When the big "Amazon Day" rolled by last month, I snagged the free 3 month Audible trial, and the first audiobook that I got (for free) was Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton. So I've been listening to that on my way to work most every morning for the last month and a half. Probably 3/4 of the way through.

I always knew that Hamilton and Jefferson didn't get along, but HOLY BALLS they really hated each other. And Chernow has done an exceptional job of making Jefferson (and Madison) seem like a colossal ****. I'm feeling really jaded against him right now, which is concerning to me that one book can really influence my opinions like that because I'm usually pretty even-keeled on this stuff. So I'm thinking it might be wise to find a biography that is maybe a bit more polite towards him to balance things out. Anyone have any recommendations? Or was Jefferson really the big hypocritical, egotistical jack*** that Chernow is making him out to be?

I'm pretty sure Jefferson said the *******'s dad hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald when he wasn't banging The *******'s mother.

I've always liked American Sphinx for Jefferson. He was an exceptionally complicated man. Some of his criticisms of Hamilton were on the money. Hamilton was not a big fan of democracy or limited central government. However, Jefferson was a financial dolt who you would have trouble even calling a capitalist.

a good place to look would be in the Library of America's collection of Jefferson's writings-----speeches, letters, etc. Like Lincoln, the man is best understood by reading what he said himself. A lot of it seems quaint by our standards but he was always thinking and always writing. It is hard to believe someone so contemplative got so far but those were interesting times and there were a lot of conundrums he had to deal with.

I always liked reading him on issues related to slavery: he once said it was like having a wolf by the ears: you could not hang on or let loose.

Hamilton was more practical but pretty pedestrian. I would rather have Hamilton run my business but not my government.

And of course you know that had a famous series of rap battles:

quote:

---

a good place to look would be in the Library of America's collection of Jefferson's writings-----speeches, letters, etc. Like Lincoln, the man is best understood by reading what he said himself. A lot of it seems quaint by our standards but he was always thinking and always writing. It is hard to believe someone so contemplative got so far but those were interesting times and there were a lot of conundrums he had to deal with.

I always liked reading him on issues related to slavery: he once said it was like having a wolf by the ears: you could not hang on or let loose.

Hamilton was more practical but pretty pedestrian. I would rather have Hamilton run my business but not my government.

---

Fair point, but unfortunately not very practical as an audiobook. May have to give those other two a shot, though. But I'm probably going to use the next credit on a William T. Sherman bio that's normally pretty pricey.

What about Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power by Meacham? Anyone tried that?

JMO, but you have to approach the founding fathers differently than normal intellectuals. They were political theorists, but it was far more than theory to them. They felt and knew that they had one chance to change the course of history for the entire world, they all had strong opinions on how it HAD to be done, and anyone who got in the way had to be crushed. Sure Hamilton and Jefferson got into it with the class and legitimacy stuff, but it was more than personal with them.

The more I read about Hamilton and Jefferson the more I admire George Washington, because his constancy and temperance held the country together when it was vulnerable and public life was dominated by colossal egos. He wasn't much of a tactician and he wasn't brilliant like Hamilton or Jefferson, but if either of those guys or probably anyone else had been the first president they might also have been the last.

quote:

---

JMO, but you have to approach the founding fathers differently than normal intellectuals. They were political theorists, but it was far more than theory to them. They felt and knew that they had one chance to change the course of history for the entire world, they all had strong opinions on how it HAD to be done, and anyone who got in the way had to be crushed. Sure Hamilton and Jefferson got into it with the class and legitimacy stuff, but it was more than personal with them.

The more I read about Hamilton and Jefferson the more I admire George Washington, because his constancy and temperance held the country together when it was vulnerable and public life was dominated by colossal egos. He wasn't much of a tactician and he wasn't brilliant like Hamilton or Jefferson, but if either of those guys or probably anyone else had been the first president they might also have been the last.

---

Funny that you bought up Washington. I just saw something that said that Martha detested Jefferson. She claimed that the day she met Jefferson was, next to the loss of her husband, "the most painful occurrence of her life". Also stated that Jefferson's election as president was "the greatest misfortune our nation has ever experienced."

Jefferson thought that Washington adhered to closely to Hamilton's thoughts.

quote:

---

Jefferson thought that Washington adhered to closely to Hamilton's thoughts.

---

That's putting it lightly. Apparently Jefferson thought he was Hamilton's puppet.

