#46 in Biographies
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of Alexander Hamilton

Sentiment score: 11
Reddit mentions: 24

We found 24 Reddit mentions of Alexander Hamilton. Here are the top ones.

Alexander Hamilton
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
    Features:
  • Brand New in box. The product ships with all relevant accessories
Specs:
ColorTan
Height1.8 Inches
Length9.1 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateMarch 2005
Weight2.25 Pounds
Width5.9 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 24 comments on Alexander Hamilton:

u/ocKyal · 744 pointsr/AskHistorians

By the time the Burr-Hamilton duel occurred, Jefferson and Burr were barely speaking even though Burr was the Vice-President. This is due to the fact that during the Election of 1800, there was a serious movement to place Burr as the President over Jefferson when the election went to the House of Representatives. Burr alienated Republicans by taking the position that he would not defer to Jefferson, the party leader, if he was selected as President.

Part of the hostility that ultimately led up to the duel between Hamilton and Burr was in fact b/c Hamilton actively endorsed Jefferson, whom Hamilton thought was mistaken in many areas, he at least had principles that he adhered to, over Burr, whom Hamilton viewed as having no principle but personal ambition, and his fellow Federalist Adams. Hamilton's endorsement was particularly powerful b/c even though he was on the downslope of his influence and power, he still controlled enough of the Federalist party to have the potential to swing a vote in the House and some have argued that Hamilton's influence was what swung the eventual deciding vote, Federalist James Bayard of Delaware, to pick Jefferson over Burr.

Jefferson never forgave Burr after this election and basically cast Burr out of the Democratic-Republican party. Jefferson so distrusted Burr that he shut Burr out of the administration, only meeting Burr for dinner once every two weeks and only allowing Burr to meet with his Cabinet once a year. Burr further broke with Jefferson when he sided with the Federalists over the repeal of the Judiciary Act. Burr was also distrusted by the Federalists, whom he courted to try and get back to power, and after his fateful duel with Hamilton he lost all influence with the remnants of that party.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

u/no-tea · 70 pointsr/AskHistorians

Hamilton, as an artistic work, is really deep into using present references to illustrate how the past works, and this is no exception. Tl;dr: it's a joke made at the expense of people from New Jersey, nothing more, nothing less.

People from New York City, especially from Manhattan Island, have a long history of looking down their noses at the so-called "bridge and tunnel crowd," that is, people from outside Manhattan. This is because Manhattan has been the cultural, commercial, and transportation hub of the region for the last few hundred years. Witness the distinctions made in this New York Times article from 1904, in which the reporter notes who's riding the subway on its first day:

>The crowds varied from hour to hour. At first, the down-town trains were sparsely filled and the up-town trains crowded. The explanation was simple; the good folk of Brooklyn and Jersey had come over early to try the subway and get home to bed. Later on the down-town trains began to bear the preponderance; the up-town New Yorkers were trying the new experiment, and the Brooklynites and Jerseyites had gone home.

>And it was amusing to note the difference. The up-bound Brooklynites and Jerseyites and Richmondites had boarded the trains with the stolid air of an African chief suddenly admitted into civilization and unwilling to admit that anything surprised him. The Manhattanites boarded the trains with the sneaking air of men who were ashamed to admit that they were doing something new, and attempting to cover up the disgraceful fact. They tried to cover it up with gibes and jokes.

Or, if you want to look at something more recent, check out the famous New Yorker cover from 1976 that illustrates the stereotypical Manhattan attitude towards New Jersey.

This attitude is because, as Ben Franklin put it, New Jersey is a "keg tapped at both ends"-- Jersey is in the shadow of both Philadelphia and New York. In the modern era, this hasn't changed much, despite New Jersey's emergence as one of the wealthiest states in the Union. New Yorkers tend to treat Jerseyites as an indistinct mass, partially because New Jersey local government is extraordinarily Balkanized due to poor planning decisions in the late 19th century. The six densely-populated counties closest to Manhattan have 4.1 million people between them as of the last census -- nearly half the population of New York City itself-- but they're so splintered that the largest city, Newark, has less than 300,000 residents.

