Category: Alexander Hamilton

Introduction

History knows a lot of examples, when people born in simple families managed to gain respect and love of the whole nation. Alexander Hamilton was one of such people. This person was rather all-rounded, his inner world and the ability to attract attention helped him to reach the highest levels of the political career, to be a good leader and to remain a good person. Alexander Hamilton is the person, who even after so much time has passed, remains one of the most notable and respected people in the history of American politics.

Before considering the contribution of Alexander Hamilton into the political life of America, the life way of this person should be followed. Focusing the attention on Alexander Hamiltons life it is possible to understand why and how he, person born from simple people, managed to reach so much in political and economical structure of American government. Being born in the island of Nevis in the West Indies on January 11, 1757, he was killed on the duel by Aaron Burr in 1804. He was born in the family of Scotch merchants, and his father was regarded most by him. The extraordinary precocity of the boy, his curious mind and strong character gave way to his abilities. The main qualities of his character may be taken from the letter, which was written by Alexander Hamilton to his friend Edward Stevens,

I condemn the groveling condition of a clerk, or the like, to which my fortune condemns me, and would willingly risk my life, though not my character, to exalt my station. I am confident, Ned, that my youth excludes me from my hopes of immediate preferment, nor do I desire it; but I mean to prepare the way for futurity (Lodge 2).

Main Text

These words confirm the suggestion that Alexander Hamilton was a very powerful person and that the desire to be the first, the desire to reach something in his life was so strong, that he could make everything (except betraying himself) in order to be able to show all his potential. People who worked with him described his as a person of lively imagination  a quick almost intuitive perception  profound and comprehensive views, a ready invention of expedients in cases of difficulty, with a solid and correct judgment (Miller and Aldridge 226)

All these were the desirable dreams, as to become educated at Alexander Hamiltons time could only wealthy or few fortunate people (Haugen 9). Alexander was none of them. But all these limitations in Alexander Hamiltons life were not the borders for him in reaching his aim, he sill managed to become a powerful leader of the country thanks to his inborn talent. Hamilton was also a very clever and hard working person and people were found to help him. His desire to be successful gave him the opportunity to receive a good education, which opened him the way to the top.

When the revolutionary was began (1975), Hamilton was studying at the college, but he understood that the desire for freedom is higher than the degree and left college in favor of war. Hamilton did not afraid to show his leadership talent and he was put as the captain of the Continental Army, he was 21. This revolution was the first time, when Hamilton could show his talent, and he was noticed, for his ambitious character and the desire to be useful. All these actions were not just the desire to show his bravery, but to leave the impression of wise and courageous leader. During the war Hamilton was noticed by General Washington, who noticed his quick thinking and bravery under the fire (Haugen 33). The result  Hamilton was hired by him.

Alexander Hamilton showed himself greatly in the war, both as the leader and as a soldier, and this was his first step to the political top of the country. He took part in the political and economical life of the country, and no matter what part of the government he supported, the tendency was that the part became to be dominant and their views were taken into account.

The great leadership qualities of Hamilton were seen during the debates about Federalists or Anti-Federalist state (1788). Hamilton used his oratory abilities and all his leadership qualities in order to convince Anti-Federalists in the importance of Constitution. Such events in Hamiltons life show that all he managed to achieve was his great desire, hard work and the confidence in his successful future (Haugen 60). The case with the Constitution adoption is one of the most significant in the life of Hamilton, as only by his great power of conviction and the true belief in what he did made it possible for him to make sure the whole New York in the necessity of constitution and to leave their opinion about Anti-Federalism and to join his considerations.

Focusing on the abilities of Alexander Hamilton as the political leader, it can be concluded that he behaved himself as the leader of the army, he made quick and reasonable decisions, his reaction to the situation was quick, and actions he provided wise and right. Having been acting among the other leaders, it can be proved that he was the leader among them all. His abilities in organizing people and in the conviction to act as it was necessary for him and for the direction of the politics, which he had chosen deserved a respect. It was impossible to argue with him as (Miller and Aldridge 227) as the arguments which were offered by him, his behavior, intonation, with which he imposed his opinion, was so convicting and reliable. If the American people did not already know it, they were soon to be made acutely aware of the fact that Hamiltons credo was audacity and yet more audacity (Miller and Aldridge 227).

Conclusion

In conclusion, Alexander Hamilton was the leader of his epoch, his inborn qualities and the desire to provide the actions which he considered only reliable and trusted made it possible for him to become the person number one in the society he lived in. having come from the simple family without any links to the government, Alexander Hamilton managed to create his own career, to reach the heights, which seemed unreachable by him for the surrounding people. From the very beginning of his life, Alexander Hamilton knew that he will be a successful and respected person not only in the city he lived, but also in the whole society, and it is impossible to deny that he managed to reach his aim. The achievements he managed to succeed in just prove that he was the leader of the leaders and there are not so many people who can be placed on the same level with him.

Works Cited

Haugen, Brenda. Alexander Hamilton: Founding Father and Statesman. Minneapolis: Compass Point Books, 2006.

Lodge, Henry Cabot. Alexander Hamilton. London: Adamant Media Corporation, 2005.

Miller, John Chester A. and Aldridge, Owen. Alexander Hamilton and the growth of the new nation. London: Transaction Publishers, 2003

Cohen indicates that the musical genre is “the most commercially successful genre in the American theatre today.” The first real music that comes to my mind is the contemporary retelling of Alexander Hamilton’s story in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton on Broadway. “Eight years, 11 Tony® Awards, and one Pulitzer Prize later, Hamilton, Miranda’s hit musical, is the hottest ticket on Broadway and a pop culture phenomenon,” according to writer and editor for WNET, Elisa Lichtenbaum.

I imagine Lin Manuel Miranda began with the inspiration for the plot and character. The life of Alexander Hamilton was sufficient enough for this: “reading Ron Chernow’s biography of Alexander Hamilton… during a backstage visit afterward, Miranda told the author that as he was reading his book, hip-hop songs started rising off the pages.” It seems music came after and informed the format of the musical. After Lin-Manuel Miranda writes all the music and the lyrics, Alex Lacamoire comes on as the director of music and orchestrator, Lin-Manuel takes the titular role and becomes an actor-writer, and they assemble a cast of a diverse background. These are the people on stage (opening night cast): Renée Elise Goldsberry, Jonathan Groff, Christopher Jackson, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Leslie Odom, Jr. However, as Cohen says, “most of the people (who work on the production) are actually backstage, where the audience can’t see them, silently and invisibly making everything run smoothly.” Indeed, the producers are “…securing all necessary personnel, space, and financing; supervising all production and promotional efforts; fielding all legal matters; and distributing all proceeds derived from receipts.” These people include Jeffrey Seller, Sander Jacobs, and Jill Furman.

