Alexander Hamilton se ingewikkelde verhouding tot slawerny

Alexander Hamilton se ingewikkelde verhouding tot slawerny

Alexander Hamilton het slawerny verafsku en het op 'n paar punte in sy lewe gehelp om dit te beperk. Maar enige morele besware wat hy gehad het, word getemper deur sy sosiale en politieke ambisies. Gedurende sy hele lewe, soos soveel leiers van die tyd, het hy slawerny toegelaat of gebruik om sy fortuin te bevorder - indirek en deur kompromieë wat hy gekies het.

Hamilton se vroeë lewe: omring deur slawerny

Sedert hy buite die eg gebore is naby 'n Karibiese waterfront wat gereeld besoek word deur skepe wat gevangenes uit Afrika vervoer, was Hamilton se lewe verweef met slawerny. Toe hy op die eiland Nevis grootgeword het, het die jong Alexander verby slaveveilingblokke en die menigtes wat op die openbare plein vergader het, geloop om te sien hoe slawe geslaan word. Te midde van 'n eiland met so 'n natuurlike skoonheid, kon slawe se groteske wreedheid nie vermy word nie.

















Kort voordat Hamilton se pa sy gesin verlaat het, het hy hulle in 1765 na St. Croix verhuis, waar 22 000 van die eiland se 24 000 inwoners in ballingskap gehou is om die 'wit goud' wat op suikerplantasies geproduseer is, te kweek. Alhoewel die gesin van Hamilton min rykdom gehad het, was sy ma op 'n tydstip in besit van vyf slawe wat sy gehuur het om haar inkomste aan te vul, asook vier seuns wat as huisknegte gedien het. Sy het een van die seuns, Ajax, aan Alexander nagelaat, maar na haar dood in 1768 het 'n hof die erfporsie ontken weens Hamilton se buite-egtelike geboorte en het sy eienaar van Ajax aan sy halfbroer toegestaan.

Hamilton het sy tienerjare as klerk by die St. Croix -handelsonderneming Beekman en Cruger gewerk, wat alles ingevoer het wat nodig was vir 'n plantasie -ekonomie - insluitend slawe uit Wes -Afrika. Hamilton kyk hoe honderde en honderde gevangenes aan wal kom nadat hulle die middelste gang gemaak het, en sou gehelp het om diegene wat opgeveil sou word, te ondersoek en te prys. In 'n brief van 1772 in Hamilton se handskrif is die verkryging van "twee of drie arme seuns" vir plantasiewerk gevra en gevra dat hulle 'op die redelikste manier wat u kan' gebind word.

LEES MEER: 5 dinge wat u nie van Alexander Hamilton mag weet nie

Hamilton het slawerny gekant, maar kompromieë aangegaan

'N Groep sakelui, onder die indruk van Hamilton se potensiaal, het rykdom gebruik wat op die rug van slawe -arbeiders gebou is en het hom betaal om in die Amerikaanse kolonies opgevoed te word. Nadat hy die Elizabethtown Academy in New Jersey bygewoon het, het Hamilton gematrikuleer aan die King's College in New York, waar 16 slawehandelaars as trustees gedien het, en studente soos George Washington se stiefseun, Jacky, het slaweknegte saamgebring skool toe.

In sy ambisie om bo sy nederige begin uit te styg, blyk dit dat Hamilton gereeld sy gevoelens teen slawerny verslind het toe hy hom gedwing het om in die koloniale elite van Amerika aan te neem-van wie die meeste slawe was. Terwyl hy tydens die Revolusie as George Washington se vertroude aide de camp gedien het, was Hamilton nie lus om die onderwerp te bespreek met die generaal, wat meer as 100 mense tot slawe gemaak het op sy Mount Vernon -plantasie nie.

Hamilton het nietemin meer progressiewe standpunte gehad as die meeste van die stigters oor die gelykheid van rasse. In 1774 publiseer hy sy eerste groot politieke opstel, 'A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress', wat direkte vergelykings tref tussen slawe en koloniste wat deur die Britte onderdruk is. En in 1779 was hy die voorstander van 'n plan wat deur sy vriend John Laurens voorgestel is om slawe in die kontinentale leër te bewapen en te werf - en hulle te beloon met hul vryheid in ruil daarvoor. (Washington self het die idee teengestaan ​​totdat die Britte net so 'n lokmiddel gehang het.) "Die voorskrifte van die mensdom en die ware beleid interesseer my eweneens ten gunste van hierdie ongelukkige mannetjie," skryf Hamilton in 'n beroep namens Laurens aan die Kontinentale Kongres. "Ek het nie die minste twyfel dat die negers baie goeie soldate sal maak met behoorlike bestuur nie," het Hamilton voortgegaan en bygevoeg dat "hul natuurlike fakulteite waarskynlik so goed soos ons s'n is." Sy lobbying kon egter nie steun wen nie en Laurens se plan is laat vaar.

LEES MEER: Die skandaal wat Alexander Hamilton se kans om president te word, verwoes het

Wat ook al die afkeer van slawerny wat Hamilton mag gehad het, hy het dit bewys om dit uit liefde en in die platteland uit te sien. In 1780 trou hy in die welgestelde familie Schuyler. Generaal Philip Schuyler - vader van Hamilton se vrou, Elizabeth - het tot 27 slawe gemaak wat in sy huis in Albany, New York, en op 'n nabygeleë plaas in Saratoga geswoeg het.

As 'n afgevaardigde van New York by die konstitusionele konvensie van 1787, het Hamilton die behoefte aan kompromieë gesien om 'n nuwe, sterk federale regering te stig, en daarom ondersteun hy die sogenaamde 'drie-vyfdes' klousule, wat elke slaaf as drie- vyfdes van 'n persoon om die bevolking van die staat te bepaal. 'Sonder hierdie toegeeflikheid sou daar moontlik geen unie kon ontstaan ​​nie,' het Hamilton aan die New York Ratifying Convention gesê.

Twee jaar tevore was Hamilton onder die stigters van die New York Manumission Society, wat die geleidelike emansipasie van slawe in die staat wou beywer. Hamilton was die sekretaris van die organisasie wat die New York African Free School gestig het en gehelp het met die verloop van 'n staatswet van 1799 wat die kinders van slawe bevry het. Ondanks die doelwitte van die samelewing het meer as die helfte van die lede mense besit. Hamilton het gehelp om 'n spesifieke rooster op te stel vir die lede van die genootskap om hul eie slawewerkers te bevry - 'n inisiatief wat nêrens heen is nie.

LEES MEER: Hoe Alexander Hamilton se weduwee, Eliza, sy erfenis voortgesit het

Het Hamilton self verslaafde mense besit?

Tydens die hantering van die finansies van sy skoonfamilie was die toekomstige Amerikaanse tesourie-sekretaris betrokke by die aankoop en verkoop van slawe-slawe vir die Schuylers. In 1784 het hy probeer om sy skoonsuster Angelica te help om een ​​van haar voorheen slawe te bekom. Geskiedkundiges verskil egter oor die vraag of Hamilton se finansiële rekords verwys na verslaafde huiswerkers wat deur sy skoonfamilie besit word-of aan die Hamiltons self. In 'n kasboekinskrywing uit 1796 is Hamilton se betaling van $ 250 aan sy skoonpa aangeteken vir "2 negerbediendes wat hy vir my gekoop het." 'N Grootboekinskrywing die volgende jaar dui egter op die aftrekking van $ 225 van die rekening van Angelica se man, John Barker Church, vir die aankoop van 'n' neger vrou en kind ', wat daarop dui dat die transaksie namens hulle kon wees.

Alhoewel daar geen definitiewe bewys is nie, beweer Hamilton se kleinseun, Allan McLane Hamilton, dat die transaksies vir sy oupa self was. 'Daar is gesê dat Hamilton nooit 'n negerslaaf besit het nie, maar dit is onwaar,' het Hamilton se kleinseun geskryf in 'n biografie van sy oupa, oorspronklik gepubliseer in 1910. 'Ons vind dat daar in sy boeke inskrywings is wat toon dat hy dit gekoop het vir vir homself en vir ander. ”

Alhoewel die historiese rekord op hierdie punt nog onduidelik is, weerspieël dit die gaping tussen Hamilton se woorde en dade. Vir so 'n omvangryke skrywer het Hamilton yl notas gelaat oor die kwessie van slawerny. In sy politieke verhandeling van 1774 'N Volledige bevestiging van die maatreëls van die kongres, Het Hamilton geskryf dat "alle mense een gemeenskaplike oorsprong het: hulle neem deel aan 'n gemeenskaplike natuur en het gevolglik een gemeenskaplike reg." Terwyl hy amper nie die uiterste paradoks van Thomas Jefferson se onafhanklikheid nader nie, terwyl hy honderde mense tot slawerny maak, het Hamilton se verhouding tot slawerny sy eie komplekse teenstrydighede gehad.


