Alexander Hamilton

Unpleasant Presidential-Vice Presidential Ties Throughout American History

It has become evident that in many cases, no love is lost between sitting Presidents and Vice Presidents, who often link up for electoral reasons, but often have poor chemistry in working together. And many times, a President has wished to “dump” his Vice President, when running for another term in office, and a few times has done so.

Examples of unpleasant Presidential-Vice Presidential relationships include:

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, with Jefferson, the opponent in the 1796 Presidential election, becoming Vice President, but leading to the 12th Amendment in 1804, to prevent any future such combination. The two men fought each other bitterly, and opposed each other again in 1800.

Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, “tied” in electoral votes in 1800, forcing the election to the House of Representatives, leading to Alexander Hamilton’s endorsement of Jefferson and trashing of Burr, and causing Hamilton’s death in a gun duel with Burr in 1804. Jefferson had no relationship with Burr, after Burr tried to “steal” the election, and he was “dumped” in 1804.

John Quincy Adams and John C Calhoun, who were rivals in 1824, had totally different views of the protective tariff, with Calhoun switching to support of Andrew Jackson and running with Jackson in 1828.

Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun were elected together in 1828, but Calhoun broke with Jackson over the protective tariff, resigning, and creating a potential threat of civil war, with the Nullification Crisis of 1833, resolved by a compromise devised by Henry Clay. Jackson even threatened to kill Calhoun if he promoted secession of South Carolina from the Union.

William Henry Harrison, elected with John Tyler in 1840, had totally divergent views since Tyler was a Democrat running on the Whig Party line, and Tyler succeeded to the Presidency when Harrison died after one month in office in 1841, and the Whigs made Tyler’s life miserable.

Abraham Lincoln and his first Vice President, Hannibal Hamlin, elected in 1860, hardly knew each other, and the indications are that Hamlin had no major role in the administration, and was replaced by Andrew Johnson on the ticket for 1864 for political reasons.

Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, elected together in 1864, with Lincoln picking Democrat Johnson to help win support in the North, then was assassinated, and succeeded by Johnson after six weeks of the second term in 1865.

James Garfield and Chester Alan Arthur were elected together in 1880, from different factions of the Republican Party, and when Garfield died from assassination wounds six months into office, Arthur finished up the rest of the term from 1881-1885.

Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall were elected together in 1912, but Marshall was “kept out of the loop”, and when Wilson suffered a stroke in 1919, was denied access to the President by Mrs. Wilson, never knowing the extent of Wilson’s incapacity for the rest of the term to 1921.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his first Vice President, John Nance Garner were elected to two terms together in 1932 and 1936, with Garner unhappy with the New Deal programs, and wanting to succeed FDR in 1940, and alienated when FDR ran for a third term in 1940.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his second Vice President, Henry A. Wallace were elected together in 1940, but Wallace was “dumped” by FDR in 1944, to please Southern Democrats unhappy with Wallace’s advocacy of civil rights for African Americans, and his backing of close relations with the Soviet Union.

Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon were elected together in 1952 and 1956, but Ike wished to “dump” Nixon in 1956 although that did not happen, and he was less than supportive of Nixon in 1960 and 1968.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, elected together in 1960, were never close, having been rivals for the Presidential nomination, with LBJ feeling slighted by Robert F. Kennedy, the Attorney General and brother of the President, and rumors swirling that he would be “dumped” in 1964, if Kennedy had lived.

Lyndon B. Johnson and Hubert H. Humphrey were elected together in 1964, but with Humphrey feeling mistreated by LBJ, and unhappy as Vice President, seeing himself trapped, and being undermined when he was the Presidential nominee in 1968, and LBJ working against him when Humphrey ran against Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were elected together in 1968 and 1972, with Agnew feeling “used” by Nixon to do his “dirty work” against the news media, and gaining no support from Nixon when in legal trouble over accepting bribes, leading to his resignation in 1973. Agnew refused to speak ever again to his former boss.

Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were never close, and the Bushes were never invited to the White House by the Reagans, after their two victories in elections in 1980 and 1984.