The designers of the production are creating “visual… elements of a production, including the scenery, properties, costumes and wigs, makeup, lighting, sound, programs, advertising, and general ambiance of the location.” These people include David Korins, Scenic Design; Paul Tazewell, Costume Design; Howell Binkley, Lighting Design; Nevin Steinberg, Sound Design; Charles G. LaPointe, Hair, and Wig Design. Those who make the ideas of these designers a reality are the builders, “carpenters, costumers, wig-makers, electricians, makeup artists, recording and sound engineers, painters, and a host of other specially designated craftspeople who construct the “hardware” of a play.” And as the actors act on stage, the crew “…execute, in proper sequence and with carefully rehearsed timing, the light, and sound cues and the shifting of scenery, as well as oversee the placement and return of properties and the assignment, laundering, repair, and changes of costumes.” All of these elements come together over time to bring a musical like Hamilton from an idea spawning from an “832-page” biography to a respected and award-winning American musical.

Sources:

1. Cohen, Robert. Theatre, Brief Loose Leaf. [Yuzu].
2. League, The Broadway. “IBDB.com.” IBDB, www.ibdb.com/broadway-production/hamilton-499521.
3. Lichtenbaum, Elisa. “Hamilton’s America: Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Process, the Historical Figure, the Issues.” THIRTEEN, www.thirteen.org/blog-post/hamiltons-america-lin-manuel-mirandas-process-the-historical-figure-the-issues/.

If there is one thing all Americans can agree on, it is that the government is slow acting. Too slow acting, almost like it doesn’t do anything, and when it does something, it is not the right thing (even till this today). The easiest answer to the problem of the government’s inefficiency is to place the blame on a person or branch of the government, such as the President, Congress, or Senate. However, what most Americans either do not remember or do not know is that the government was designed to be inefficient. Contrary to popular belief, the government is not meant to answer every complaint we have as it is quite impossible. The founding fathers were classically liberal in 1790, meaning they believed that the American people should and would live their lives how they desired, and the government would only interfere when one’s actions were, as philosopher John Stuart Mill described it, “other-regarding and harmful”.

The United States was “more a fragile hope than a reality”. The Founding Fathers combined the ideals as we know today as, The Declaration of Independence. The book goes through six episodes: Hamilton and Burr’s duel, Washington’s farewell address, Adams’ political partnership with his wife, Franklin’s attempt to force Congress to confront the issue of slavery, and Jefferson and Adams’ famous correspondence of friendship. Three overall themes for the chapters are collaboration/leadership, patriotism, and friendship.

In chapter 1, Hamilton states, “Tell them from me, at my request, for God’s sake, to cease these conversations and threatening about a separation of the Union. It must hang together as long as it can be made to”. Hamilton was making his opposition clear about the declining of the Federalist party in 1804. Hamilton had seen his own reputation stumble along with that of his party, he nevertheless reveals his main purpose which was to keep the Union together. Even when the relationships between the Founding Fathers were bitter, they shared a purpose that the nation could fall apart. This message has special significance because it is the last letter Hamilton ever wrote, the night before he died in a duel and was devoted to squelching the federalist ideals. It serves as a good correlating theme for collaboration and leadership; the Founding Fathers were in unity together even after politics tore them apart.

In Chapter 6, Adams exclaims, “You and I ought not to die… before we have explained ourselves to each other”. ​ The friendship between Adams and Jefferson plays a main role within the book, and the way it serves as a symbol for these men who bonded over freedom, then split over party concerns. Adams makes a request that ultimately complied with Jefferson, and reveals the extent to which all of these men invested in the survival and success of the union they helped create together. Adams and Jefferson had at one point quit their friendship due to different political views, and it was important for them to explain to each other the reasons for their behavior. In the end, their friendship resumed, because they recalled that the fascinating spirit from the time back of a shared love of nation and independence, was more important than the ideological differences. The theme presented is friendship; John Adams resonates with Thomas Jefferson to fix their friendship of posterity despite their different ideals.

In conclusion, the book,​ ‘Founding Brothers’, ​demonstrates the personalities and obstacles from 7 historical men that impacted our nation’s history. The themes tie together by showing how these men were able to create the formation of the country’s new government, led war for independence from Great Britain, and united the 13 colonies. Overall, collaboration/leadership, patriotism, and friendship are major themes that help describe this national great selling book.

From the early beginnings up to 1865 America was being created and shaped into the country it is today. Early civilization started with Native Americans. ‘Iroquois Creation’ by David Cusick was written during the Native American literary period. During this time authors focused on storytelling. The creation story shows speeches, tales and poetry of the Native American oral tradition. In this short story the author describes the foundation of what is now called North America. “When he made the universe, he was in doubt reception some being to possess the Great Island; and he formed two images…male and female, and by his breathing into their nostril.ls he gave them the living souls” (Cusick). Those lines symbolize that the author is telling his story on how creation began. The cultural aspect of the text shows that the creation was by a woman, which shows that women were valued in their society. It also shows the belief systems of the new world. Each person has the own beliefs because of different cultures. Cusick shows his with the good and bad twin. “And one of the possessed with a gentle disposition, and name enigone, i.e. the good mind. The other youth possessed an insolence of character and was named enigonhahetagea i.e. the bad mind” (Cusick). These lines symbolize the nature in human beings, which is good or bad.

Powhatan was chief of confederacy. ‘Discourse of Peace and War’ by Powhatan was written during the colonial period. This period focused on trade, wealth, and religion. Native Americans believed that land was a gift from the creator. This means land should be use for welfare of people. English settlers saw a different view from natives. In this letter to John smith the chief pleas for peace. Powhatan contribution to this colonial period was his trading: “let this therefore assure you of our loves and every year our friendly trade shall furnish you with corn” (Powhattan). This shows he is trading with the English settlers. He showed the political view through his words reflecting doubt of English settlers. “From Nadsamund, what you are come to destroy my country. So much affrighted all my people” (Powhatan). He is showing his concern and doubt of the English settlers and conflicts they bring about. Powhatan believed helping and providing for the people. He mostly stuck to his cultural beliefs: “and why are you this jealous of our loves seeing us unarmed and both do and are willing still to feed you” (Powhatan). The author is expressing the cultural belief of no matter the amount of wrong of people provide for the general welfare. The conflicts of Europeans and Native Americans brought a lot of dark history to America.