Hamilton en slawerny

Deur Michelle DuRoss Universiteit in Albany, State University of New York

Die biograwe van Alexander Hamilton prys Hamilton omdat hy 'n afskaffer was, maar hulle het die houding van Hamilton oor slawerny oorskat. Historikus John C. Miller het volgehou: "Hy [Hamilton] bepleit een van die mees gewaagde invalle van eiendomsreg wat ooit gemaak is- die afskaffing van die negerslawerny. [1] Biograaf Forest McDonald het gesê:" Hamilton was 'n afskaffer, en Hy het nooit oor daardie onderwerp getwyfel nie. "[2] Hamilton se standpunt oor slawerny is ingewikkelder as wat sy biograwe suggereer. Hamilton was nie 'n voorstander van slawerny nie, maar toe die kwessie van slawerny in botsing kom met sy persoonlike ambisies, was sy geloof in eiendomsreg , of sy oortuiging van wat Amerika se belange sou bevorder, het Hamilton die doelwitte gekies bo die opposisie van slawerny. besluite toon aan dat sy begeerte na die afskaffing van slawerny nie sy prioriteit was nie.Een van Alexander Hamilton se hoofdoelwitte in die lewe was om na 'n hoër posisie in die samelewing te styg. bedoel dat hy nie net hard moet werk nie, maar dat hy ook vriende moet word met die regte mense - die rykes en die invloedryke. Gedurende die agtiende eeu het 'n groot aantal Amerikaanse Amerikaners slawe gehou. Toe Hamilton 'n keuse moes maak tussen sy sosiale ambisies en sy begeerte om slawe vry te maak, het hy besluit om sy ambisies na te kom.

Sommige historici beweer dat Hamilton se geboorte op die eiland Nevis en sy daaropvolgende opvoeding in St. Croix 'n haat vir die brutaliteit van slawerny ingebring het. Die historikus James Oliver Horton stel voor dat Hamilton se kinderjare omring deur die slawestelsel van Wes -Indië 'die houding van Alexander oor ras en slawerny vir die res van sy lewe' sou beïnvloed. Hy het ook gedink dat Hamilton 'n 'uitgeworpene' op die eiland was wat hom met die slawe meegevoel het. [3] Horton maak slegs staat op sekondêre inligting. Geen bestaande dokumente van Hamilton ondersteun hierdie bewering nie. Hamilton het in sy briefwisseling nooit iets genoem oor die gruwels van plantasieslawerny in Wes -Indië nie. In plaas daarvan het Hamilton se verarmde kinderjare hom gemotiveer om sy hele lewe lank sy posisie in die samelewing te verbeter. As Hamilton die slawestelsel in Wes -Indië gehaat het, was dit moontlik omdat hy nie deel was daarvan nie. Hy het grootgeword omring deur welgestelde wit gesinne, terwyl syne arm was. Nadat sy pa die gesin verlaat het, ondersteun Hamilton se ma Alexander, sy broer en haarself. Sy is dood toe hy 'n tiener was, wat hom vir homself laat sorg het. Binne 'n jaar het hy 'n pos as klerk by 'n plaaslike handelaar gekry, maar Hamilton haat die lae posisie. Hy het in 1769 aan sy jeugvriend, Edward Stevens, geskryf en sy begeerte vir 'n oorlog uitgespreek sodat hy bo sy stasie kon uitstyg. [4] Boonop beïnvloed Hamilton se strewe om die sosiale laasgenoemde te klim sy keuse van wie hy sou trou. "In 1779 het Hamilton hulp by sy vriend en die voormalige Washington-assistent John Laurens, seun van Henry Laurens, gesoek om vir hom 'n bruid te vind wat aan 'n welgestelde gesin behoort." In sy verklaring van sy kwalifikasies vir 'n geskikte bruid, skryf Hamilton: Sy moet jonk, knap wees (ek lê die meeste stres op 'n goeie vorm) verstandig ('n bietjie leer sal doen), goed geteel In politiek is ek onverskillig van watter kant sy kan wees Ek dink ek het argumente wat haar maklik in myne kan verander. Wat godsdiens betref, sal 'n matige voorraad my bevredig. Sy moet in God glo en 'n heilige haat. Maar wat die geluk betref, hoe groter die voorraad, hoe beter. [5] Alhoewel Hamilton vir Laurens gesê het dat hy 'n grap maak, trou Hamilton 'n jaar later met Elizabeth Schuyler, 'n lid van 'n prominente slawe -familie in New York. Iemand wat teen slawerny gekant is, kan probleme ondervind om in 'n slawe -familie te trou, maar dit het Hamilton nie gepla nie. Om seker te wees, Hamilton het nie met Elizabeth getrou nie omdat hy van haar gehou het, sy doel was om met 'n welgestelde vrou te trou en hy het daarin geslaag om in een van die rykste gesinne te trou.

Hamilton se betrokkenheid by die verkoop van slawe dui daarop dat sy standpunt teen slawerny nie absoluut was nie. Behalwe om in 'n slawe-familie te trou, het Hamilton transaksies gedoen vir die aankoop en oordrag van slawe namens sy skoonfamilie en as deel van sy toewysing in die kontinentale weermag. In 1777, voordat hy met Elizabeth getroud is, het hy 'n formele brief aan kolonel Elias Dayton geskryf, waarin Washington se versoek dat Dayton 'n "neger wat onlangs geneem is deur 'n militêre party wat aan mnr. Caleb Wheeler behoort", terugbesorg het. [6] Hamilton, Washington se aide de camp tydens die revolusionêre oorlog, het sy hele lewe lank naby Washington gebly. Hy was sy eerste sekretaris van die tesourie en het 'n paar van sy toesprake opgestel, insluitend die afskeidsrede. Hamilton sou waarskynlik nie Washington, wat slawe besit het, wou beledig nie, en hy sou die bevele van sy meerdere gevolg het. Alhoewel die beskikbare bewyse swyg oor Hamilton se gevoelens oor die uitvoering van hierdie spesifieke plig, dui sy optrede ten minste op sy selfvoldaanheid. Na sy huwelik het Hamilton ingegryp om die slawe van sy skoonfamilie te gaan haal. In 1784 skryf sy skoonsuster Angelica aan haar suster Elizabeth en verduidelik dat sy wil hê dat haar slaaf, Ben, moet terugkom. In reaksie hierop skryf Hamilton aan John Chaloner, 'n Philadelphia -handelaar wat saketransaksies vir Angelica se man gedoen het, en sê: "u word versoek dat majoor Jackson met hom sal deel om sy oorblywende tyd vir mev. Church te koop en hom na my te stuur . " [7] Boonop het Hamilton ook die finansies van Angelica se man John Barker Church hanteer, omdat die egpaar die grootste deel van hul tyd in Europa deurgebring het. Hamilton het $ 225 van die kerk se rekening afgetrek vir die aankoop van "'n neger vrou en kind." [8] Hamilton wou deel uitmaak van die hoër klas en sy verhouding met die Schuyler -gesin en met George Washington het sy wens moontlik gemaak, dit was vir Hamilton belangriker om hierdie verhoudings te kweek as om standpunt teen slawerny te maak. Om eerlik te wees, moet op gelet word dat as Hamilton hardnekkig teen slawerny gekant was om die aankoop van slawe of die terugkeer van slawe te weier, sou hy nie sulke invloedryke vriendskappe kon handhaaf nie, gevolglik sou sy standpunt oor slawerny min gehad het impak op die afskaffing van slawerny.