Now, to bring this into the context of Hamilton: dueling was illegal but tolerated in New Jersey at the time, which is why the actual duel happened in Weehawken. I suspect Miranda, like any good New Yorker, couldn't pass up the opportunity to throw shade.

u/Zaveno · 6 pointsr/UnexpectedHamilton

There's Hamilton: The Revolution, which is the book written about the production of the musical. There's also the biography that inspired Lin-Manuel Miranda to create the musical.

u/hennypen · 5 pointsr/history

Hamilton, currently on Broadway, based on the 2005 biography by Ron Chernow. The original cast recording is on Amazon Prime music and YouTube. It's really good.

u/Mddcat04 · 5 pointsr/AskHistorians

Where this discussion generally breaks down is in the definition of 'Christian Nation.' Generally those who oppose the term will state that America is not officially Christian, and will point to the Treaty of Tripoli or to the Establishment Clause, to which opponents will retort that America was founded on so-called 'Christian Values,' and that makes it a Christian nation. This much at least is hard to deny, many of the earliest settlers were very devout Christians (the puritans especially) and at least some of their beliefs are still important today (the so-called 'Protestant Work Ethic' being the most famous). Additionally, every US President has been (at least nominally) Christian, along with the vast majority of legislators in Congress, going all the way back to 1789. This is generally reflective of population, as a significant majority of Americans have identified as Christian for the entire life of the Republic.

Overall, its hard to deny the influence of Christianity and Christian thought over colonial and revolutionary America, but its also important to point out that the founders took steps to demonstrate that Christianity was not the only faith that could be practiced in the new country.

  • The Constitution states clearly that the authority of the government rests with the people, rather than an appeal to any higher power. While it is often claimed that the Constitution claims no reference to God, this is not entirely accurate, the date in article 7 is referred to this way:

    > done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

    However, this is not any more of an endorsement than using A.D. would be today.


  • Natural Rights: At the debate over the Bill of Rights, Theodore Sedgwick sarcastically wondered why not include 'a man should have a right to wear his hat if he pleased; that he might get up when he pleased, and go to bed when he thought proper?' While he was being facetious, his observation gets at an underlying principal of the Bill of Rights, that it is not supposed to grant rights, merely reflect a few of the rights that every free person should possess automatically. This is made clear by the 9th Amendment which stipulates 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.' i.e. just because we didn't write it down, doesn't mean that you don't have it as a right. Going by this logical framework, the First Amendment is not establishing merely that Congress isn't allowed to limit free expression of religion, but that 'free exercise' of Religion is a basic and fundamental natural right of all free peoples.

    Sources:

  • Federalist 84 Hamilton argues against those claiming that the Bill of Rights is not necessary. Although he does note that the rights have their basis in English Common Law.

  • Letter from Jefferson to Madison 1789 Jefferson expresses his view of why abill of rights is important, though stating that it would be 'A positive declaration of some essential rights.' Rather than the source of said rights.

  • Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes - Influential on the Founders, makes the distinction between Civil and Natural laws. Civil laws being those created by organizations, while Natural Laws are general rules discovered by reason.

  • Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

  • Madison, a life Reconsidered by Lynn Cheney

  • Ben Franklin, an American Life Not the most relevant, but Franklin was an advocate for Natural Rights and Natural Law.
u/paccola · 4 pointsr/brasil

[Hamilton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_(musical) é um musical que conta a história do "Pai Fundador" dos EUA Alexander Hamilton, baseado na Biografia escrita por Ron Chernow

Bateu o recorde de 16 fodendo nomeações para o Tony Awards, das quais ganhou 11.

O vídeo compartilhado é uma versão crua da música de abertura do primeiro ato do musical, apresentada na Casa Branca pelo escritor e compositor da obra Lin-Manuel Miranda

Claro que para assistir a peça, só na Broadway, mas é possível acompanhar toda a gravação do elenco, contando a história do cara, numa composição muito foda de hip-hop pelo Spotify

EDIT: Como uma nota pessoal, da pra entender o porquê de ter sido tão aclamado assim, pois me interessei, me envolvi e me emocionei na história de um cara que nunca antes havia ouvido falar.

u/harrowed777 · 3 pointsr/hamiltonmusical

And if you really want to get a whole different and deeper view...

Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143034758/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_53VIDbXWV2DCQ

u/not_biased_ · 3 pointsr/CGPGrey

Adding Even More Books:

Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow. https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-Chernow/dp/0143034758. Fascinating book, very thick and goes in depth on the man who helped found the current United States, I always like a good history book, not sure how Grey would like it.

War Made New :Weapons, Warriors, and the Making of the Modern World by Max Boot

https://www.amazon.com/War-Made-New-Weapons-Warriors/dp/1592403158. Talks about how the shifts in technology helped further the world today. It was interesting in the way Gustavus Adolphus and Helmuth von Moltke created the armies we had in the 20th century. Tech things always fascinate me too.