Without Hamilton, the US may have fallen apart at the starting line for lack of structure. Without Jefferson serving as a counter, Hamilton may have pushed too far and made the federal government too overbearing. Without Washington, Hamilton or Jefferson would have won outright and may have shot each other (sooner) and/or led counterrevolutions.

quote:

---

Hamilton may have pushed too far and made the federal government too overbearing.

---

Sadly now it is more overbearing than an unbridled Hamilton would have made it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Hamilton may have pushed too far and made the federal government too overbearing.

---

Sadly now it is more overbearing than an unbridled Hamilton would have made it.

---

Hamilton wanted the president to be elected for life and the Senate to be modeled after the House of Lords, complete with titles of nobility.

quote:

---

a good place to look would be in the Library of America's collection of Jefferson's writings-----speeches, letters, etc. Like Lincoln, the man is best understood by reading what he said himself.

---

This doesn't help with the OP's audiobook request, but I strongly believe in reading the primary sources before adopting interpretations. It's so easy for popular histories to lionize the capital F Founding Fathers as brilliant titans standing astride history and forget that they were mortals attempting to find practical and timely solutions to very pressing issues.

Public radio in Norfolk has had a Jefferson series for years of you want to listen to something. It is interesting regardless.

Here it is

http://jeffersonhour.com

quote:

---

Hamilton wanted the president to be elected for life and the Senate to be modeled after the House of Lords, complete with titles of nobility.

---

I have no problem with president for life, so long as he can be removed if a tyrant. I got more of a problem with the defacto congressmen for life. As far as nobility, the current presidential candidates certainly pass as American "nobility." Titles are no big thang, but forcing people to buy insurance and bake cakes would never have flown with Hamilton.

Positing how the framers would respond to purely modern issues is always a bad idea. The very idea of health insurance in an era where medicine had more in common with the 2nd century than the 21st century would have made Hamilton shake his head.

quote:

---

Public radio in Norfolk has had a Jefferson series for years of you want to listen to something. It is interesting regardless.

---

The guy doing it injects way too much of his own bias.

Not even the History board is safe from people like BQ78 taking a shot at Trump.

This country is going to crap in a hand basket and we are laughing all the way. Even our educated people are fools.

quote:

---

Not even the History board is safe from people like BQ78 taking a shot at Trump.

This country is going to crap in a hand basket and we are laughing all the way. Even our educated people are fools.

---

Is this a serious comment?

Yes it is. This was a discussion about Hamilton and Jefferson and someone took an opportunity to take a shot at Trump. In case you are not aware of it BQ78 took a shot at Trump with the JFK assassination response. Were you not aware of that? Do you need it spelled out? It was a shot at Trump on the History board. And you are unable to connect the dots because he did not say Trump. I suppose I took it out of context.

Why are we not immune to the most idiotic things on this board. The one place where hopefully comedians stay away from? I guess not.

W.O.W.

What is wow about that Stive? Subtract your dismissive emoticon and answer that question. Do you disagree that someone came to the history board to take a shot at Trump? You are an educated guy and he used one of those silly emoticons as well so explain it. So aside from the emoticon and W.O.W. are you able to respond? W.O.W. is a dismissive response from someone that perhaps doers not know the content of the shot.

Sorry to derail the thread gents. It just aggravates me that there is really no place immune from idiocy and comedians. And even some on here are unable to intelligently figure out the basis of a response unless it is EXACTLY spelled out. But to keep it on track this is why the founders of this country would be lost in today's age. Jefferson and Hamilton both would laugh at all of us for being idiots.

No sir. This was a discussion about Hamilton and Jefferson. And you come flying in with a Trump shot that went over Stive's head obviously. Why? To serve what purpose?

One thing that could not be said about Hamilton and Jefferson were they were fools. But here we are an alleged educated society that is unable to have a discussion about something without some comedian coming on here and muddying the waters for no other purpose other than than they do not have anything substantive to offer. You had nothing to offer so you made a joke. Why? For what purpose? Why not just read for reading sake? Can we not have intelligent discourse anymore without someone shouting from the crowd about something else?

Why? Just answer that part and I will be happy. Why can't there be a discussion without someone coming in with a joke about something unrelated?

