Nationalist is NOT a "consolidationist" no matter what YOU think.(yawn) I made it clear many many posts ago what I meant by the term, and what my useage of it was. Since you're ranting falsehoods have been disproven over and over, you now have nothing to fall back on except word games. Typical.
(hyperboles ad nauseum)...Hamilton even wrote "Washington's Farewell Address", a dire warning of the evils of secession.
BS. Another falsehood of Hamiltonian zealots. James Madison wrote the farewell address for Washington at the end of his first term, before he agreed to a second. After the second term ended, Washington asked Hamilton to look it over and update it (since by this time Madison had drifted apart somewhat from Washington due to Hamilton's game-playing). Hamilton did, after which Washington revised many of Hamilton's revisions. I bet you didn't even know that. Hamiltonian authors always leave out little "details" like that.
Only Lafayette compared with Hamilton in Washington's love, esteem and respect. Anyone who knows anything of either man knows that.
You mean anyone who has read the same slanted books as you knows that. James Madison was way ahead of Hamilton in the 'love' department until just the last few years.
Who cares what YOU mean by a term. Words have common meanings, those are the ones I am concerned about not some cockamayme bs from you.
Madison's draft of the FA was junked by Hamilton. Washington had little use for the author after he and Jefferson went on a sabotage course against the Washington Administration. All experts on the matter (something foreign to you no doubt) agree that the Address is the work of Hamilton with a little tinkering by George. Of course, I am well aware of all the expert discussion of the address's origins and the passing back and forth between H and W.
The entire thrust of the document was changed from Madison's and the warnings against foreign entanglements are directed pointed at the Madison/Jefferson alignment with France. They are also TOTALLY in accord with Hamilton's views of foreign policy. Washington did tone that part down a bit as H had made the connection more explicit.
It is false that W and H had "drifted apart" nothing could be further from the truth particularly that such a thing would have come over policy differences. STILL WAITING for the evidence of such a split or differences between the two men. That LIE is easily shown to be so by the FACT that when W was asked to take over the Army again under the Adams' administration's "phoney war" against France, he refused to do so UNLESS H was made second in command. This was something Adams was desperate to avoid but it was forced down his throat by W.
The only "apartness" between the two was that H had left the government. Another proof of the stupidity of your comment is the FACT that W wanted to appoint H to be Chief Justice but H couldn't afford to take the post. Do you just make up stuff out of thin air or is there some deluded quack you depend on for it?