George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle were elected together in 1988, with obvious discomfort by Bush as to Quayle’s performance in his term of office as Vice President, and considered “dumping” him in 1992, but not done in that losing re-election effort.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore, elected together in 1992 and 1996, got along well, but after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a growing divide occurred between the two men, and Gore decided not to have Clinton help him in the Presidential campaign of 2000, and then the two men had angry words in a confrontation in the Oval Office after the defeat.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, elected together in 2000 and 2004, originally worked well together, but Bush then ignored Cheney’s advice often in the second term, and refused Cheney’s request that Scooter Libby be given a pardon. Cheney, in his memoir, made clear that his relationship with Bush had cooled.

So often, the relationship between President and Vice President has been a very difficult one, an interesting aspect of American history!

Exceptions to this were the close relationship of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller between 1974 and 1977, although Rockefeller was “dumped” from the ticket in 1976 for Bob Dole, a move that Ford later said he did for political reasons, and greatly regretted; the extremely close ties between Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale between 1977-1981, with Mondale practically a “Co President”; and the present relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden since 2009.

Birthday Of The Most Misunderstood And Underappreciated Founding Father: Alexander Hamilton!

On this day, January 11, in either 1755 or 1757, depending on which historical records one believes, Alexander Hamilton was born in the British West Indies.

Hamilton went on to a life of success, migrating to the American colonies, serving George Washington in the American Revolution, being a delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, becoming President Washington’s first Secretary of the Treasury, founding the first political party (the Federalists), and promoting what has become the “liberal” interpretation of the Constitution (although it was termed “conservative” at the time).

Hamilton was always controversial, outspoken, opinionated, egotistical, and had so called “skeletons in his closet” regarding his financial and love lives.

But he saved the country during its early years under George Washington with his policies of paying off the national and state debts. He developed the broad interpretation of the Constitution, utilized later by Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court in the doctrine of “judicial review”. He developed the US Mint; the US Coast Guard; emphasized the importance of manufacturing and industry in the American economy alongside agriculture; started the Bank of New York; and developed the oldest continually published newspaper in America, the New York Post.

Hamilton would be tragically killed by Vice President Aaron Burr in an infamous gun duel in New Jersey in the summer of 1804, dying at the young age of 47 or 49, and remains one of the tragic losses of a young politico, alongside John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. among others.

It is hard to imagine how America would have evolved without the contributions of Alexander Hamilton!

The Classic Hamilton-Jefferson Struggle To Be Reenacted In The Presidential Election Of 2012!

America’s political party struggles began in the Federalist Era of the 1790s, when the Federalists formed under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton, and the Democratic Republicans were created under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton backed more national government and a broad interpretation of the Constitution, and Jefferson spoke up for more state and local government, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

As the centuries went by, and the political party system continued to evolve under different names, leaders, and issues, the classic Hamilton-Jefferson split continued to control our politics.

And now, the Hamilton-Jefferson split of more than two centuries duration, will have a classic confrontation in 2012, and it is actually much more important for the future of the nation than any election since 1964, when Barry Goldwater challenged Lyndon B. Johnson!

The debate in 2012 will be more important because of the split nature of our government presently, and the fact that this election is the culmination of 30 years of government dominated by conservatives.

Will we decide to cut down the size of the federal government dramatically and go back to the concept of states rights? What federal government responsibilities will be farmed back to the states, or into the hands of those who want privatization? How shall we deal with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, which led to bigger national government and more federal government responsibilities? How shall America deal with the world outside at a time of the growing influence of China, India, and Brazil in economic affairs? What should be the future of constitutional law, based to a great extent on appointment of Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges? How should the office of the Presidency develop in the future, and should his powers be brought under greater control by Congress and the courts?

These are among the questions that 2012 will decide, and the results will be much more important than just typically. The future of the Republic is at stake!

Death Of Alexander Hamilton On This Day In 1804: What Would He Think Of The Debt Ceiling Crisis?

On this day, 207 years ago, in 1804, former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton was killed in a gun duel with Vice President Aaron Burr!

The tragedy of this bright, intelligent, brilliant man, who made such a dramatic difference in our history, dying at the young age of 47, still reverberates through our nation, as we desperately need a financial genius such as Hamilton to resolve our financial difficulties, where we are on the brink of default of our debt payments by August 2, unless cooler heads prevail and a compromise is reached!