Geleerdes wys dikwels op Hamilton se steun aan John Laurens se plan om swartes in die weermag te werf as bewys van sy egalitêre sienings, wat volgens hulle die idee van Hamilton as 'n vurige steun vir afskaffing ondersteun. Hamilton het ondersteun om slawe hul vryheid te gee as hulle by die kontinentale leër aansluit omdat hy geglo het dat dit in die beste belang van Amerika was, nie omdat hy slawe wou bevry nie. Toe Laurens in 1779 'n plan beraam het om swartes in die weermag toe te laat, het Suid -Carolina dringend soldate nodig gehad om in die kontinentale leër te veg. Alhoewel baie leiers, waaronder George Washington, bekommerd was oor die toelating van swartes tot die weermag, steun Hamilton Laurens se plan. Hamilton het aan John Jay, destydse president van die Kontinentale Kongres, geskryf om die meriete van die plan te verduidelik. Hy het aangevoer dat hy geen ander manier sien om soldate op te voed sonder om swartes toe te laat nie. Hamilton het besef dat baie mense, veral Suidlanders, nie saamstem met die plan nie, omdat hulle nie sou wou "deel met eiendom van so 'n waardevolle soort nie" [9] Hamilton het kritici van die plan teëgestaan ​​deur te beweer dat die Britte 'n soortgelyke plan sou beraam en dan sou die slawehouers hul eiendom in slawe verloor sonder enige voordeel. Toe hy sulke keuses gelaat het, het Hamilton geglo dat die slawehouers hul slawe natuurlik sou stuur om vir die Amerikaanse saak te veg. Hamilton het aangevoer dat die enigste manier om swart soldate lojaal te hou, was om hulle hul "vryheid met hul muskiete" te gee. [10] Die argument dat Hamilton se ondersteuning van Laurens se plan toon dat hy 'n voorstander was van die vryheid van swartes, ignoreer Hamilton se motivering om te doen so. Hy wou hê Amerika moet die oorlog wen, en die toelating van swartes tot die weermag was destyds die beste opsie. In sy bespreking van Laurens se plan, beweer Ron Chernow dat Laurens en Hamilton "albei onwrikbare afskaffingskundiges was wat emansipasie van slawe as 'n onafskeidbare deel van die stryd om vryheid beskou het" [11] Terwyl hul oproep om swartes te bewapen kan impliseer dat hulle swartes sien as gelyk en wou almal vry wees, is daar bewys van die teendeel. Volgens John Laurens se pa sou John nooit iemand anders dwing om sy slawe te verwilder nie, omdat hy te veel in eiendomsreg geglo het. [12] Hamilton is deur geleerdes en sy kleinseun beskuldig dat hy slawe besit het, wat daarop dui dat enige oortuigings wat hy het oor die kwaliteit en natuurlike regte van swartes, nie altyd tot aksie gelei het nie. Dit is moontlik dat Hamilton nie slawe besit het nie, maar sy betrokkenheid by slaaftransaksies dui op 'n meer dubbelsinnige prentjie van Hamilton as die 'onwrikbare afskaffer'. Hamilton was meer prakties gemotiveer as enige ideologie wat die gelykheid van die rasse voorgehou het. Dit wil nie sê dat Hamilton die wedrenne as inherent ongelyk beskou nie, maar dat dit nie Hamilton se standpunte oor beleid bepaal nie. Hamilton, net soos Laurens, wou swartes in die weermag toelaat omdat hulle gedink het dat dit die enigste praktiese oplossing vir die weermag se probleme was. Hamilton se lidmaatskap van die Society for the Promotion of the Manumission of Slaves in New York het gelei dat historici glo dat Hamilton 'n afskaffer is. Richard Brookhiser, Hamilton -biograaf en hoofkurator van 'n uitstalling oor Alexander Hamilton by die New York Historical Society, beweer dat Hamilton 'n afskaffer was. Brookhiser noem dat Hamilton 'n stigterslid van die Genootskap was. Hy beweer dan: "Die samelewing het suksesvol daarop aangedring om slawerny onwettig te maak in New York - 'n aansienlike prestasie in 'n staat waar slawerny 'n werklike teenwoordigheid was." Hy gee geen bewyse van die invloed van die genootskap op die wette van New York nie. Verder toon hy geen direkte betrokkenheid van Hamilton by die soeke na wette teen slawerny in New York nie. [13] Die rekords van die genootskap ontbreek aansienlike inligting oor Hamilton, wat daarop dui dat hy nie 'n dominante rol in die samelewing gespeel het nie. [14] New York het wetgewing uitgevaardig wat voorsiening maak vir die geleidelike emansipasie van slawe in 1799, maar het slawerny eers in 1827 afgeskaf, meer as twintig jaar nadat Hamilton in 'n tweegeveg vermoor is. [15]

Hamilton se lidmaatskap in die samelewing was nie in stryd met sy klem op eiendomsreg nie. Lede van die Genootskap kon nog steeds slawe besit. Toe die lede op 4 Februarie 1785 byeenkom om hul grondwet op te stel, het hulle 'n komitee saamgestel om te besluit hoe die lede van die genootskap moet optree teenoor slawe wat hulle besit. Hamilton was deel van die komitee, wat oorspronklik 'n beroep op lede gedoen het om hul slawe te beman. Die komitee se voorstel is verwerp en lede is toegelaat om slawehouers te bly. [16] Hoewel Hamilton in komitees gesit het en soms kanselier van die Genootskap was, was sy bywoning sporadies. Boonop ontbreek die rekords van die Manumissions Society, tesame met die dokumente van Hamilton, geen werklike bespreking van Hamilton oor sy gedagtes oor die samelewing of wat die samelewing moet probeer bereik nie. Sy lidmaatskap het hom die geleentheid gebied om verder met die top van die New Yorkse samelewing te kommunikeer. Die Genootskap spog met 'n indrukwekkende lys van New Yorkers uit die hoër klas, waaronder John Jay en Robert Troup. Hamilton se betrokkenheid by die Genootskap lok ook lof uit van sy vriend, die Marquis de Lafayette. [17] Alhoewel die anti-slawerny-samelewing in Pennsylvania uitdruklik aangedring het op die afskaffing van slawerny, het die anti-slawerny-samelewing waaraan Hamilton behoort, die sluiting van slawe bepleit. [18] Die Genootskap het gesê dat mense hulle slawe moet bevry, nie dat hulle nie moet moet bevry hulle slawe. Hamilton ondersteun die vrystelling van slawe, maar slegs as dit nie die beskerming van eiendomsreg belemmer nie. Hamilton het gedink dat eiendomsreg die verteenwoordiging moet beïnvloed, wat een rede is waarom hy die klousule van drie vyfdes in die Grondwet ondersteun. Hoewel hy tydens die Grondwetlike Konvensie stilgebly het oor hierdie kwessie, het hy tydens die New York Ratifying Convention in 1788 daarvoor aangevoer. Hamilton hou nie van die Grondwet nie, maar besef dat geen plan perfek sou wees nie. Die Grondwet was 'n kompromie tussen die staatsafgevaardigdes nadat Hamilton besluit het om steun daarvoor te verkry. Hy het koorsagtig aan die werk gegaan met die skryf van 'n reeks opstelle om New Yorkers te oorreed om die Grondwet te bekragtig, en het sy saak tydens die Ratificerende Konvensie van New York gepleit. Hamilton het voorgestel dat hoe meer eiendom 'n mens het, hoe meer moet sy stem tel. [19] Hamilton was bang vir die laer klasse, en as gevolg hiervan het hy gesteun om hulle minder inspraak in die regering te gee. Hamilton het geglo dat die rykes meer deugde het, terwyl die armes meer ondeugde "Hulle [die elites] se ondeugde is waarskynlik gunstiger vir die welvaart van die staat as dié van behoeftiges en neem minder deel aan morele verdorwenheid." [20] Hamilton het gedink dat die laer klasse lui was en nie sou bydra tot die ekonomiese groei van die land nie, terwyl die rykes, as hulle ondeugde gehad het, gulsig of tevergeefs was - euwels wat nie so nadelig sou wees vir die welvaart van Amerika nie. In Gebreke van die Konfederasie, Stel Hamilton voor dat die kongres die amptenare van die staat aanstel volgens hierdie eienskappe: "Die kongres moet vir hierdie ampte kies, manne met die eerste vermoëns, eiendom en karakterÖ." [21] Hamilton het tydens die konstitusionele konvensie opgemerk dat die House of Lords van Brittanje 'n uiters edele instelling is "omdat hulle" by 'n toeval niks het om op te hoop nie en 'n voldoende belang deur hul eiendom. "[22] Volgens Hamilton, mense met 'n aansienlike hoeveelheid eiendom sou stabiliteit bied. Hy het geglo dat mense onafhanklik moet wees van eiendom. Hamilton het getoon dat hy die hoër klas respekteer en hulle in magsposisies wou hê. Hamilton het aangevoer dat, aangesien slawe belas word, hulle moet tel in verteenwoordiging, wat verwys na die gewilde revolusionêre frase "geen belasting sonder verteenwoordiging nie." . [24] Hamilton se steun vir die 3/5 -klousule val saam met sy oortuiging dat mense met meer eiendom 'n groter seggenskap moet hê oor hoe die land is un.

