supreme Court ruling by means of a Constitutional Amendment. Simply removing the Bill of Rights might solve the problem, or perhaps amending the Fourteenth Amendment to make clear it applied only to the treatment of the Freedmen of the Reconstruction era. Other than that the Congress has the authority to abolish each and every single federal court other than the SCOTUS, and it could even limit SCOTUS to hearing only the cases the Constitution originally referred to it.