Would Hamilton be proud of the Republican Party refusal to consider any tax adjustments, reforms, or increases, when the tax rate is the lowest it has been since the 1940s, and our greatest prosperity came during the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations, when the tax rates were as high as 91 percent under Eisenhower, and were dropped to 70 percent under JFK?

Hamilton, who believed in the power of the federal government, would be appalled at the states rights emphasis reviving today, as if there was no Civil War to resolve that matter!

He would be shocked at the ignorance of Republican leaders and supporters who feel no loyalty to the country, but only to their own selfish, greedy personal desires!

Hamilton revived the American economy 220 years ago when it was in desperate circumstances, making certain that all debts were paid!

It would be ironic if now we saw our nation declare bankruptcy, which will damage the nation and its citizens for generations to come, all over refusal to promote what the definition of politics is, that it is “the art of compromise”!

The Democratic Party Image Hurt By John Edwards And Anthony Weiner: Is Either Political Party Able To Avoid Scandal And Effectively Govern The Nation?

Just as the Democratic Party has been able to celebrate the gaining of Congressional District 26 in upstate New York in a special election to fill the seat of Republican Chris Lee, who resigned over a bare chest pic on the internet, they are beset by the indictment of former Senator John Edwards on misuse of Presidential campaign contributions to cover up his illicit relationship and the fathering of a child, and now by Congressman Anthony Weiner for his Twitter, Facebook, and internet conversations and pics that could best be described as raunchy!

But then the Republican Party has also had its ups and downs, and it seems a constant battle for each political party to stay above water in public opinion image!

That is why many often express willingness to be independent and have nonpartisans in public office, to do what is best for the American people.

But that is, unfortunately, not the history of political parties since the time of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, and the reality is that the American people, by overwhelming numbers and the system mechanics that are in place, will continue to make a choice between candidates of the two major parties, and if dissatisfied, throw the “rascals” out on a regular basis.

The only problem with that will be the lack of institutional experience if there is constant turnover, and a group of “rookies” taking over and leaving every few years.

The question will have to be answered whether we are going to expect “perfect” people in public office, or realize the weaknesses of human nature and stop expecting our political leadership to come across as saintly, when even religious leadership and other fields of high respect produce many imperfect people.

Do we want mediocre people in office, as long as they are somehow utopian and seemingly perfect in their behavior, or are we willing to accept that the “great” people in public office, from the time of Benjamin Franklin to Bill Clinton and beyond, have “skeletons in the closet”?

President Obama Comes Out Swinging: It’s About Time!

Many liberals and progressives have been frustrated by President Obama’s desire to come across as moderate and to cooperate with the Republican Party opposition, despite their concerted campaign to oppose him in every possible way in the past two and a half years.

Obama’s willingness to compromise on the budget deal in December and again this month has made many wonder if Obama had the “cajones” to come out swinging against the GOP agenda to take us back to the 1920s, or even the Gilded Age of the late 19th century!

Obama’s speech this Wednesday resolved that issue, as the President came out in an assertive manner against the Paul Ryan plan to gut Medicare, and promote a ruthless cutting of the social safety and economic regulatory network that the Democrats set up under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society!

Obama declared that he will not allow the destruction of Medicare, in favor of a voucher system which would put senior citizens and disabled people back into poverty, as was the case before Johnson pushed through a way to promote dignity in old age by providing what every other industrial nation has, not only for older and disabled people, but all citizens in their nations!

Obama declared that he would not abandon the needs and security not only of senior citizens and the disabled, but also the young, the poor, and the average working man and woman, who is being victimized by a tax policy that has created more stratification of incomes than ever in American history, and greater than any other democratic nation in the world!

While there is a need for reforms within Medicare and Medicaid and other government programs, Obama said he would use a scalpel rather than a machete to deal with necessary changes.

He defended the rights of working people and the middle class, who have borne the burden of taxes, while the elite upper classes have been gaining tremendous tax breaks for the past decade, at the same time that the Bush Administration put us into tremendous national debt growth due to two unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a Prescription Drug Plan not paid for by taxpayers!