John Smith’s ‘A Description of New England’ was also written during the colonial period. In this text Smith spurs interest of the region he named New England. The description in the text describes the culture and society of English colonization. Smith shows his political aspects by leading New England. “For necessity doth in these cases so rule a commonwealth, and each in there several functions, as their labors in their qualities may be as profitable, because there is a necessary mutual use of all” (Smith). John Smith shows which side of the political spectrum he is on, which is conservatism. Conservatist believed that people should rely less on the government. The culture of the colonist was to acquire wealth. ‘A Description of New England’ and Powhatan ‘Discourse of Peace and War’ show a clash between cultures. This clash constituted the beginning of American humanity.

‘Sinners in the hands of an angry God’ by Jonathan Edwards was written during the Puritan movement. During this movement religion was very popular. There were many societal issues about different beliefs, but everyone followed one religion. In this sermon Edwards was trying to convince colonist to convert to the puritan religion. “Which one believes in Christ God is of no obligation to keep him from hell” (Edwards). This shows his belief in the puritan culture, which was believe in Christ or be in hell. People of the Puritan society were constantly reminded of the consequences of sinning. Puritan also seen liberalism as a threat. The title “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” symbolizes the attack against liberalism. “All wicked men’s pains and contrivance which they use to escape hell while they continue to reject Christ, and so remain wicked men, do not secure them from hell” (Edwards). He is describing his attack against liberalism. Edwards believed that liberalism was ruining the purity of his church. This religious movement brought many conflicts to the colonies. Today conflict is still seen between religions because of past historical beliefs.

‘What is an American’ by J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur was written during the Revolutionary Era. This was an era of many battles and rebellion. During this time America gained independence from Great Britain giving American freedom. The letter describes the American nationality. Hector shows culture by describing the American society. “We have no princes for whom we toil, starve, and bleed; we are the most perfect society now existing in the world. Here man is free as he ought to be” (Hector). Here the author describes the perfect like culture and society of Americans. He shows his contribution to the revolutionary period by expressing his feelings of thankfulness. “This is the great chain which links us all this is the picture which every province exhibit. The crown has done all” (Hector). These lines reflect the U.S. gaining independence form Great Britain which relates to the revolutionary period. This letter also describes how American was a new society that sustained freedom and prosperity. The diction used in the federalist papers shows it was also written the Revolutionary Period.

‘The Federalist Papers’ were written by John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Madison contributes to the Revolutionary Era by telling citizen to solve their problems, “he is attached, provides a proper cur frit”. Madison also shows how the America was failing as a society by stating, “the instability, injustice and confusion introduced into the public councils have in truth been the mortal diseases…”. In the papers Hamilton shows his political aspects of federalism. Federalist wanted unity and a strong central government where the power relies in government rather than people. Hamilton states, “or will flatter themselves with fairer prospect of elevation from subdivision of empire into several partial confederacies, than from its union under one government”. This expresses his fear of the people having too much power instead of central government. These federalist papers ratified the constitution and helped shaped the government system of America. Today the government system is still used to ensure a good government, state and locally.

Judith Sargent Murray’s ‘On the Equality of the Sexes’ was written during the post-revolutionary period. American was becoming a new nation again. In this text Murray expresses how gender effects society norms. Judith contributes to this era by discussing the lack of equality and rights. The lack of equality and rights during this era was due to religion and society. She shows her sociocultural belief to the historical period by stating, “Nature has not given intellectual ability solely to the ale sex, but society is arranged if this were so…”. She is expressing here belief that society would one day correct its assumption that women are inferior to men. The lack of equality throughout the years has brought much conflict between males and females in America.

‘On Being brought from Africa to America’ by Phillis Wheatley was written during the colonial period. Phillis wheatley was an African American slave brought to Boston from Africa. Wheatley’s poem contributes to the colonial period because of the trading of a slave. The lines, “Once I redemption neither sought nor knew” (Wheatley). This shows that Phillis converted to Christianity, which was very popular during this period. This poem shows there could by change in America. Even though there is no slavery, there is still inequality.

The poem ‘Thanatopsis’ was written by William Cullen Bryant during the Romantic Era. During romanticism many authors used the technique of blank verse. William does this in poem to show the romantic style. Authors of this era mainly focused on, emphasizing inspiration, subjectivity, individualism and humanity. They also believed man were one with nature. “The golden sun, the planets, all the infinite host of heaven, are shining on the sad abodes of death…” (Bryant). This is an example of being part of nature. In the beginning of the poem Bryant states, “She has a voice of gladness, and a smile and eloquence of beauty”. This symbolizes the happiness and wisdom doings that nature brings, which was part of the romantic culture. “Thou go not, like the quarry-slave at night, scourged to his dungeon, but sustained and soothed by an unfaltering trust” (Bryant). This shows the romantic culture of following feelings instead of reason.

‘Young Goodman Brown’ by Nathaniel Hawthorne submerges into the dark romantic period. Authors had themes of self-destruction and good vs evil. Dark romanticism had a gothic style of writing. In the short story Goodman’s wife symbolizes his religious beliefs which was puritan Christianity. His departure into wood symbolizes his turning away from conservatives, which is his political aspect to the text.

Lastly, Walt Whitman’s poem ‘Song of Myself’ was written during the transcendentalism period. The authors during this period were influenced by individualism. Transcendentalists were people of nature. They believed people and nature were inherently good. This was also a period of religion and philosophy. Whitman’s title contributes to this period as it shows individualism. The first line of the poem “I celebrate myself and sing myself” is a political view of democracy. It shows that many individuals will speak for self to make a democracy. The sixth section in the poem uses grass to symbolize democracy. The lines “I harbor for good or bad, I permit to speak at every hazard, nature without check with original energy” (Whitman), contribute to nature. “The western turkey shooting draws old and young; some lean on their rifles, some sit on logs” (Whitman). This shows a cultural event during the time period. The political relation this text has with society is democracy must include all people equally or it will fail. Today American still struggles with equality.

Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson were our main political components from the beginning to the middle of the 1800s. Each had a completely different personality and completely different political views. However, all three would have an interesting story. These were the times when our nation was being founded. Their actions shaped the way for our government today. It was interesting to read their views and I am more informed than I ever was.