Hamilton het die beskerming van slawerny in die Grondwet aanvaar om die unie van Noord en Suid te verseker, wat nodig was vir die finansiële groei wat hy beoog het. Aangesien Suid-Afrikaners geglo het dat hulle die ekstra verteenwoordiging nodig het om hul slawestelsel te beskerm, het Hamilton erken dat die klousule van drie vyfdes nodig was om die unie te stig-sonder die kompromie van die drie-vyfdes sou die Suide nooit ingestem het tot die stigting van die Verenigde State nie. Hulle het geredeneer dat sonder die klousule die noorde die kongres sou oorheers en slawerny kon vernietig. Vir Hamilton was die welvaart van Amerika afhanklik van die vereniging van Noord en Suid. Hy het volgehou dat die suidelike state 'n 'voordeel' vir die noorde was deur daarop te wys dat die suidelike state tabak, rys en indigo besit, 'wat hoofsaaklik voorwerpe moet wees in handelsverdrae met vreemde nasies'. [25] The New York Evening Post, gestig deur Hamilton, bevat advertensies vir goedere wat deur slawe vervaardig word. [26] Die advertensies in 'n New York -koerant belig die onderlinge verband tussen die ekonomie van die noorde en die suide verder. Hamilton se posisie toon dat hy handel dryf en dat die Noorde die suide nodig gehad het om wins te behou. Hy het nasionale ekonomiese mag gekies bo standpunt teen slawerny. Hamilton se optrede rakende die Vredesverdrag van Parys van 1783 en die verwante Jay's -verdrag van 1794 bied 'n ingewikkelde beeld van sy standpunt oor slawerny. Hamilton het aanvanklik die Britse oortreding van die Verdrag van 1783 gekritiseer en 'n beroep op die Britte gedoen om swartes wat deur die Britte weggevoer is, terug te gee. Maar Hamilton het sy posisie verskuif om konfrontasies met Groot -Brittanje en sy diplomate te vermy, veral nadat sy vriend, John Jay, 'n aangepaste weergawe van die Verdrag bekom het. Boonop het hy geglo dat die erkenning van die verdrag Amerika se posisie onder die nasies en sy ekonomiese welvaart sou verseker. Hamilton het ook daarin geslaag om sy geloof in die heiligheid van eiendomsreg te versoen met sy steun aan Jay's Treaty. Die kontroversie rondom die Verdrag van 1783 hou verband met artikel VII van die verdrag. Henry Laurens, 'n prominente Suid -Karolynse slawehouer wat voordeel getrek het uit die slawehandel, het Benjamin Franklin, John Jay en John Adams, wat besig was om die vredesverdrag te onderhandel, aangespoor om 'n bepaling op te neem wat die Britte verbied om slawe te neem tydens hul ontruiming uit Amerika. Laurens se versoek eindig as artikel VII van die verdrag, waarin lui: Alle gevangenes aan beide kante word vrygelaat, en sy Brittaniese majesteit sal met alle gemaklike spoed en sonder enige vernietiging veroorsaak, of wegneem van enige negers of ander besittings van die Amerikaanse inwoners, trek al sy leërs, garnisoene en vloote uit die genoemde Verenigde State terug. [27] [nadruk bygevoeg] Simon Schama wys daarop dat die slawe -belang die politiek van die vroeë republikeinse tydperk oorheers het. "Deur sy artikel in die konsepverdrag in te voeg, verplig Laurens nie net sy mede -Caroliniërs nie, maar ook die hele slawe -klas van die Suide wat die rewolusie gemaak het" [28] Hy verduidelik dat die kwessie van swartes wat weggevoer word, 'n bron van spanning tussen Brittanje en Amerika. Toe Washington Guy Carleton op 6 Mei 1783 ontmoet, begin hy die gesprek deur artikel VII te bespreek, eerder as om Carleton te ondervra oor die finale ontruiming uit New York. Volgens Schama het Washington se gesig "rooi geword" toe Carleton hom vertel het dat swartes reeds saam met die Britte ontruim is, alhoewel die Britte name opgeteken het sodat die slawehouers vergoed sou word. [29] Ondanks sy frustrasie het Washington die idee veroordeel dat Amerika sy deel van die verdrag in gebreke moet bly omdat die Britte die verdrag verbreek het deur swartes uit te voer. Washington wou nie weer met Brittanje baklei nie. Schama meen dat Washington se posisie in ooreenstemming was met sy realisme. [30] Washington se reaksie op die Britte wat swartes in stryd met die Verdrag van 1783 wegvoer, is soortgelyk aan Hamilton se realisme.

Hamilton wou ook nie 'n oorlog met Brittanje waag nie, al ondersteun hy die idee dat die Britte die verdrag oortree deur swartes uit te voer. Tydens die oorspronklike bespreking oor die vredesverdrag het Hamilton gesê dat die Britte swartes moet terugbring wat hulle saamgeneem het. Hamilton het aangevoer dat die neem van swartes na die oorlog eiendomsreg skend. Hamilton het op 26 Mei 1783 'n mosie aan die Kontinentale Kongres voorgelê wat "protesteer teen die beslaglegging van negers wat aan burgers van die Verenigde State behoort." [31] Benewens Hamilton se openbare mosie, lewer hy ook 'n soortgelyke opmerking in sy private korrespondensie met George Clinton, goewerneur van New York: Gestel die Britte moet nie net die negers wegstuur nie, maar ook alle ander eiendom en alle openbare rekords in hul besit wat aan ons behoort. Is dit nie reeds gedoen in die geval van die negers nie? [32] Hamilton beskou die Britte wat swartes wegvoer as 'n oortreding van die Verdrag van 1783 en sou verkies het dat die Britte dit gehandhaaf het. Toe hy egter besef dat die Verenigde State nie die verlore eiendom van slawehouers kan herwin nie, aanvaar hy dit eerder as om die verdrag heeltemal te ontbind. Hamilton was dit nie eens nie, waaronder James Madison en Thomas Jefferson, wat die verdrag as nietig geag het weens die oortreding van Brittanje. Hy het aan Clinton verduidelik dat 'sommige mans gesê het dat die werking van hierdie verdrag tot die definitiewe verdrag opgeskort word.' syne Tweede brief van Phocion: Dat 'n oortreding van die verdrag van die Britte deur die wegstuur van 'n groot aantal negers, my beginsels [Hamilton se teenstanders] al lankal tot niet gemaak het, en ons volkome vrygemaak het om die bepalings van ons kant te laat vaar . [34]


Sy het Alexander Hamilton se slawe -eienaarskap in die kollig gevestig. Dit het haar op die nasionale verhoog geplaas.

Jessie Serfilippi, 'n 27-jarige beginnerhistorikus, het opskudding veroorsaak en nasionale media-aandag geniet nadat sy onlangs 'n artikel op die webwerf van Schuyler Mansion gepubliseer het wat die mite van stigter Alexander Hamilton as 'n afskaffer ontken en sy rol as 'n handelaar en eienaar van slawe.

Paul Grondahl / Times Union Wys meer Wys minder

2 van 9 Jessie Serfilippi, 'n self-geleerde historikus en tolk by Albany's Schuyler Mansion, het in primêre bronne bewyse gevind dat Alexander Hamilton slawe mense besit en verkoop. Verskaf foto Wys meer Wys minder

essie Serfilippi, tolk, en Heidi Hill, terreinbestuurder, op die tweede verdieping in die Schuyler Mansion, waar toere nuwe navorsing insluit oor die slawe-besit van die Schuyler-gesin en Alexander Hamilton.

Paul Grondahl / Times Union Wys meer Wys minder

Jesse Serfilippi bly 'n onbeskaamde aanhanger van die “Hamilton ” musiekblyspel ondanks haar harde kritiek op genl Philip Schuyler en skoonseun Alexander Hamilton as slawe-eienaar.

Paul Grondahl / Times Union Wys meer Wys minder

'N Uitsig oor die Schuyler -herehuis in die suidekant van die stad uit die agtertuin. Dit is verbied dat die staatshistoriese personeellede kommentaar lewer of hulle saamstem met burgemeester Kathy Sheehan se voorstel om die standbeeld van genl Philip Schuyler voor die stadsaal te verwyder omdat hy 'n slaaf was.

Paul Grondahl / Times Union Wys meer Wys minder

Jessie Serfilippi, wat 'n MFA in kreatiewe skryfkuns het en hoofsaaklik fiksie skryf, staan ​​onder 'n portret van Hamilton in die blou kamer, waar Hamilton op 14 Desember 1780 met Schuyler se dogter, Elizabeth, getroud is.

Paul Grondahl / Times Union Wys meer Wys minder

ALBANY & mdash Jessie Serfilippi is 'n toevallige Alexander Hamilton -ikonoklas.