Obama emphasized the importance of investments in education, transportation infrastructure and energy research, and cuts in wasteful defense spending, of which there is much evidence, and the need to stop thinking of all defense expenditures as sacrosanct.

Obama also said what is going on is part of the perennial battle over the role and size of government, going back to the Founding Fathers (meaning the struggle between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson). We must understand, he declared, that this is a country which has a social compact to care about others, not just oneself, and that the concept of ME must be transformed to WE–that when some are victimized, the rest of us should be seen as lessened in our commitment to human dignity! The “American Dream” must be kept alive for future generations!

The Republican reaction was to say that Obama was overly “partisan”, as if they have not been such since Day One of the Obama Presidency!

The problem in reality is that Obama has not been partisan enough, and finally seems to have woken up to that fact, that this is a battle over the future of the country, and we cannot allow the extreme right wing of the GOP to win control of all branches of government!

We must fight back and give the Republican Party “hell” as Harry Truman did in 1948, and speak for real change as Franklin D. Roosevelt did with his New Deal in the 1930s and Lyndon Johnson did with his Great Society in the 1960s!

This is a battle to retain the political, social and economic reforms of the past hundred years, and to move into the future with optimism, and a belief that all citizens must play their role in the future of the nation, rather than the obsessive gathering of wealth at the expense of society at large!

So a salute to the President, and we look forward to a year and a half of active, aggressive campaigning by him as he seeks a second term in the White House, and a repudiation of the anti labor, anti women, anti children, anti elderly, anti poor, anti environment, anti science, anti health care, anti consumer regulation, anti financial regulation, anti education, anti Hispanic and Latino, anti African American, and ultimately anti middle class agenda of the Republican Party, and the Tea Party extremists within and outside the party establishment!

Total Ignorance About American History: Michele Bachmann, Pat Buchanan And Other Republicans! :(

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is demonstrating her total ignorance of American history and the history of her Republican party, based on the text of her speech to be delivered tonight after President Obama’s State of the Union Address!

She says slavery was ended by the Founding Fathers, showing she is unaware of the role of her Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, and the Civil War in ending slavery. She is, as always, demonstrating her total lack of knowledge of the American past and the American Constitution, joining many other Republicans, including Sarah Palin, in this regard! 🙁

But now, Pat Buchanan, former challenger for the Presidency against George HW Bush in 1992, and running for President as a third party party candidate in 2000, has also demonstrated his lack of knowledge, by asserting there were more slaves in the Union states that had slaves (Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri) than in any of the Confederate States that broke away from the Union! He also said incorrectly that George Washington freed his slaves after his wife died, but the reality is that his wife outlived him by over two years! 🙁

The ignorance and lack of knowledge of these and other Republican leaders is shocking and reprehensible! 🙁

The Founding Fathers (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin) and the statesmen of the pre Civil War era (Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, Stephen Douglas, William Seward, Charles Sumner, Abraham Lincoln) would be shocked and mortified if they came back today and witnessed the TOTAL STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE of many GOP leaders, and Republicans of the Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight D. Eisenhower era would also be ashamed of what their party has become: a party without legitimacy, ethics, character, and morality! 🙁

Guns And Congressmen: Unacceptable! :(

The news that a couple of House members plan to carry weapons on their person when they go to public events, rather than simply have increased security at these events, is a troubling development.

Do they really plan to open up fire on an assailant, while surrounded by the general public?

Security personnel in the House and Senate make it clear that it is an unwise action, and it leaves the image that guns solve problems, which they do not.

With all of the murder victims brought about by the easy accessibility of guns, should members of Congress be advocating more people carrying weapons?

Are we to be an armed society, a nation which is already the most violent in the world?

Are we to go back to allowance of gun duels, like the one which led to Vice President Aaron Burr to kill former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in 1804, or Andrew Jackson to kill six opponents in such gun duels?

Are we to go back to the era of armed members of Congress before the Civil War, and have a Congressman, Preston Brooks, assault Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, with a cane, putting him in the hospital for two years of recovery, in the year 1856? There were also many threats of direct gun action on the floor of the House in the 1850s, besides this horrific event.

Members of Congress should realize they must set an example on carrying of guns, or otherwise we will have many more murders and woundings, and the society will collapse into a new civil war! 🙁