Alexander Hamilton had a huge part in the way things work today. He was the main constructor of the Declaration of Independence. His mother passed away when he was young and he had a few disadvantages, but they never held him back. He went to College in New York City and was very smart. George Washington even noticed how bright he was, and when he was 19 years old, he became one of Washington’s closest allies. He wrote articles regarding politics and had a part in writing 85 essays on the political side of the Constitution, along with James Madison and John Jay, a New York Attorney. (238-239) He practiced law and even though he had a social life, it never got in the way of his hard work. Alexander and James Madison had similar views and got along well until they started to clash. In 1790, Hamilton came up with a plan to fund the national debt, create a national banking system, create manufacturers in the United States versus foreign manufacturing, and a whiskey tax to raise revenue. We all know now that the whiskey tax was not everyone’s favorite plan. (243-244) Despite their differences,

Hamilton made a deal with Madison that if he didn’t vote against the debt package, then he would help move forth the Potomac site, and in July 1790, congress passed both of them. George Washington, still close to Hamilton, would ignore Madison’s complaints about the banking system and approve the Bank of the United States for a 20-year contract. Private investors sold it out in just a few hours in February 1791. (246-247) Hamilton paved the way for our monetary system, using banks and debt “credit”, and was even the secretary of our state. He had a huge role in the economy and created systems that we still use in this present day. Hamilton was killed by gunfire in an illegal duel with Senator Aaron Burr, who would eventually run for the presidency against Thomas Jefferson. (267)

Thomas Jefferson was quite different from Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson was our third president serving from 1801-1809. In June of 1776, Jefferson was one of the men appointed to create a document of independence. He drafted the preamble containing parts about natural rights and equality, and also slavery. He also blamed King George for several problems including slavery. On July 4th, the declaration was finally complete. (182-183) In February 1789, Thomas Jefferson was the head of the State Department. I found a few different scenarios in which Jefferson would attempt duties, but then back out. Eventually, in 1800, he would win the presidential election. This election would be the first ever to be voted for by the House of Representatives. (266) In this term he changed Hamilton’s progressions by reducing the military and canceling all taxes based on whiskey and population. He had reduced Hamilton’s national debt. He wanted to keep the military and government smaller than it was previously. He won a second term in 1805. (268)

Andrew Jackson was definitely unlike Hamilton and Jefferson. He became our 7th president in 1829, serving for two terms until 1837. Before their presidency, he was an attorney. His first term was the first to be won by popular vote. (304) His personality was strong and just to prove it, in 1818 he stated he was the commander of Northern Florida and killed two Britons claiming they were dangerous enemies. People had felt that he took it too far. (289) Jackson’s party and supporters were known as Democrats and when he was first elected, people would say they were Adams’s men or Jackson’s men. They wanted to separate the Republican views from the Democratic. Before his second term, his wife passed away. He was very depressed and people didn’t think he would make it to a second term. He did, and his inauguration speech was the shortest in history, lasting only ten minutes. Jackson only allowed close allies in his cabinet and he used the veto right 12 times, compared to the previously combined presidents using it 9 times. (305-307) He wanted slavery to stay in place and even attempted to get rid of all Indians. He was too sick to attempt another presidential term.

When you hear people refer to topics as Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, or Jacksonian, they are referring to their political views, and classifying political opinions. Jeffersonians have a republican view, as Jacksonians were more democratic and Hamiltonians were considered federalists. They each can describe which views you have. Although I strongly dislike discussing anything political because it is hard to have a civilized conversation these days, I lean more toward the Jeffersonian principles. I strongly believe in individual freedom and that we were all created equally. One thing I am sure of is that I am most repelled by the Jacksonian standpoint. While Jackson might have had good intentions and beliefs in some aspects, he wanted slavery to continue and I can’t agree with that. If I could be a part of any of these men’s lives and eras, it would be Thomas Jefferson’s. I felt that Alexander Hamilton was extremely smart and determined, but I more relate to Thomas Jefferson’s Republican views.

Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson were different men in many ways, but they would each leave a footprint on our history. From Hamilton paving the way to our banking systems, to Jefferson attempting to keep the peace, to Jackson running his presidency exactly how he wanted to. These men played a part in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. They helped our country to become independent and become our own nation.

‘A Magnificent Catastrophe​’, written by Edward J. Larson, explores a story that not many people would know of. The events that were the 1800 presidential election, and possibly the most catastrophic presidential election to date. It follows John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two of the founding fathers of America, as they race to take the presidential seat in the White House. Although history can already tell us that Jefferson was the one that took the term, there was a lot that went into securing that seat. Through his book, Larson explores every nook and cranny of the events that transpired going to great detail to thoroughly explain how these two friends became bitter enemies. The forming of their respective parties and their ideals. The betrayal within Adam’s party through Alexander Hamilton. The problems and happenings of the world during those times and how that affected the election. And the strategies that each party came up with. A great book, with plenty of research to back up the over 200 pages of content, there are a couple critiques that I’d like to explore.

The first is that this book almost requires its reader to have an understanding of history and how government works, at least a basic understanding. The chapters follow a pretty routine pattern. First, they describe an event or a piece of history, and then it follows up with how it affected the elections, whether it be vote counts, opinions of the people, etc. Although the first part of every chapter is fairly easy to understand, if someone doesn’t really know how the voting process works or how the government was run at that time, then following the political talk that these chapters have is going to be a rough time. It was for me, as I’m a first generation American, so my parents aren’t citizens and don’t have a vote, and thus don’t follow politics as much as the average American does. Because of this, I’m not really sure how government works besides a basic understanding. This made understanding how government worked back then a tough time as it was different and changing a lot. Besides this, even though the story focuses mainly on the presidential election, it jumps around with dates and references. A chapter will take place in a specific year, but reference something that happened a couple years down the line or in the past. So, unless you have a general idea of the timeline of the election, keeping track of all the dates that are mentioned can make you miss a few details or be confused about what’s happening. This is biggest critique of the book I have.

The introduction gives a few details about Adams and Jefferson, the two main persons of this story. It helps familiarize ourselves with what kind of men they are, even giving a detailed description of their appearances. Being the shortest section of the book, along with the epilogue, it doesn’t give much more insight than what it’s supposed to.

The first three chapters proceeds to further set the stage for the election. It describes what parties Jefferson and Adams belonged to and what their core beliefs were. The Federalist wanting a strong central government, and the Republicans wanting more power go to the average American, a sort of mob-like rule. It also explains how voting worked back then, with each elector getting two votes and the person with the highest vote count would become president, with second place becoming vice president.

Alexander Hamilton was also introduced as the leader of the High Federalist, and his plan of replacing Adams with Pinckney was foiled. This resulted in Adams actually getting presidency in 1796, with Jefferson as vice president, fueling Hamilton wanting Adam out even more. These sets of chapters introduce each person important to this story and gives a thorough explanation as to what their motives were. It also explains why Jefferson and Adams, who were the best of friends before, became bitter rivals. Both men had ambition and a want to leave a mark in history, “as their political goals for America diverged, however, their ideological zeal drove them apart” (Larson, 2007, p. 10). Both men were immovable objects in believing in their respective political viewpoints, and they were each unstoppable force for each other.