Die 27-jarige beginnerhistorikus en deeltydse tolk in die Schuyler Mansion het onlangs op die staatshistoriese webwerf & rsquos-webwerf 'n geleerde opstel oor die stigter gepubliseer, en die geskiedenis word grotendeels oor die hoof gesien as 'n slawe-eienaar wat 'n groot opskudding veroorsaak het.

My dryfveer was om seker te maak dat die verhaal van die mense wat Hamilton as slaaf gemaak het, nie uitgewis word nie. Ek het nooit al hierdie aandag verwag nie, & rdquo Serfilippi het verlede Woensdag gesê. Sy het in die Georgiese styl huis met 'n rooi baksteen en 'n blou salon van Rsquos gestaan, waar Hamilton op 14 Desember 1780 met genl Philip Schuyler en haar dogter Elizabeth getroud is.

Serfilippi saw Lin-Manuel Miranda&rsquos smash hip-hop musical, &ldquoHamilton,&rdquo three times on stage &ndash once on Broadway as a birthday gift from her father &ndash and has watched the film version repeatedly. She can sing all the songs on the soundtrack by heart and admits to being a fangirl.

On the other hand, as a scholar, Serfilippi is unafraid to bust the myth of Hamilton as an abolitionist and to call him out as a slave owner.

Serfilippi&rsquos 28-page research paper, &ldquoAs Odious And Immoral A Thing: Alexander Hamilton&rsquos Hidden History as an Enslaver,&rdquo was first reported on in October by the Daily Gazette. It generated a major story in The New York Times last month that set off tremors of reconsideration of the first Secretary of the Treasury and face of the $10 bill during a moment of national reckoning on race.

Smithsonian Magazine, Associated Press, the Guardian and other media outlets also picked up the story.

&ldquoWe feel the evidence is very solid. This is not new material, but Jessie looked at all the primary sources with fresh eyes and a sharp focus,&rdquo said Heidi Hill, Schuyler Mansion historic site manager and Serfilippi&rsquos boss. Hill and multiple state historians vetted Serfilippi&rsquos essay, which is standard procedure for articles they post on the mansion&rsquos website.

Using primary sources available online, Serfilippi dismantled the conventional view of Hamilton by a detailed study of his cash books and correspondence letters from Hamilton&rsquos father-in-law to his wife Elizabeth and other sources. After a thorough review of the evidence, she reached what she called a &ldquorarely acknowledged truth.&rdquo

She wrote: &ldquoNot only did Alexander Hamilton enslave people, but his involvement in the institution of slavery was essential to his identity, both personally and professionally. The denial and obscuration of these facts in nearly every major biography written about him over the past two centuries has erased the people he enslaved from history.&rdquo

Serfilippi&rsquos assessment of Hamilton puts her in direct conflict with historian Ron Chernow. The bestselling, Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer published "Alexander Hamilton," an acclaimed 818- page magnum opus that inspired the Broadway musical. In his biography, Chernow called Hamilton an &ldquouncompromising abolitionist.&rdquo

Chernow told The New York Times that Serfilippi&rsquos research &ldquobroadens our sense of Hamilton&rsquos involvement in slavery in a number of ways,&rdquo but he faulted her for overlooking his abolitionist involvement &ndash including Hamilton&rsquos early membership in the New-York Manumission Society, which promoted an end to slavery.

&ldquoShe omits all information that would contradict her conclusions,&rdquo Chernow told the Times.

Serfilippi is critical of Chernow and other biographers who foreground Hamilton as an abolitionist while giving only glancing references to evidence of enslavement.

Serlifippi wrote: &ldquoIn light of these primary sources, the majority of which are in Hamilton&rsquos own hand, it is vital that the myth of Hamilton as the &lsquoAbolitionist Founding Father&rsquo end.&rdquo

Meanwhile, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Annette Gordon-Reed, a Harvard law professor, used Twitter to praise Serfilippi&rsquos bold assertions.

&ldquoFascinating article,&rdquo she tweeted. &ldquoAlexander Hamilton as an enslaver broadens the discussion.&rdquo

Other notable historians also applauded Serfilippi&rsquos nonconformist take on Hamilton.

This is heady stuff for a self-taught historian. Serfilippi grew up in Bethlehem, graduated from the Academy of Holy Names in 2011 and earned a bachelor&rsquos degree in English and an MFA in creative writing, both from The College of Saint Rose. She is primarily a fiction writer, has published in small journals and is working on a young adult novel.

During an internship at the Albany County Hall of Records in 2015, Serfilippi randomly pulled a volume of Albany&rsquos Common Council minutes from 1790 and her eyes fell on an entry involving Alexander Hamilton. &ldquoNah, it can&rsquot be that guy,&rdquo she told herself.

Serfilippi&rsquos random connection to Hamilton was made, which intensified when she was hired in 2017 to lead tours at the Schuyler Mansion. She was influenced by discussions with Danielle Funiciello, a former site interpreter who wrote extensively on the women of Schuyler Mansion.

Funiciello is pursuing a Ph.D. in history at the University at Albany and is working on a biography of Angelica Schuyler Church.

Serfilippi was also motivated by the sold-out tours she led &ndash attendance doubled due to the so-called &ldquoHamilton&rdquo effect &ndash and questions that hung in the air about the complicated legacy with slavery of the Schuyler and Hamilton families.

&ldquoWe started hearing more questions about whether the Schuylers enslaved people, especially from children on the tours,&rdquo she recalled.

Hill, the mansion site manager for 15 years, credited an intensive 2013 summer training program at Yale University that focused on historical biases for giving her confidence to dig more deeply into the extent of slavery within Albany&rsquos most revered families &ndash including the Schuylers. Hill helped build exhibits around startling statistics previously ignored.

In 1790, there were 217 households in Albany County that owned five or more slaves of African descent with a total of 3,722 slaves, the most of any county among New York state&rsquos 21,193 slaves counted in that year&rsquos census. The Schuylers enslaved 13 people at the Albany estate that year, slightly fewer than the Van Rensselaer household.

Hamilton&rsquos meticulous accounting in his personal ledgers was among Serlifippi&rsquos most damning evidence in her research.

&ldquoThese cash books make it evident that the enslavement of men, women, and children of African descent was part of both Hamilton&rsquos professional and personal life,&rdquo she writes. Hamilton was both an owner and trader of enslaved people. In a 1784 cash book entry, Hamilton documented the sale of a woman named Peggy for 90 pounds to a physician, Dr. Malachi Treat.

And in 1797, Hamilton recorded a purchase of a &ldquonegro woman and child&rdquo at a price of $225 for Angelica Schuyler Church and her husband, John Barker Church.

Upon his death in 1804, the property of Hamilton&rsquos estate was valued by his executor: a house worth 2,200 pounds, furniture and library valued at 300 pounds and enslaved servants worth 400 pounds.

After two years spent documenting Hamilton&rsquos slave-owning past, Serfilippi is shifting focus.

&ldquoGeneral Schuyler enslaved 40 people during his lifetime and we know very little about their lives,&rdquo she said. &ldquoI want to tell the stories of Lewis the coachman and Silva the cook and the others. We should not allow them to be erased from history.&rdquo


Hoe Alexander Hamilton Amerika verwoes het

Having now endured a more than two-year orgy of adoration for the Broadway hip-hop musical, Hamilton, the public surely deserves a historical corrective. Historian Brion McClanahan's latest work on the Revolutionary period, How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America, is being released Monday.

Ron Paul, the Libertarian and Republican candidate for president and longtime U.S. Representative from Texas, has written the foreword, which he graciously shared in advance with Reason.

The central government has always been the greatest threat to liberty in America, but most Americans don't understand how modern America became the warfare state. How did the president acquire so much unconstitutional power? How did the federal judiciary become, at times, the most powerful branch of government? How were the states reduced to mere corporations of the general government? Why is every issue, from abortion to bathrooms to crime to education, a "national" problem? The people have very little input into public policy. They vote, they rally, they attend "town hall" meetings, but it does very little to stop the avalanche of federal laws, regulations, and rules that affect every aspect of American life. We have a federal leviathan that can't be tamed, and Americans are angry about it. They want answers.

Certainly, the Framers of the Constitution did not design our system this way. They intended the checks and balances between the three branches of government and also between the states and the central government to limit the potential for abuse, but somewhere along the way that changed. Who or what changed the system? It wasn't Barack Obama or George W. Bush. It wasn't even Franklin Roosevelt, his cousin Teddy, or Woodrow Wilson. They certainly helped, but as Brion McClanahan argues in the following pages, the architects of our nationalist nightmare were none other than Alexander Hamilton and a trio of Supreme Court justices: John Marshall, Joseph Story, and Hugo Black. Identifying the source of the problem is essential for correcting it.

