Posted on 11/19/2010 1:12:45 PM PST by Pyro7480
On Thursday's Parker-Spitzer, CNN's Kathleen Parker bizarrely and inaccurately claimed that Alexander Hamilton came to the United States illegally and drafted the Constitution: "Let's remember...a lot of Americans did come through the back door such as Alexander Hamilton. He got off the boat from the West Indies, and all he did was write the Constitution and become the first Secretary of the Treasury."
Parker raised this false history during a discussion of Pedro Ramirez, Fresno State University's student body president, who was outed as an illegal immigrant by a student newspaper. After playing clips from Ramirez and his opponent during the student election, who is also the president of the Fresno State College Republicans, the CNN host displayed sympathy for the college student: "This is kind of a classic though, isn't it, really? I mean, you've the college Republican versus the illegal immigrant, and it's kind of a classic clash, you know, that corresponds to this immigration debate we're having in this country. And clearly, when you put a human face on the illegal immigrant, it's a different story. I mean, nobody wants to punish this young 22-year-old."
...Actually, Hamilton came to New York City from the British West Indies in 1774 to study at King College, which was renamed Columbia University after the American War for Independence. Of course, New York was still a British colony at this point, so the young Hamilton didn't "come through the back door."
More importantly, Hamilton didn't write the Constitution- that credit generally goes to James Madison....
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
She’d probably claim he got in-state tuition,too.
Then, watching the video I saw they had a screen shot ready of Hamilton on the ten dollar bill. So that was scripted beforehand. While it was probable the entire cast and staff were morons, to get the same thing wrong by all of them is less likely.
Yea, I now think that was malicious stupidity, and not natural, organic incompetence.
Stick to you guns and keep fighting, Kathleen! Nothing is over until you decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Does anyone watch the show? Why are we even discussing this, if you ignore it, it will go away.
AND...he never even had a vote on the convention’s adoption of the docuemnt or any issue germame to the production of the document because each colony had one vote each and only if that colony had a quorum present...which New York never did.
I have no problem with his endorsement of the French Revolution...it’s a shame that the French mishandled their opportunity, but Jefferson was consistent in his desire for a non monarchical government of, by and for the people. He actually had some part in encouraging the French Revolution while minister to France, he returned to the U.S. right at the beginning of the French Revolution.
I have always thought he went for the Main Chance and grabbed the Gold Ring. Did some good things but layed the ground work for future destruction of the Republic.
You should have a problem with the French Revolution, given the genocidal and pro-secularist policies of the Jacobins.
Parker has completely gone ‘round the bend.
Like I said, it’s a shame that they blew a golden opportunity.
Nobody had any idea at the time exactly how to set up a stable republic. Hadn’t been done for almost 2000 years. The closest was the Dutch Republic, and it had a lifetime executive.
Hamilton thought a stronger executive was needed than Jefferson or Madison did. Turned out they were right and Hamilton was wrong. But that didn’t make him a monarchist. He just thought the strong executive was necessary to preserve the Republic against its enemies, foreign and domestic.
BTW, the President’s present position in the national government is a hell of a lot closer to what Hamilton thought was needed than to anything Jefferson or Madison would recognize.
And then he the slipped into the Constitution its very own poison pill.
...and the same could be said for the Russian revolution in 1917, in both cases the people digressed into mobs an allowed dictatorships to form instead of Republics.
No. Alexander Hamilton was an actual magnificent bastard, but he was not an illegal immigrant.
Don't denigrate the handicapped.
Actually I think Hamilton initially planned to go to Princeton. Having an oversized ego he wanted to be registered at Priceton as an advanced student without having any previous college courses and a limited formal education. When Priceton turned him down he went to Kings/ Columbia.
I do. Americans are constantly told that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Liberals are strange. They like to argue that immigrants who came before or in early period of the nation are the same as the current illegal immigrants, by completely ignoring the laws that have been enacted between then and now. Many behaviors that were perfectly fine during that time would be deemed illegal and ground for lawsuits today. Teachers beating students’ fingers with a ruler, for instance, in the past would be seen as an act of discipline. Today, it’s considered child abuse, and God forbid if the teacher is a White person and the students are Blacks or Hispanics!
A Seminole!!! I should have known! ;o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.