In Search of Schrodinger's Cat by John Gribbin

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004JN1CIS/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0.

The history of quantum physics is a subject which I am not sure how it would translate to audiobook format, though helped me partially understand the quantum. May be a turn off if Grey does not want to deal physics again.

u/ThreadbareHalo · 3 pointsr/politics

The nationalization act was brought about in part as a response to France's Revolution, which happened the year before. It incited people like Hamilton to get, potentially understandably at the time, afraid that a similar sentiment would come from foreigners coming into the country, intent on killing the president and establishing a populist revolution that would end up murdering politicians. Interestingly no one less than Jefferson himself called Hamilton a constitutional traitor in the pocket of the English king for this. Now Jefferson was an asshole in this whole tiff with Hamilton as well, but it points to the belief that the pushing of this anti immigration sentiment was actually considered anti American by the writer of the constitution. Washington ended up helping the bill pass despite his misgivings on it because he trusted Hamilton.

Point being the nationalization act was in reaction in part, to French white people immigrating under mean intentions, with the white people caveat there to largely appease the French apologists (we aren't really anti French, guys!). There wasn't a massive influx of nonwhite immigrants (unless you count slaves obviously), for context Franklin's biggest immigrant concern was with Germans

> Few of their Children in the Country learn English," Franklin wrote. "They import many Books from Germany. [...] The Signs in our Streets have Inscriptions in both Languages, and in some places only German. [...] In short, unless the Stream of their Importation could be turned [...] they will soon so outnumber us, that all the advantages we have, will not in my Opinion be able to preserve our Language, and even our Government will become precarious."


partial source for Hamilton stuff above.

u/readparse · 2 pointsr/Broadway

The joke being "this story had never been told before in book form."

Book form

u/malcatrino · 2 pointsr/Broadway

Buy the book Alexander Hamilton.

Hide the tickets in the book.

When he's fake excited tell him it comes with a bookmark. Maybe say that someone you know who saw Hamilton snagged you an overpriced bookmark from Richard Rogers.

If he has that book then use this one.

u/bonafide10 · 2 pointsr/CFBOffTopic

Currently reading Ron Chernow's Biography of Alexander Hamilton. He is a fascinating man.

Next on my shelf is Karen Abbot's Liar, Temptress, Soldier, Spy. I've heard great things about this one, and it seems like a fascinating concept. She tells the story of 4 women who went undercover during the Civil War.

u/TheGhostOfTzvika · 2 pointsr/Biography

Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow was a very interesting book, and is highly recommended.

u/Ayn-Zar · 2 pointsr/AskMen

First is Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow. It's a big book, but the way he frames the historical setting and the motives and characterization of Hamilton and those around him make the book hard to put down. He shows Hamilton to be both brilliant and overly passionate, capable of love of country and family political ruthless and egoist that led to his downfall. Though I had a leaning before towards Hamilton from his position as the US' first Sect. of the Treasury, Chernow's book solidified him as my favorite Founding Father/Constitutional Framer (before it was cool).

Second is The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt by Edmund Morris. Morris' writing is good, but what really makes the book awesome is Roosevelt himself as he overcomes his early childhood weakness to make himself a physical and political force of nature as a young man. Whether it's his two week adventure to capture boat thieves through icy rivers and snow storms, his incredible knowledge that crafted a Navy guide that would be used by the US Navy for decades, to his philosophy on masculinity, Morris' book on Roosevelt's life is a manifesto of not accepting what life gives you, but getting what you want out of it.

u/cassius_longinus · 1 pointr/gaybros

Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton. He was my favorite Founding Father when I started, and is even more so now.

u/Arthur2ShedsJackson · 1 pointr/politics

I also recommend this great biography of Alexander Hamilton while you're at it: Amazon link

u/Poor-Richard · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

Yes there are numerous sources and I think you would be intrigued by just how much both of their public perceptions have changed over time. Hamilton was originally castigated, almost demonized, by many upon his death due to the harsh political lines that existed between him and his opponents (Jefferson, Burr, and really any anti-Federalist), and his extraordinary/imperfect personal life. Jefferson on the other hand was pretty ubiquitously lauded for a long time and it wasn't until historians began viewing his life later on that his legacy began to be questioned, when it has been revealed just how much Jefferson was a man of great contradiction.

Both were undoubtedly great men with perhaps even greater character flaws.