Hamilton has become one of the more popular figures in America for the Left and the Right, so accusing him of making a mess of the United States is certainly shocking. But it is also accurate. Hamilton's constitutional machinations created the outline for literally every unconstitutional federal act, from executive and judicial overreach to the nationalization of every political issue in the country. He lied to the American public about his true intentions before the Constitution was ratified and then used sly doublespeak to persuade others that so-called "implied powers" were part of the plan from the beginning. We would not have abusive unilateral executive authority in foreign and domestic policy, dangerous central banking, and impotent state governments without Hamilton's guidance. Hamilton is the architect of big government in America.

Marshall, Story, and Black certainly acted as co-conspirators. Marshall's landmark decisions could have been written by Hamilton. His reading of the Constitution was at odds with how the document was explained to the state ratifying conventions in 1788. Marshall's interpretation would have led the people to reject the document. His belief in federal judicial supremacy and unchecked national authority has been the keystone to every subsequent outrageous federal ruling, from Roe v. Wade aan NIFB v. Sebelius. Marshall is the reason the Supreme Court now takes center stage in every political debate in America, but he did not accomplish this alone.

Marshall's protégé and right hand man Joseph Story codified Marshall's vision for federal judicial supremacy as a popular legal scholar and law professor. Even today, law students across the country are taught Story's version of federal power. Story's message is simple: the federal government is supreme (even if it isn't), the state governments are subservient to the central authority, and the federal court system is the final arbiter in all constitutional questions. When these law students become lawyers and judges, they echo Story's teachings. With a legal profession so infested with a version of American political history contradictory to the actual record, it is no wonder the federal judiciary has become a mere rubber stamp in the expansion of federal power.

Black put the finishing touches on the Hamiltonian coup. As a member of the Supreme Court in the mid-twentieth century, Black participated in the final transformation of America from a federal union that respected state powers to a unitary state with unlimited control over the lives of individual Americans. You can't pray in public schools, control who uses public bathrooms, regulate pornography, or keep common standards of public decency because of Hugo Black. His insistence that the majority of the people of the states had very little influence over the social standards of their own communities delivered a death blow to the original Constitution. Thanks to Black, Americans now believe every issue is national, no matter how local in scope.

McClanahan has done a service to those who love liberty and respect the original Constitution as drafted and ratified by the founding generation. By knowing how we went wrong and who drove America off the rails, Americans can begin to repair the damage done to our political system. Unrestrained nationalism is a curse, but there is an antidote: liberty and federalism. If we start to cultivate liberty and freedom in our own communities and insist that our elected officials pursue the same agenda by disengaging the general government from Hamilton's desire for unchecked national power, we could salvage real America from the ruins of Hamilton's America. Education is the first step, and reading this book is a nice place to start.


The Hidden History of Cities

Every city has a hidden history. The 17th-Century founding of New Amsterdam crowded out thousands of Lenape people, who for centuries had lived the land now known as New York City. Chicago’s proud architecture says nothing about the devastating ecological toll its construction took on the region’s forests and prairies in the 19th Century. And the ever-spreading development of Los Angeles is silent about the political war over water rights that preceded the city bursting forth in the early 20th Century.

Washington, DC, has its own secret stories. In fact, this city has no business being here.

While histories of Washington often begin with the establishment of the capital in 1790, in actuality Native Americans had occupied the banks of the Potomac River for 4,000 years. By the end of the 18th Century Georgetown and Alexandria had become thriving Colonial ports, after displacing many tribes of Algonquians to outer Virginia and Maryland. As the seat of government of a fledgling nation, the marshy plot of land wedged between the Potomac and Anacostia rivers was an unlikely choice. The largest city in the country, New York, was twice the size of any city in the South and already served as the Continental Congress’ meeting place. Alexander Hamilton, a New Yorker, solicited support from Virginians Jefferson and Madison to propose the Residence Act, which created the capital city in Washington. As the new Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton wanted to consolidate considerable debts racked up by the states during the Revolution. The North owed more than the South, which had become wealthy from the exploding sugar and cotton industries, wholly dependent on slavery. Some Northern states already had abolished slavery, and the South feared losing power. Hamilton proposed a compromise: the South would assume debt from the North if the capital were moved to the border of Virginia and Maryland. An avid abolitionist, he nevertheless helped strengthen the institution of slavery by putting the nation’s center of power in the South. Historically, the very existence of the city is bound up with “America’s original sin.”

The Smithsonian’s new National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC), which opened this Fall, makes all this explicit in its exhibits but also implicit in its very presence on the National Mall. In recent months, much has been written about the museum, but little if any media attention has thoroughly addressed the building’s complicated relationship with the city.

The location itself speaks volumes. The building stands on land once home to slave markets, common along the Mall in the early 19th Century. Slaves built many of the iconic structures along the Mall, including the White House and the Capitol, dubbed the “Temple of Liberty,” as well as the Smithsonian itself, as research recently discovered. Martha Washington is believed to have provided the slaves who quarried stone for the original building, James Renwick’s “Castle.” Andrew Jackson, one of ten US Presidents who were slave-owners, presided over the Smithsonian’s founding in 1836, and Jefferson Davis, soon to be president of the Confederacy, sat on the Board of Regents and actually served on the committee overseeing development of the Castle, so the museum itself has a tainted past that it reportedly has been reluctant to acknowledge.

Originally, the west end of the Mall was under water. Prior to the McMillan Plan of 1901, which proposed a significant extension westward, the NMAAHC site was at the mouth of Tiber Creek, below the Washington City Canal, which cut off the Mall from downtown. According to the historic preservation report prepared for the Smithsonian during the development of the new museum, the whole space south of the canal was “undesirable and received little attention.” For much of the 1800s, Congress leased the land for cattle grazing, and the canal itself became an open sewer. While the museum site is ostensibly the last remaining space on the Mall, it is nevertheless a precarious plot of land—historically, ecologically, politically, and symbolically.

The report also emphasizes the site’s relationship to the original L’Enfant Plan (1791), “a principal tenet” of which was the “reciprocity of sight” between major public buildings or memorials along the Mall, grand gestures inspired by Versailles. The most important examples are the vistas between the Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial and between the White House and the Jefferson Memorial. At the intersection of these two visual axes is the Washington Monument, and the NMAAHC sits just northeast of this crossing—central but not centered.

The new building’s metaphorical associations with these other structures is poignant. The Capitol’s “Temple of Liberty,” built by slaves, faces west toward a shrine to the man who ended slavery. A century later on the steps of that shrine, Martin Luther King staged the historic “I Have A Dream” speech, and the new museum’s placement off the central crossing of the Mall embodies that speech’s reference to African Americans inhabiting “the corners of American society.” The tiny temple to Jefferson, the slave-owner who authored the Declaration of Independence, faces northward to the White House, occupied at the time of the museum’s opening by the first Black president and now soon to be occupied by his successor, whose relationship with the African American community has been contentious, to say the least. (Major reviews of the NMAAHC generally occurred prior to the 2016 presidential election, after which the symbolic relationship between the museum and the White House has become all the more complex.)

In the middle of this ensemble is a monument to the “father of the country,” whose wife’s slaves built the very institution operating the new museum. Beyond the Lincoln Memorial, across the Potomac, lies Arlington National Cemetery, established after the Civil War at the former home of Robert E. Lee, who both owned slaves and called the practice “a moral and political evil.” These ironies are not lost on the museum’s designers and planners, of course: framed views from the upper floors highlight these historical complexities. “History is played out in front of your eyes,” says David Adjaye, the lead architect. While this complicated heritage existed before the new museum appeared, the building’s presence now serves as a powerful and permanent reminder.

Washington remains the supreme paradox among cities. As the capitol of the “world’s oldest democracy,” its plan and its most prominent architecture nevertheless invoke European legacies of autocrats and aristocrats, so its image inevitably represents a struggle between freedom and power. The new museum, the most important building to appear on the Mall in decades, prods the city’s troubled past and conflicted image—just by coming into being.

The next article in a series on the NMAAHC: “The Space of Resistance.”


To understand the US's complex history with slavery, look to Thomas Jefferson

S teve Light looked at the tourists gathered on the east portico and asked what words come to mind when they think of Thomas Jefferson. “Declaration of Independence,” ventured one. “President,” said another. “Library,” offered a third. No one mentioned slave owner.

