[thatdewd]

Madison's draft of the FA was junked by Hamilton.

False. The draft Washington gave Hamilton to work with was the Madison draft that Washington had made additions to. Hamilton made an outline of the ideas it contained (mostly MADISON's), and then worked up his own draft based on those (mostly MADISON's) ideas. Washington had instructed Hamilton that whatever Hamilton wrote must be "predicated upon the Sentiments" contained in the draft he supplied him with, the document that was primarily Madison's. Washington did NOT just go with the Hamilton draft, like many revisionist historians would have you believe. Instead, he took Madison's draft and Hamilton's draft and made his own out of them both. What the Hamiltonian revisionist zealots don't want anyone to know is that the very ideas that Washington restricted Hamilton to working with were MADISON's. Hamilton's draft was limited to Madison's and Washington's ideas. Madison at the first, Madison in the middle, and Madison at the end. Who contributed more to the address? Madison by far. Madison and Washington contributed the ideas, and Hamilton's job was to make it sound pretty.

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.

No, they don't. See above. I would also suggest that you study history, and not historians. A simple review of 'The Papers of George Washington' should correct your mistaken ideas on this subject.

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.

Yes, there was much passing back and forth between Washington and Hamilton regarding H's draft based on Madison's ideas. Washington amended H's draft over and over and over again before just writing his own based on Madison's original draft and the heavily amended Hamilton draft based on Madison's key ideas.

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.

LOL, that's just BS, see above. BTW, why don't you think the warnings are directed at Hamilton's alignment with Britain, and his desire for the US to declare war on France?

They are also TOTALLY in accord with Hamilton's views of foreign policy.

LOL, you mean like all his clamoring for the US to side with Britain and declare war on France?

The only "apartness" between the two was that H had left the government.

They were not as close at the end as they had been earlier. Hamilton's endless antics and troublemaking fueled the fires of party politics, something anathema to Washington. Hamilton's obviously hateful opinion of the common man was something else Washington was put off by, even more at the end. I'm not saying they weren't still friends, or that Washington stopped dealing with him. I'm only pointing out that they weren't as close at the end as they were earlier. Washington had great faith in H's abilities, but he was more sensitive of Hamilton's many negative attributes later on than he was earlier. After H resigned his post in Washington's administration, he only increased in his destructive activities, until someone shut him up, that is.

Do you just make up stuff out of thin air or is there some deluded quack you depend on for it?

The fact that you consider untwisted and unrevised history to be so devised is the greatest validation my position could ever receive.

[justshutupandtakeit]

And the reason that Washington did not give the draft back to Madison for revision was? Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the intervening four yrs. had demonstrated that Madison's ideas were no longer relevent now could it?

Hamilton NEVER had any intention of declaring war on France. Above all he wanted to avoid war with ANYONE. What lamebrained sources did that gem come from? It is true he was ready to serve when Washington DEMANDED that he be second in command (actually first since W's health would have prevented him from taking the field) but that is a far cry from WANTING war against France.

Boy, you have all the lying cliches down don't you? "Hatred" of the common man is one of the more stupid. He was a believer in representative government but not democracy as the term was understood during that day. Apparently you have never read a competent biography of H or you would not say such stupid things. Even those biographers who do not care for H don't pretend he hated anyone. In fact, it was the common man (mechanics, longshoresmen, teamsters, clerks, etc.) who made up the bulk of the mourners at his funeral. And who made up the bulk of the largest procession in the history of NY city (up until that day) escorting the coffin to the graveyard.

Any competent biographer tells of how H often took the cases of the poor for nothing and never overcharged his clients even when they could afford more. He took the cases of slaves fighting to remain free for no charge and was one of the founders of the New York Society for the Manumission of Slaves. Yeah, that really sounds like a man who "hated the common man."

What BS will you throw out next? That he was a Satan worshipper?

There is no doubt that the conflict between J and H drove W bonkers but it did not impede his love and regard for the latter as it DID the former. That is why W never wanted J's name mentioned in his presence in later years. And is clearly shown by the FACT that W FORCED Adams to appoint H as his second in command.

I see little history in your writing other than the conventional superficial falsehoods which have little to do with reality. Such as H's "hatred of the common man." There are many valid criticisms which can be made of H, and his policies but to say such patently false things invalidates much of what you might say that would be true. It indicates a determined ignorance which refuses to examine the facts.