[justshutupandtakeit]

The man who initially made that claim was tracked down and admitted that it was false. When challenged to meet H. at the dueling ground or retract it he retracted it. But this never stopped H.'s enemies from continuing to spread the lie.

H. did at one point under the Confederation consider using the army to pressure congress to pay it the back pay owed. Washington convinced him it was not a good idea.

Of course, your first paragraph is irrelevent since there was no constitution or president at the time of the supposed incident. And the Confederation had essentially collapsed from impotence. It was years before the Constitution and the election of a President.

He did early on think an elected king might be necessary but realized that it was not workable in this country. This idea was dropped when W. was not agreeable and H.'s ideas changed

Please understand what you are posting. Even this little biography clearly shows this "event" happened at the end of the war not five yrs later. To you the author of the Federalist didn't understand the constitution?

[billbears]

I know when it happened. However just because Washington's refusal to accept it would not change H. attitude towards a centralized power. I used to believe that he would have been a bad President, however I think that if he would have, the whole argument of secession would have been settled once and for all when one of the two parties had left the 'glorious' union without this ridiculous smoke and mirrors excuse for attacking over slavery being held over our heads 140 years later