Really any book written during the Revolutionary period would expand on this in great detail, but specifically biographies of the two men or any of the Founding Fathers. You cannot research the men who typically are associated as the Founding Fathers or Framers without talking about the political discord that developed between the two sides.

Some of my favorites are below:

https://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Hamilton-Rivalry-Forged-Nation/dp/1608195430/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480308951&sr=8-1&keywords=jefferson+hamilton

https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-Chernow/dp/0143034758/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1480309330&sr=8-2&keywords=jefferson+hamilton

https://www.amazon.com/Founding-Brothers-Revolutionary-Joseph-Ellis/dp/0375705244/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480309352&sr=8-1&keywords=founding+brothers

But this is by no means limiting and I didn't even link any Jefferson-centric biographies.

u/yo2sense · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

The general resource for this is Thomas Slaughter's The Whiskey Rebellion. The central insight of that work is that the resistance was hardly confined to Western Pennsylvania but encompassed the entire frontier area of the United States. People living in backcountry areas basically hadn't been paying taxes since the Revolution began and didn't intend to start with such a heavy tax laid on by a distant government. What made Western Pennsylvania unique is the presence of someone actually willing to attempt to enforce the law in the person of General John Neville.

This is what we need to remember when looking into why the this tax was chosen. Eastern elites such as Alexander Hamilton looked upon frontier people much as Parliament looked upon the colonists when picking the Stamp Act tax or Mitt Romney looked upon the 47%. The whiskey tax would fall harder on freeloaders than on the productive people in eastern counties. For a more nuanced look at the politics see William Hogeland's The Whiskey Rebellion. Ron Chernow in Alexander Hamilton argues that the whiskey tax was the only real option for funding after federal assumption of state debts but doesn't explore the structure of the law designed to fall harder on small producers than on large.

The result was the strengthening of the government of the United States. It demonstrated to its states and foreign governments that it could enforce an unpopular tax and field large military forces to subdue its hinterlands. On the flip side, a lot of frontier farmers lost their land. Despite the prejudices of rich people, poor people really are poor. The situation became less bleak for western farmers after the opening of the Mississippi but agrarian unrest didn't subside until easy money and credit reached them in the wake of the demise of the First Bank of the United States ( See Gordon Wood Empire of Liberty page 298.

u/katharsys2009 · 1 pointr/todayilearned

First read about this last night in Chernow's Hamilton, and he makes the same claim in Washington. So I decided to do some further research on it. Finding others making that claim is difficult, but it is known that many African-Americans that had joined the British under the promise of freedom were infected, or rapidly contracted it - source, source.

This use of smallpox by the British however is not outside the realm of possibility, as the British Army had previously made use of smallpox as a biological weapon, such as against Native Americans at the siege of Fort Pitt and later as both an offensive and defensive weapon in the siege of Boston(PDF warning):

> "small-pox rages all over the town. Some of the military [British] as had it not before, are now under inoculation. This, I apprehend, is a weapon of defense they are using against us." - George Washington to John Hancock

and

> "If it is In General Gages power I expect he will Send ye Small pox Into ye Army."

However, the experience of the siege of Boston confirmed in Washington the need to inoculate the Continental Army against smallpox (see above reference), so by the time of the Battle of Yorktown, it is unknown how well the tactic would have world - other than just being a grizzly footnote to the war.

u/AuntChiladas · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

I've had this one on my list for a couple of days. It's the biography that the musical, "Hamilton" was based on.

Reading Rainbow!

u/Zugunfall · 1 pointr/politics

Hopefully covered in the book Lin Manuel supposedly based the play on? I gifted it to my brother to read last Christmas and anticipate trying to read it soon on some upcoming business trips.

But yes totally, it was his charisma as a drunkard telling the story that had me like, "okay this could definitely be fun"

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/math

I totally agree with the productive burned hours. It's a lot more satisfying than going on reddit. If I'm at home I'll occasionally pop open a book I'm reading. Currently working through this guy https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-Chernow/dp/0143034758! Or I sometimes bring a little book of brain teasers/puzzles like https://www.amazon.com/Algorithmic-Puzzles-Anany-Levitin/dp/0199740445.

The walking part is really great too. This one of the parts I'm most excited about grad school/work. Having a real office that locks so I can just put my book down and walk outside and smell the air. Right now I do most of my work in libraries since I have trouble focusing at home and thus I dont want to just leave my stuff out

edit: what type of consulting do you do?
Are you happy with it?
edit 2: is your linkedin sick