While the first few chapters spoke about the political trifle about to unfold, chapters 4-6 are where we get to see some actual events revealed. New York, then a strong Federalist state, was won over by the Republicans thanks to Hamilton’s schemes to overthrow Adams as president. Burr managed to play his cards right and win the state over, causing a huge upset for the Republicans. Adams also learns of Hamilton’s plans to replace him with Pickney and proceeds to fire a couple High Federalist people from his cabinet. Because of this America was seeing a somewhat three ways split in parties, the High Federalist, Federalist, and Republicans. This was causing more tension as the 1800 elections approached. Adams also launched what was considered the first presidential campaign by traveling a month-long journey to the then still under construction White House. Making speeches along the way, Adams sought to boost his popularity, which he managed with great success. The Republicans on the other hand were no less active, with Jefferson setting forth his plan for religious freedom seeking to “rebut Federalist charges that he would overturn the constitution and religious order” (Larson 155). These chapters really show how the election of 1800 was truly extraordinary, especially with the situation between Hamilton – Adams and Hamilton – Burr. The upset in New York was a major turning point for the Republicans, and showed just how intense the strategies were. Hamilton’s want to remove Adams from office cost them a State that has long been loyal to Federalist. It showed how much Hamilton was affecting the election, especially when we were showed how Adams reacted to learning about Hamilton’s plot against him, causing yet another party to enter the race, and thus raising the stakes even further. Besides Hamilton’s ill opinion towards Adams, we do get some history in this chapter. Adams campaign to the White House is redeemed as one of the first presidential campaigns in history, and it’s interesting to see that it spawned through the hatred of two people that were supposed to be on the same side.

The final 4 chapters give us the climax and resolution of this whole ordeal. Issues over Jefferson’s religious views surfaced. Some claimed that he was a deist, and others that he was atheist. Jefferson never responded publicly to the critics that he was one or another, as he believed it would make matters worse. Even then, Republicans were making claims on Adams as well, “just as Federalists used selected excerpts from ‘Notes on the State of Virginia’ to paint Jefferson as a deist, Republicans drew on earlier political writings by Adams to tag him as a monarchist” (Larson, 2007, p. 177). This gives us an example of how certain writings were taken out of context in order to make someone look bad, a behavior that is pretty prevalent, not only in the presidential elections of today, but in the general news. The chapters continue to explain how a slave uprising was coming into effect, and that the public blamed Jefferson’s egalitarian viewpoint for the cause of the slave’s actions to get out of control. Republicans had to reassure frightened Americans that they would be able to keep the peace. Along with this, Hamilton openly admitted to running against Adam in favor of Pickney as president. Although this plan backfired and resulted in a loss of popularity for his party. It was then predicted that Jefferson and Burr would come out in first and second place, with Adams and Pinckney in third and fourth. When the elections finally came around, it was true, although there was a tie between Jefferson and Burr. It took six tie breaking votes to finally put Jefferson in the presidential chair.

The final few chapters focus more on the more pressing issues of the election. The idea of religion and lack of dealing with internal conflicts that critiqued Jefferson. Hamilton opening up about is opposition of Adams. And the tie that resulted from the partisan nature that the republicans used to vote. Although Jefferson resulted in the seat at the end, it wasn’t an easy feat, and resulted in one of the most intense and extraordinary elections in history.

Besides my main critique that I wrote about earlier, the book still has some outstanding qualities to it. The best of them all being the research that is done. Taking a look at the notes in the back of the book reveals dozens of pages of references that the author used throughout the book. For someone that’s interested in learning what actually happened during the election of 1800, this book provides a story that’s difficult to refute with the amount of evidence it has backing it. The book also has a great deal of detail about its characters and their motives. You’ll feel as if you’ve known the characters for a long while after reading so much, not just about their political views, but their relationships with other people, to each other, and to their families. The events depicted are fairly chronological so the overall story isn’t too difficult to grasp. But the political talk and statistics that are thrown are unavoidable, which isn’t a terrible thing. Having data to back up claims is the most important thing in a historical text, and Larson provides more than enough data. Overall, Larson does a lot of things right. It’s easy to lookup who won the 1800 elections. History books and the Internet can tell us the Jefferson did. But to those that want to know the whole story, who want to look further into the people that were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, Larson provides an amazing historical text that explains just that.

With more than enough quotes, references, and detail to explain what really happened, ‘​A Magnificent Catastrophe​’ is truly a portal back in time. However, one should be wary of the political jargon that this book employs. If you don’t have a good sense of how the government works or how it’s structured, then a good portion of it won’t really make total sense and can seem like random numbers and terms being thrown around. It’s not an easy book by any means, and definitely not enjoyed by anyone, but fans of history and government will love it.

References

1. Larson, E. J. (2007) ​’A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America’s First Presidential Campaign​’, New York, NY: Free Press.

In todays government, it is quite rare that two members of the cabinet have opposing political and economical views. Unknowing of this, George Washington appointed two men who he thought very highly of to be his head of Department of State and his Secretary of the Treasury, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, respectively. Jefferson and Hamilton supported two different political views.

Alexander Hamilton’s background helped shape his thoughts and ideas that would become a contributing factor of their rivalry. Hamilton’s father was a French nobleman who had left to tend to a sugar plantation in an attempt to attain wealth but was unsuccessful. Hamilton didn’t have an easy life as a child, his father abandoned him and his mother died when he was very young. From this, his independence grew and he found work. When he was 15 he was sent off to the English Colonies to explore and expand his knowledge. Upon his arrival, he is bombarded by the struggles that occurred in 1773. The British at the time were forcing their authority on the colonies and Hamilton quickly understood their troubles. When the Revolutionary War broke out, he took charge and became a lieutenant and soon became a close friend of George Washington; later becoming the first Secretary of Treasury. Through his difficulties he gained and understanding of working your way to the top, which was an essential step for his Federalists beliefs.

Jefferson’s strong democratic beliefs originated from his fairly wealthy life on the plantation. He grew up in a small town in Virginia, a young boy with red hair and freckles. He lived with his father, mother, and several other siblings. Jefferson had a comfortable life growing up. He lived on a large plantation, his family was fairly wealthy, and he had access to education. Jefferson had a great appreciation for learning. His love for knowledge also led him to pursue higher education, leading him to attend The College of William & Mary. There, he found George Wythe and Scottish scholar William Small, two influential figures and mentors in Jefferson’s life. They taught him everything from mathematics and political philosophy, to law and Enlightenment. Later, he became part of the continental congress and the main author of The Declaration of Independence, eventually becoming Secretary of State, which led to the clash between Hamilton and Jefferson.

Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had opposing views on economy, leading to conflict. Hamilton believed in a strong central government and to acquire this, wealth was the key. He wanted to make the United States rich in order for it to become a very powerful government. Hamilton learned first hand what it is like to earn a living, and that is why he believed, that wealth was the foundation in building a strong nation. He felt that those with wealth, merchants known now as businessman, would launch the U.S. into wealth and power. He also believed that with wealth came knowledge. When Hamilton started his journey as Secretary of Treasury, he was faced with many difficulties; The National Debt was one large obstacle. He felt the utmost importance in paying off all of our debts. This was significant in order to build good credit and creating our first National Bank, the Bank of the United States. On the other hand, Jefferson’s idea of America was one built by farmers and not merchants. He thought the only person who was truly free were indeed the farmers. He was determined and passionate about and Freedom, it was his foundation. He was also a strong advocate for free education. From elementary to college education he hoped, that we would be able to preserve our Liberty and Freedom.

The two argued about the basics of politics, their strong opinions standing against one another creating a split in Americans affecting us even today. On February 25th, 1793, Washington held his first full Cabinet meeting with Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of War Henry Knox, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph. Once in office the two immediately made it clear they’ll never truly see eye to eye. Hamilton, a true believer in a strong central government, felt he needed to limit democracy and make the U.S. a powerful nation. He turned to Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution, which allows Congress to have the power ‘To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.’ utilizing it to make his America; this was also known as the elastic clause or as he called it, Broad Construction. In order to expand the powers, he broadly interpreted the meaning of the Constitution. Jefferson could not contend with any of Hamilton’s ideals. He believed in Strict Construction. He felt that government should be weak and did not feel the Constitution was not democratic enough. Jefferson despised tyranny and opposed the idea of a strong central government. He felt it was his duty to protect The United States from tyranny. Jefferson once said, ‘That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves.’ He thought that the States should have the most power and that it should serve in the interest of the farmers.

In conclusion, Hamilton believed in a strong central government and a wealthy economy run by businessmen versus Jefferson’s beliefs in a very Democratic government where the states had the most power and a country run by farmers. This line in the sand was what eventually led to the two major parties that are present in America today; The Republicans once known as the Federalists, and the Democrats once called the Democratic Republicans. Their principles, even now continue to be fought over just as they did on February 25th, 1793.

Alexander Hamilton was the singular most unlikely candidate to become one of the founding fathers of the USA. He was little more than an orphaned son of a prostitute, growing up in St Nevis, a forgotten spot in the Caribbean, yet he underwent a meteoritic rise to power, became George Washington’s right hand man and almost singlehandedly sustained the USA beyond its infancy, shaping it’s political and economic landscape forever. To some, he could be considered the very embodiment of the American Dream – a young, scrappy and hungry individual who, supported by a developing meritocracy, reached the pinnacle of political success. By contrast, his political rivals views him as, ‘an American Machiavelli’, citing his explosive temperament, infidelity and uncompromising ambition. Perhaps most notably, Hamilton served as the USA’s first Secretary of the Treasury (1789 -1795) and his economic successes indisputably cemented his laudable position in history. However, when we consider his political successes, hugely controversial, it seems myopic to assign his significance primarily to his economic prowess.

The Battle of Yorktown (1781) was the last major battle of the American Revolution and the Britons (led by Lord Cornwallis) officially surrendered to a Franco-American army. The world had been turned upside down and George Washington, as the unanimously elected first president was tasked with building this new nation. Subsequently, he entrusted Hamilton to reshape the emerging American economy. Following the Revolution, the economy was in tatters, crushing war debt weighed down the federal government and a shortage of stable currency stifled commercial growth. Hamilton designed the First National Bank in order to galvanise American commerce by providing currency and loans to businesses and individuals. This National Bank could hold up to $10 million in capital (an astronomical sum at the time – more than five times more than all other American banks combined) and operate across state borders. Most crucially, for Hamilton who was a staunch Federalist, the National Bank would assume all the States’ debt and thus strengthen the government’s control over the nation’s financial future. This notion was hugely controversial for two primary reasons. Firstly, because Hamilton’s political opponents, such as Thomas Jefferson and James Maddison believed the bank was a subtly-veiled means for Hamilton to gain more control over the country as nationalisation of the banks would specifically vest more power in the Department of Treasury, which Hamilton chaired. Secondly, the cohort of anti-federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson (Secretary of State), advocated for states’ rights instead of centralised power. Jefferson famously wrote that, ‘The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale’, ie the common use of credit was detrimental to the future generations who would be sidled with that same debt. Hamilton overcame this criticism by ensuring that the federal government would have a minority stake in the Bank, but its board of directors would be private individuals, ensuring a mix of public oversight and private enterprise.

Despite the aforementioned backlash, Hamilton succeeded in establishing the National Bank and this economic success is one of the key reasons that Hamilton’s legacy is preserved by history. The National Bank exceeded all of Hamilton’s expectations in how influential it proved to be.

The bank became an integral part of a national financial infrastructure and bolstered the economic climate. Indeed, it still serves as the template for today’s monetary economy based on a stable currency and access to credit. Hamilton’s plan to evolve the USA into a commercial, cosmopolitan republic succeeded and put the newly founded nation on par with the European superpowers. Following Hamilton’s death in 1804, his political rivals were unable to dismantle his economic system, as it truly was a work of genius that shifted the USA from bankruptcy to prosperity. Moreover, in addition to the National Bank, Hamilton founded the U.S. Mint, created a system to levy taxes on luxury products (such as whiskey), and outlined an aggressive plan for the development of internal manufacturing that ensured that the American economy was not wholly dependent on European powers. The very fact that his fiscal system remains the basis of 21st century banking structure is testament to the significance of his creation and the manner in which his innovative economic prowess contributed to the preservation of his legacy.

Arguably, Hamilton’s lasting legacy could be ascribed to his political success. His polarising style of politics and refusal to compromise inadvertently led to the formation of political factions; tensions emerged concerning how much power the federal government ought to be given. The so-called Federalists, who sought a strong central government, rallied around Hamilton, whilst the Anti-Federalists, led by Jefferson, advocated for states’ autonomy instead of endorsing a singular centralised power. The discrepancies between the parties burgeoned, Federalists coalesced around the commercial sector of the country while their opponents favoured an agrarian society. The ensuing partisan battles characterised the political landscape and continues to be the basis for the USA’s congressional system. That being the case, it does not seem implausible to suggest that the Hamiltonian legacy primarily manifests itself in the political ripples that continue to influence our modern political systems.