But the tour guide, describing Monticello’s grand house on a hill and 5,000-acre plantation that grew mainly tobacco and wheat, did not mince words. “It’s important to remember this house is not possible without enslaved labour that supported Jefferson’s lifestyle. So Jefferson’s a complicated guy. If you want to understand the United States, you probably have to understand Thomas Jefferson.”

Not every country in the world embraces such a self-critique or subtle understanding of founders and heroes. Jefferson has been back under the microscope this week in the wake of neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan violence in nearby Charlottesville, Virginia. Donald Trump, decrying the removal of Confederate statues, tweeted: “Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson – who’s next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish!”

It is true that both Jefferson and Lee owned slave plantations in Virginia. But most historians find the comparison absurd: Jefferson (1743-1826) helped create the United States, whereas Lee was a traitor who took up arms to destroy it. Nevertheless, the third US president’s reputation has risen and fallen over time, and Monticello – the only former home of an American president to be granted UN world heritage status – is a beautiful, living museum that strives to reflect the moral ambiguity of his legacy.

Tour manager Light led the group into what Jefferson called his “essay in architecture”, drawing on ancient Rome, and an entrance hall decorated with Native American tools, weapons and clothing as well as antique maps, mineral samples, antlers, horns and bones of extinct animals. A cannonball-sized weights-and-pulley system worked as a seven day calendar clock over two floors. Busts included Jefferson’s political nemesis Alexander Hamilton, “now a Broadway star,” Light said.

Next, in the south square room, a copy of the Declaration of Independence, authored by Jefferson, hangs in a frame. It includes the words, “all men are created equal”. Light explained to the tour group that Jefferson opposed slavery, calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot” that presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new nation. Yet for all his unquenchable curiosity and exquisite reasoning, he owned 607 enslaved men, women and children during his lifetime and freed only five in his will.

His writings also suggested that black people were inferior in “body and mind”. Light told the group: “Jefferson’s ideas have been used by generations to support the institution of slavery, the Jim Crow laws and, very plainly, racial ideas today.”

Next are the library and cabinet room, like stepping into the mind of this Enlightenment polymath who believed reason and knowledge could improve human condition. There are books, an octagonal filing table with drawers labeled for alphabetical filing, an astronomical case clock, telescope, orrery (model of the solar system), a revolving book stand that allowed Jefferson to read and reference five books at a time and a copying machine he used to duplicate his numerous letters as he wrote them.

But for visitors to Monticello, about 120 miles from Washington DC, there is also recognition of the brutal, unpaid labour that made this personal laboratory and genteel life of the mind possible. In this it is a metaphor for America itself and the glittering cities, soaring skyscrapers and industrial might inextricably bound with centuries of exploitation.

Last year Monticello, with the National Endowment for the Humanities and University of Virginia (founded by Jefferson), hosted a public summit on the legacies of race and slavery. It has also launched an app, “Slavery at Monticello”, and is restoring Mulberry Row, the principal plantation street that was the center of life for free white and black people, indentured servants and slaves. Work is under way to preserve or reconstruct its dwellings, workshops and storehouses.

In one of the rebuilt cabins, which includes a bed, an information panel is entitled provocatively: “Not so bad?” It says: “John and Priscilla Hemmings lived in a cabin similar to – or even better than – the dwelling of many poorer free whites. Yet the material comfort suggested here did not lessen the enslavement of the Hemmingses. All enslaved people, as property, endured the constant threat of sale and separation from their families subject to the needs and wishes of their owners, a reality that no poor free person had to endure. Physical violence and force were hallmarks of bondage but the threat of separation to enslaved families was an equally powerful and devastating aspect of the American slave system.”

Descendants of the Hemmings have slept in this reconstructed dwelling, part of an ongoing project at Monticello to engage the families of Jefferson’s slaves. Niya Bates, public historian of slavery and African American life at Monticello, recalled: “There were 10 people in this cabin, it was the hottest night of the summer and they could hear animals outside. There was a sense of ‘Wow, these spaces are uncomfortable.’”

Next year, Monticello will open the restored quarters of Sally Hemings, an enslaved woman, to the public. Hemings had at least six children, now believed to have been fathered by Jefferson many years after the death of his wife. Hemings’s name became publicly linked to Jefferson’s in 1802, when a newspaper alleged that she was Jefferson’s “concubine” and had borne him a number of children. A 1998 DNA study genetically linked Hemings’s male descendants with male descendants of the Jefferson family.

Bates said: “I was eight when Sally Hemings’s DNA came out and I remember people fighting tooth and nail in the grocery store. A lot of people just denied her relationship with Jefferson ever existed there were his descendants and people who have this in their oral history. The DNA just backed it up.”

Bates, 27, who is African American and grew up in Charlottesville, added: “Charlottesville has always had a complex racial history. People are unwilling to deal with racism in an intimate way with their friends and family. But we’ve had the Monticello descendants uniting with Jefferson’s white descendants and trying to reconcile. What we can do is have communities come together.”


Hamilton despised slavery but didn’t confront George Washington or other slaveholders

A young Alexander Hamilton arrived in New York City at King’s College, today’s Columbia University, during a time of fervor and unrest that sounds a lot like today.

In 1773, Bostonians had just chucked their tea into the harbor. Even New York, a more crown-friendly town, crackled with talk of revolution. Eighteen-year-old Hamilton ditched his plans to study medicine and threw himself into reading Enlightenment philosophers, arguing with friends and hustling to rallies in the city.

It’s this environment that launches “Hamilton,” the musical, and casts the central character as a fresh kind of Founding Father — immigrant, outsider, activist. The Broadway show’s debut on TV for the July 4 weekend — streaming on Disney Plus, beginning Friday — puts a new lens on the most patriotic holiday at a time when American values are under painful scrutiny.

With Black Lives Matter rising and statues of white slave owners falling, it might feel good to watch “Hamilton” and think of an ethnically diverse, hip-hop past. The reality, of course, was way more complicated.

Slavery was “a system in which every character in our show is complicit in some way or another,” creator and star Lin-Manuel Miranda told NPR’s Terry Gross this week. “Hamilton — although he voiced anti-slavery beliefs — remained complicit in the system.”

Hamilton doesn’t appear to have ever directly owned any enslaved people. He grew up working-class on the Caribbean islands of Nevis and St. Croix, where black people outnumbered white people more than 10 to 1. His mother died when he was no more than 13 (his date of birth is uncertain, 1755 or 1757) and left him and his brother two enslaved workers. But because the boys were born out of wedlock, they received no property.

When he arrived at King’s College, Hamilton had only been in America for a year, sent by island businessmen who took up a collection for him after being impressed by his intelligence and drive.

In New York he was surrounded by posh classmates — including a nephew of George Washington — whose families owned slaves or who brought enslaved servants along with them. Hamilton was known to despise slavery, but he also really liked having influential friends.

When he invoked the topic in his fiery early writings, it was to slam British loyalists as “enemies to the natural rights of mankind … because they wish to see one part of their species enslaved by another.” Meaning, the colonists were treated in the worst possible way — like slaves.

Hamilton left school before graduating to join the upstart Continental Army. There the charismatic networker made his ultimate connection, becoming aide and surrogate son to Washington. That alone required Hamilton to set aside his feelings about slavery, because Washington owned more than 100 people back home in Virginia.

But when the British began offering freedom to any enslaved people who would join the royal cause, Hamilton saw an opportunity. He urged Washington to let black soldiers fight for freedom. Hamilton touted the idea in an extraordinary letter to John Jay in 1779.

“I have not the least doubt, that the negroes will make very excellent soldiers, with proper management,” he wrote. Some say black people are inferior, he continued, but “their natural faculties are probably as good as ours.” And he stressed that “an essential part of the plan is to give them their freedom with their muskets. This will secure their fidelity, animate their courage, and I believe will have a good influence upon those who remain, by opening a door to their emancipation.”

It was a strikingly progressive stance for the time. The line about “natural faculties” is often compared to the views of his political rival, Thomas Jefferson, who denigrated black intelligence in his “Notes on the State of Virginia.”

Annette Gordon-Reed, a historian who has written extensively about Jefferson and his relationship with the enslaved Sally Hemings, has argued that it’s not entirely fair to paint Hamilton as the good guy on the question of race. Hamilton, she noted in a Harvard interview in 2016, managed slave sales for his wife’s family. When he was very young, he also kept the books for a Caribbean trading company that engaged in the slave trade.


Why ‘Hamilton’ Has Heat

What’s the story behind a show that’s become a Broadway must-see with no marquee names, no special effects and almost no white actors? Erik Piepenburg explains, in six snapshots, why “Hamilton” has become such a big deal.

