Alexander Hamilton: Rogue or Patriot?

So exactly why is Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill? Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower, Kennedy. Nearly every person on a dollar bill or coin was a former President of the United States. But not Alexander Hamilton. So why the great honor?

Hamilton was born out of wedlock on a Caribbean island in the 1750s. With no fortune to inherit and an illegitimacy to cover up, Hamilton emigrated to New England when in his teens. During the Revolutionary War he was an aide to George Washington. Less of a military genius and more of a fantastic organizer, Washington thought very highly of Hamilton.

After the war, Hamilton returned to his true area of expertise - finance. Hamilton was a strong proponent of a powerful central government in the fledgling nation. He felt it was the only way that the American economy would be able to compete with the British. During the debates on whether or not to ratify the Constitution, Hamilton was one of the co-authors of the Federalist papers, which were a driving force behind ratification.

Once the Constitution was in place and George Washington elected the first President, he appointed Alexander Hamilton to be the nations first Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton had nearly free reign to design a government, and a banking system, to his liking. He established America as a credit-worthy nation around the world and established the first mint.

Hamilton remained a major player in national politics his entire life.  At one point, he was instrumental in Aaron Burr's defeat in a New York gubernatorial election.  Burr, by then the Vice President of the United States, later heard that Hamilton had insulted him at a dinner party.  Feeling his honor had been diminished, Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel . 

When the day came, Hamilton purposely fired high, striking a branch over Burr's head.  Burr's shot hit Hamilton just above the pelvis, ricocheting through his torso.  Hamilton died just a few days later, leaving a legacy that can best be remembered by looking at his picture on a $10 bill.

Have the French Always Surrendered?

In the early days of Google, so the story goes, a search for the words "french military victory" prompted the question, "Did you mean 'french military defeat'?"  The 20th century featured much that could lead one to ask that question, but has it always been so?  Or is French military ineptitude and surrender a recent development?

In the 9th century, when the concept of "France" was just beginning to develop, the major world power was the Vikings .  In 885 the Vikings rowed their longboats up to Paris and laid siege.  This was not their first trip to Paris .  In several previous visits over the prior 40 years had all ended the same way: the Vikings only left when they had gathered enough bribes or plunder to fill their boats.  This time, the Vikings laid siege because the Parisians, were convinced of their strength.  Moreover, they had a strong king, Charles the Fat, who would come to their defense. 

The Vikings laid siege for a nearly a full year to the island city of Paris.  They were eventually scattered when Charles arrived on scene with a much larger army.  But even with his numerical superiority and "home field" advantage, Charles the Fat had no intention of fighting the Vikings.  Instead he paid them 700 pounds of silver to row downriver and attack Burgundy, where the people were revolting against his reign. 

The Vikings got the plunder they craved, and Paris survived another day.  It makes me wonder if the phrase "go along to get along" has a French analog...

A (Literal) Political Beating

It is commonly agreed upon that the current political discourse is "too divisive."  Nothing puts the lie to this description quite like the caning of a U.S. Senator on the floor of the Senate. 

In 1856, the political passions that would lead to the Civil War were already running high.  Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts gave a speech describing Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina in the following terms:

"He has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight, I mean the Harlot - Slavery!"

Days later, Sumner was approached on the floor of the U.S. Senate by Preston Brooks, a Congressman from South Carolina and a cousin of Senator Butler. 

"I have read your speech over twice, carefully,"  Brooks said.  "It is a libel on South Carolina, and Senator Butler, who is a relative of mine."  Brooks then raised his walking stick into the air and brought it down forcefully on the head of the seated Senator Sumner. 

Sumner fell from his chair and was trapped between his chair and an immovable desk, as Brooks repeatedly beat him about the head with the cane.  As Sumner finally broke free, the cane broke in half.  Not satisfied, Brooks continued to club the bleeding Senator with the splintered butt of his cane. 

As Sumner lay half conscious, Brooks calmly walked down the aisle, stating, "I did not intend to kill him, but I did intend to whip him." 

Charles Sumner spent several years visiting the best doctors in the world for medical treatment and, for many years, walked and spoke as if he had suffered a stroke. 

Preston Brooks achieved a unwanted level of notoriety in the South.  But he had been raised in a society where a man may have to render physical account for any words he had spoken and Preston Brooks had no doubt that Sumner would not accept the challenge of a duel.  With the only acceptable option to Brooks being a cane or a horsewhip, he chose to honor his culture and caned his way into the history books.

So the next time someone complains that politics is too "mean spirited" or "divisive", ask them if they are familiar with the unfortunate tale of the Caning of Senator Charles Sumner.

The Caning of Charles Sumner: Honor, Idealism, and the Origins of the Civil War (Witness to History)