Moreover, the Federalist Papers could be considered Hamilton’s political and constitutional legacy. During the Convention in Philadelphia (1787), the delegates devised the US Constitution. Although Hamilton was a relatively minor presence because he was the minority voice in the New York Delegation, he refused to be subdued and propped, he proposed his own form of governments and purportedly spoke for 6 hours – the convention was listless. Nevertheless, when the Constitution was devised and facing criticism for being contradictory and convoluted, Hamilton successfully negotiated its ratification, supported by John Jay and James Madison, by publishing the Federalist Papers—a collection of 85 articles and essays written under the pseudonym “Publius” to convince the people of the Constitution’s validity. Hamilton was integral because John Jay got sick after writing five, James Madison wrote twenty-nine and Hamilton wrote the other fifty-one. To this day, his essays are still widely consulted by scholars and the Supreme Court. The Federalist Papers have be named, ‘the most important work in political science that ever has been written, or is likely ever to be written, in the United States’, and through his political works, Hamilton’s legacy has been maintained.

Furthermore, Hamilton was a controversial figure throughout his career, openly contemptuous of democracy and he consistently intensified factionalism by publicly criticising his colleagues Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Burr in the elections of 1796 and 1800. Arguably, the manner of his dramatic and untimely death also contributed to his lasting legacy as the Burr-Hamilton duel has since become emblematic of the impassable divisions between Democrats and Republicans, raising the topical question of whether the world is wide enough for the two parties to coexist and work collaboratively for the betterment of the nation.

Unfortunately, Hamilton’s political career was characterised by his inclination to make enemies; he was contemporarily described as, ‘an American Machiavelli’.

Despite the significance of all of the aforementioned actions, it is evident that the true reason that Hamilton’s legacy will be preserved by history is the monumental and cultural significance of Hamilton: The Musical. The Broadway production has received almost unprecedented accolade, not only due to its seamless lyricism, but because it seamlessly fuses American history with current politics and highlights the continuous relevance of Hamilton’s story. Startling parallels can be drawn between Hamilton’s political landscape and that which we observe today, crippled by division, xenophobia and amoral political figures. Whilst comparable political figures may grace the face of Mt Rushmore, Hamilton’s legacy has been divulged to (and subsequently appreciated by) historians, Americans and laymen alike. Therefore, in light of Hamilton: The American Musical’s cultural magnitude, Hamilton’s legacy is no longer consigned to dusty shelves but his story is brought to light in a magnanimous fashion. Most strikingly, the multiculturalism that is represented in the BME cast adds a whole new gravitas to the performance as it encourages non-white Americans to take ownership of their origination story. Although in actuality the founding fathers and prominent political figures would have been exclusively white, the musical emphasises the fact that America was built upon immigration and ensures that the cast is diverse and representative of modern day America.

Alexander Hamilton was one of the most controversial figures in modern history. He refused to throw away his shot and was utterly committed to smashing every expectation and achieving his political ambitions. His name was libellously sullied postpartum, as popular figures such as Jefferson and his acolytes, diminished his character, labelling him as ‘a monarchist of Caesarean ambition, an anti-democratic dilettante, and a corrupt creature of Wall Street plutocrats’. However, the truth is, Alexander Hamilton’s influence and legacy is keenly felt in the very composition of American society. Indisputably, he $10 founding father, rose to political stratospheres and his successes in the politico-economic spheres ought not to be diminished. However, it is evident that the true reason that Hamilton’s legacy is everlasting is because of his dynamic and controversial character; his story that was once resigned to dusty bookshelves has been reinvigorated by the Broadway production and his legacy has thus been enshrined in pop culture and common awareness. Throughout his life, Hamilton was acutely aware that history has it’s eyes on him and alongside his ascension, he envisioned a time when history history books would mention him and the world would know his name. Hamilton’s legacy was of paramount importance to him (a quest that seems as futile as planting seeds in a garden you never get to see) and he succeeded in building a legacy that outlived him. America, as a fledging nation owes much of its identity to Hamilton’s work, indeed, America was Hamilton’s great unfinished symphony and his legacy will never wane because it is inseparably intertwined with the USA’s history.

When we learn about the early history of the United States, the issues considered important then might seem largely irrelevant now. Sure, the framers of the Constitution debated the fundamental purpose and scope of government, but they agreed upon a framework that’s been used ever since. Are their concerns over matters of economics relevant in our modern, technological society?

They certainly are. Consider the disagreements between founding fathers Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton and Jefferson were famous rivals, disagreeing publicly on many issues, from the power of the federal government to the limits of democratic rule. Some of their biggest and best-known differences were over economic matters.

The issues Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed on may seem arcane and remote, but their opposing viewpoints can be seen in many contemporary issues. When politicians say we need to tailor agricultural subsidies to support small family farmers, there are echoes of Jefferson in their voices. When others argue for unified national goals in education, rather than a variety of state goals, Hamilton’s ghost lurks in the background.

Because these issues are still important, the Minneapolis Fed has based its 20th Annual Student Essay Contest on them. The contest asks, ‘Hamilton vs. Jefferson: Whose economic vision was better?’

These two great men differed on a number of issues of economic significance. You can write your essay about any one you wish, or several. You can also look at the big picture of their economic visions, or pick a contemporary controversy that reflects their differences. But first you must understand some of the issues Hamilton and Jefferson struggled over. What follows is an illustration of some, but not all, of these economic points of contention.

Banks

It is well known that Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed strongly about the national bank. Hamilton was the architect of the First Bank of the United States, believing it essential to the financing of the federal government and to the establishment of a robust domestic banking system. As such, Hamilton is considered a pioneer of central banking and a forebearer of the modern Federal Reserve. Jefferson believed the bank would put too much power over the government in the hands of the bank’s owners.

But the issue went deeper than that. Jefferson, in fact, didn’t like banks at all. Steadfast in his belief that working the land was the only ‘honest’ way to make a living, he saw bankers as essentially swindlers, and he didn’t trust them. Hamilton, by contrast, thought banks were to be a vital part of the American future—if we want a strong economy, we need lending, and lending is the business of banks. Better to have American banks doing the lending, he argued, than British or other foreign banks.

This disagreement is part of a long history of controversy about banking. There are basically two opposing views: One sees debt as essentially bad and looks at bankers as exploiting borrowers’ bad fortunes or poor judgments; the other sees lenders as providing a useful service for which there is enough demand that borrowers are willing to pay interest.