“One of the most interesting things about the ‘Hamilton’ phenomenon,” she wrote last week on the blog of the National Council on Public History, “is just how little serious criticism the play has received.”

Ms. Gordon-Reed was responding to a critical essay by Lyra D. Monteiro, in the journal The Public Historian, arguing that the show’s multiethnic casting obscures the almost complete lack of identifiable African-American characters, making the country’s founding seem like an all-white affair.

“It’s an amazing piece of theater, but it concerns me that people are seeing it as a piece of history,” Ms. Monteiro, an assistant professor of history at Rutgers University, Newark, said in an interview.

The founders, she added, “really didn’t want to create the country we actually live in today.”

Ms. Gordon-Reed — who is credited with breaking down the resistance among historians to the claim that Thomas Jefferson had a sexual relationship with Sally Hemings — wrote in her response that she shared some of Ms. Monteiro’s qualms, even as she loved the musical and listened to the cast album every day.

“Imagine ‘Hamilton’ with white actors,” she wrote. “Would the rosy view of the founding era grate?”

Historians are generally not reluctant to call out the supposed sins of popularizers. When Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” arrived in 2012, a number of prominent scholars blasted it for promoting a “great man” view of history and neglecting the role African-Americans played in their own emancipation.

While the most recent critiques of “Hamilton” have focused on race, some scholars have also noted that it’s an odd moment for the public to embrace an unabashed elitist who liked big banks, mistrusted the masses and at one point called for a monarchal presidency and a Senate that served for life.

Alexander Hamilton “was more a man for the 1 percent than the 99 percent,” said Sean Wilentz, a professor at Princeton and the author of “The Politicians and the Egalitarians,” to be published in May.

Beeld

Turning him into “an up-from-under hero,” he added, “seems dissonant amidst the politics of 2016.”

“Hamilton” itself, by contrast, is right in tune with today’s debates about immigration and Black Lives Matter. The show, which famously began hatching after Mr. Miranda read Ron Chernow’s biography while on vacation, portrays Hamilton, who was born on Nevis, as a penniless immigrant outsider from the Caribbean who rose through sheer brilliance and drive.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Chernow, who is the show’s historical consultant, said the criticisms by Ms. Monteiro and Ms. Gordon-Reed were based on “an enormous misunderstanding” of the show, which dramatizes “a piece of political history at a very elite” — and all-white — “level of society.”

Casting black and Latino actors as the founders effectively writes nonwhite people into the story, he said, in ways that audiences have powerfully responded to. (The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History has created a curriculum for 20,000 low-income New York City public school students who will be able to see the musical, in a program funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and subsidized by the show.)

“This show is the best advertisement for racial diversity in Broadway history and it is sad that it is being attacked on racial grounds,” Mr. Chernow added by email. (A publicist for “Hamilton” said Mr. Miranda was not available for comment.)

The show does include one named black character, Sally Hemings, who appears in a quick cameo that lands mainly as a dig at Jefferson. (The slaveholdings of the Schuyler family, which Hamilton married into, go unmentioned.) The show, Mr. Chernow said, also makes clear that black soldiers fought in the Revolution.

Ms. Monteiro, in her article, points out that other historical African-American individuals could have figured in the story.

The show depicts John Laurens’s plan to create a battalion of slaves who would fight in exchange for freedom, which Hamilton supported. But it omits, Ms. Monteiro noted, the known role of individuals like Cato, a slave who worked as an anti-British spy alongside his owner, Hercules Mulligan, an Irish-immigrant tailor whose espionage exploits are celebrated in the musical.

And then there’s the question of Hamilton the “uncompromising abolitionist,” as Mr. Chernow puts it in his book. He was a founding member of the New York Manumission Society, created in 1785, which among other things, pushed for a gradual emancipation law in New York State.

In the show’s last song, his widow, Eliza, sings that Hamilton would have “done so much more” against slavery had he lived longer.

But Ms. Gordon-Reed, in an interview, said that while Hamilton publicly criticized Jefferson’s views on the biological inferiority of blacks, his record from the 1790s until his death in 1804 includes little to no action against slavery.

Race and slavery, she added, are invoked directly in the show mainly to underline Hamilton’s “goodness,” especially in contrast to Jefferson. But Hamilton the ardent lifelong abolitionist, she said, is “an idea of who we would like Hamilton to be.”

Other historians are more supportive of the show’s treatment of the subject. Eric Foner, the author most recently of “Gateway to Freedom: The Hidden History of the Underground Railroad,” said he wished the show had complicated its populist portrait by noting Hamilton’s elitism and dedication to property rights, which were “more important to him” than fighting slavery, Mr. Foner said.

But Hamilton, he said, was an abolitionist by the standard of the founding period. “There was a real contrast with Jefferson,” he said.

R.B. Bernstein, a historian at City College of New York who has written extensively about Jefferson, credited “Hamilton” with keeping the subject of slavery simmering underneath its jam-packed story. But race and slavery, he added, were not the only important, or timely, aspects of the show.

“It’s about how hard it is to do politics, about how people of fundamentally clashing political views tried to work together to create a shared constitutional enterprise,” he said. “And right now, that’s a message we really need.”


22 Alexander Hamilton Quotes that Probably Didn’t Miss their Shot

If you were going to make a list of “people who have lived really, really full lives,” Alexander Hamilton would probably appear somewhere on that list. You can decide where he goes, but the guy was one of America’s Founding Fathers –which means all of us Americans are probably putting him up there just by default. Regardless of your opinions on America (even Americans seem to be up in the air on it), it’s hard to say Hamilton didn’t do a lot of… stuff. Instrumental to the US Constitution, he also basically built the foundation for banks–as well as founding the Federalist Party and Coast Guard. Not to mention service during the American Revolution and going out in a duel. Wild. The drama around banks was kinda funny–honestly you could turn American history into a petty sitcom. So here are some quotes from one of America’s pivotal figures that probably didn’t miss their shot.

For those interested in Alexander Hamilton’s life, we hear there’s a pretty good Broadway production about it.

On Knowledge

“Men give me credit for some genius. All the genius I have lies in this when I have a subject in hand, I study it profoundly. Day and night it is before me. My mind becomes pervaded with it. Then the effort that I have made is what people are pleased to call the fruit of genius. It is the fruit of labor and thought.”

“The art of reading is to skip judiciously.”

“I have thought it my duty to exhibit things as they are, not as they ought to be.”

On People

“When avarice takes the lead in a state, it is commonly the forerunner of its fall.”

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

“I never expect a perfect work from an imperfect man.”

“A well adjusted person is one who makes the same mistake twice without getting nervous.”

“Those who stand for nothing fall for everything.”

“Strut is good for nothing.”

“To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection.”

“Men are rather reasoning than reasonable animals, for the most part governed by the impulse of passion.”

On Government & Politics

“Give all the power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all the power to the few, they will oppress the many.”

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”

“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”

“Who talks most about freedom and equality? Is it not those who hold the bill of rights in one hand and a whip for affrighted slaves in the other?” **Hamilton’s relationship with slavery was quite complicated .

“For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.”

“Vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty.”

“The inquiry constantly is what will please, not what will benefit the people. In such a government there can be nothing but temporary expedient, fickleness, and folly.”

“Unless your government is respectable, foreigners will invade your rights and to maintain tranquillity you must be respectable.”

On the American Constitution

“The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution.”

“Constitutions should consist only of general provisions the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.”

On Banking

“A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.”


Philip Hamilton Musical Alexander Hamilton: Hamilton, new york, new york.

'hamilton' musical characters in act i. Hamilton tracks the life of alexander hamilton from the time he arrived in the us as an immigrant from the virgin islands through his (spoiler alert but there's also a strong vein of pop musicality that runs through his work. Newsies, cats, wicked, the 25th annual putnam county spelling bee, bombay. Cory in fences (pioneer theatre company) O espetáculo, inspirado pela biografia de 2004 alexander hamilton do historiador ron chernow, alcançou aclamação da crítica.

Alexander hamilton hamilton animatic 13+. @disneyplus, broadway, london, sydney, and on tour! Hamilton an american musical full lyrics.

President obama and the first lady hosted the broadway cast of the musical hamilton at the white house monday for a workshop and q&a session with area. Hamilton does not have an overture. Y'all say philip hamilton isn't bolder than alaxander but philip seduce 3 women challenge some one to a duel and got shot in one song took alax a whole musical.

Coming to la and hamburg, germany. This production for the time of its exhibitions managed to collect many positive reviews from critics. Hamilton, new york, new york.


Kyk die video: Alexander Hamilton - ASL