In retrospect, it may seem obvious that Hamilton was right, at least in predicting how America would develop. But this controversy is still alive, and Jefferson’s voice can be heard today, for example, in the reaction to problems in the subprime mortgage market.

Federalism

The debate over Federalism in the early years of the United States may seem to be only a political issue, but it also had important economic aspects.

After the end of the American Revolution, the United States had considerable war debt, mostly held by the states. Hamilton had a plan for the federal government to assume and pay down the states’ foreign debts. Many in the South were skeptical of that plan, largely because Southern states had paid off more of what they owed and didn’t want to assume responsibility for the Northern states’ debts.

In the end, the two sides reached a compromise. The federal government would assume the debt, in exchange for placement of the nation’s capital in Jefferson’s native Virginia. In this way Hamilton was able to ensure that the debt would not be defaulted upon.

But again, the broader debate was far from over. Controversy still rages over the level at which economic policies should be conducted. Contemporary points of contention include infrastructure, education, health care and social welfare spending. The modern day Hamiltonians lean toward unified national economic policies, while Jeffersonians favor a pluralist approach in which individual states and municipalities decide.

National Economic Vision

In addition to their quarrels over specific policies, Hamilton and Jefferson also didn’t agree on the big picture. In fact, all their particular battles over various issues can be seen as cases of this more general dispute.

The big picture to them was the nature of the American future. Jefferson believed that liberty and democracy were the greatest virtues a society could strive toward. To that end, he thought an agrarian society made up of independent farmers was best; the ‘Empire of Liberty,’ he called it.

Hamilton thought Jefferson’s vision was antiquated and that an agricultural economy would keep the United States poor. For the new nation to be a world power, he believed it had to move toward the economy of the future, one based on trade and manufacturing. In addition to his plan for banks, Hamilton also made numerous proposals for policies to develop the American economy, such as protective tariffs for infant industries (something many economists today would frown upon).

As with banking, it is tempting to look at the subsequent unfolding of American history as a victory for Hamilton; after all, the United States is the largest industrial economy in the world, and only a small minority of the population still lives on farms. However, the Jeffersonian vision still holds a powerful grip on the American spirit, from the Homesteading movement to modern visions of ‘local self-reliance.’ A primary example of this spirit in action today is agricultural policy, though there are many others. These programs are largely intended (at least in theory) to support small family farmers.

At this time, the 1750s-1800s, the United States was still very much a young, weak, and inexperienced nation. There are two major political parties wanting more power, the Federalists Party, and the Democratic-Republican Party. Alexander Hamilton was the leader of the Federalist Party, which controlled congress and the rest of the national government from the beginning of the new nation after John Adams succeeded George Washington as president. The Federalists believed that their political party was the government and that once they were elected by political leaders, no one should publicly criticize them. The federalists also detested the French Revolution.

Alexander Hamilton, born on January 11, 1755, in Charlestown, Nevis, did not have the brightest childhood. Financial hardship, separation, abandonment, death of a parent, and public humiliation were only some of the characteristics that described Hamilton’s childhood.

Hamilton’s mother was Rachel Faucette and was married to a man named Johann Michael Lavien before she met Alexander Hamilton’s father, James Hamilton. James Hamilton was a Scottish trader and had two children with Rachel, James Hamilton Jr., and Alexander Hamilton. Alexander Hamilton’s father later left his family after discovering that “her first husband intended to divorce her under Danish law on grounds of adultery and desertion.’ Alexander’s father believed that Rachel has committed bigamy, which is “the act of going through a marriage ceremony while already married to another person.” This left Alexander and his family penniless in a new world, where his mother was required to own a small store to support the family financially. This series of hard work ended up with his mother catching yellow fever, which Alexander also soon caught, yellow fever was the cause of her death on February 19, 1768. His mother’s death was surely a hard blow to Alexander and something that will have a great impact on him. Chernow states: “Mother and son must have been joined in a horrid scene of vomiting, flatulence, and defecation as they lay side by side in a feverish state in the single upstairs bed. The delirious Alexander was probably writhing inches from his mother when she expired…” All of Alexander’s books, toys, and property were confiscated and seized.

Peter Lytton, Alexander’s cousin, soon looked after both Alexander and his brother. But they were soon left alone again after Peter took his own life. Thomas Stevens, a Nevis merchant, then provided Alexander with a home. Alexander became very good friends with Thomas’s son, Edward Stevens.

One of the only few people who influenced Hamilton and shaped him to become who he grew up to be was his maternal grandmother, Mary Faucett. Mary wasn’t an ordinary woman, she was not quiet or shy, she stood up for her opinions and was extremely bold. She did not allow her husband or any male to “control” her, she cared and had a loud voice about her own needs but also for the needs of others. These personality traits also influenced his strong-willed mother quite a bit.

Hamilton has already begun working as a clerk in a general store just at the age of twelve! But he grew fluent in French and began to have a passion for writing. Having been mostly self-taught for most of his young years, Alexander soon desired to relieve more proper education. His caring aunts soon saved enough money to be able to send Alexander over to New York where he could receive the education he desired so much. Then in 1773, he was accepted into King’s College, where he finally had the education he desired. Alexander combined his passion for writing with politics and first wrote politically by attacking the Quebec Act as well as responding to Samuel Seabury’s writings which promoted the Loyalist cause. Alexander supported the American Revolution as well as its cause.

Just a few years later, due to the British occupying New York City, King’s College was forced to shut down before Alexander was able to fully complete his studies. This supplied Alexander, as well as many other King’s College’s students, the motive to join a “New York volunteer militia company called the Corsican. (later renamed as the Hearts of Oak)” Not surprisingly, Alexander put lots of time and effort into studying the military history and tactics which attracted the attention of higher-ranked men who recommended him for a promotion. The “Hearts of Oak” company converted into an artillery company after Alexander led a successful raid for British cannons even under heavy fire from the Royal Navy. The New York Provincial Company of Artillery, whose duty was to defend New York City from British

Attack, was created by Alexander Hamilton who also became the elected captain. Alexander finally accepted the role to serve George Washington as his aide, “with the rank of lieutenant colonel”, after being offered the role to serve as an aide to other great generals such as William Alexander and Lord Stirling. Alexander served an important role for General George Washington, he served him for four years taking on many high-level duties such as handling and drafting letters as well as drafting and issuing orders.

Alexander, now loathing military glory at this time, took command and returned to combat near the end of the Revolution war. Being frustrated with George Washington, Hamilton soon left George Washington’s staff after Washington gravely disapproved and criticized Hamilton over a misunderstanding. This small quarrel damages Washington and Hamilton’s relationship forever.