Go back and re-read the comments. Sapper made a comment that Hamilton wanted to have a House of Lords as one house of the congress. My comment was that in a sense we got that with rich people and families like the Kennedys, Bushes and Clintons running things in this country. Our version of nobility if you will. If saying Trump is from the privileged class ruins America, than burn it down!

quote:

---

What is wow about that Stive? Subtract your dismissive emoticon and answer that question. Do you disagree that someone came to the history board to take a shot at Trump? You are an educated guy and he used one of those silly emoticons as well so explain it. So aside from the emoticon and W.O.W. are you able to respond? W.O.W. is a dismissive response from someone that perhaps doers not know the content of the shot.

Sorry to derail the thread gents. It just aggravates me that there is really no place immune from idiocy and comedians. And even some on here are unable to intelligently figure out the basis of a response unless it is EXACTLY spelled out. But to keep it on track this is why the founders of this country would be lost in today's age. Jefferson and Hamilton both would laugh at all of us for being idiots.

---

So let me get this straight.....your beef with the "humor" on this thread is about BQ's comment on 8/24 regarding the Kennedy stuff? Or is it with his comment about the "nobility" in the country?

Sure BQ78. That is why your's was the first response to a thread started by a person that did not mention ANY of that and you brought up the JFK assassination to take a shot at Trump. And you do not even have the intellectual integrity to admit that. I do not need to re-read anything. I got the jest of your shot. Do you want to know why? It is because my memory is longer than the news cycle of "if it can make to Sunday morning without blowing up then we are fine?"

quote:

---

Sure BQ78. That is why your's was the first response to a thread started by a person that did not mention ANY of that and you brought up the JFK assassination to take a shot at Trump. And you do not even have the intellectual integrity to admit that. I do not need to re-read anything. I got the jest of your shot. Do you want to know why? It is because my memory is longer than the news cycle of "if it can make to Sunday morning without blowing up then we are fine?"

---

I would dare say he was taking a shot at both major party candidates with his comments on political nobility. However, if this is how you want to drive your blood pressure up and get your skivvies in a wad, have at it.

Stive:

I spelled it out for you. It was a shot against Trump for saying Cruz's dad was a part of the JFK assassination. So there it is Stive. In black and white. BQ78 took a shot at Trump and it went way over your head because you could not connect the dots. That is why in today's society people can say they were taken out of context because people have no idea what that is. And then BQ comes in and says his very first response was to something that came later in the thread. Timelines are not something that are taught in school so we are able to get away with that nonsense as well.

Can we go back to the Hamilton v. Jefferson debate? I was reading as an observer but got pissed off that Jimmy Kimmel came on here to give his half cent worth. I will only read from this point forward.

Pretty sure everyone was already back to that debate before you had to call attention to the post

quote:

---

Stive:

I spelled it out for you. It was a shot against Trump for saying Cruz's dad was a part of the JFK assassination. So there it is Stive. In black and white. BQ78 took a shot at Trump and it went way over your head because you could not connect the dots. That is why in today's society people can say they were taken out of context because people have no idea what that is. And then BQ comes in and says his very first response was to something that came later in the thread. Timelines are not something that are taught in school so we are able to get away with that nonsense as well.

Can we go back to the Hamilton v. Jefferson debate? I was reading as an observer but got pissed off that Jimmy Kimmel came on here to give his half cent worth. I will only read from this point forward.

---

So you show up on September 6th, to ridicule a comment made on August 24th, because it was a joke made on the History board about Trump? This has to be a troll.......



I got the joke back two weeks ago when it was made, I just didn't think you'd be doing a drive by about that comment since it was so long ago thus my clarification that you weren't getting pissy about the "nobility" comment that he made yesterday. I didn't think it was that funny then, but I don't mind a little humor and levity being applied to any situation as long as it's done tastefully. For crying out loud, this isn't the politics board after all.....where the psychos among us congregate to scream into their echo chambers. I realize now though that the 1994 in your name probably isn't your class year, but it's likely when you lost your sense of humor. As Revenge said.....lighten up Francis, it seems like we may be a bit too lively over here for people like you.


On a separate note, I think we now know where the assistant principle from Uncle Buck browses the internet. Since ce1994 likely doesn't know what Uncle Buck is/was, it was a "comedy" movie back in the early 90's. That's a film where they use "humor" for entertainment.....probably not your thing.

Ok, I will bite. Jefferson was your typical brat of wealth that hated it but would not give it up. He looked at the chaos of the French Revolution and wrongly asserted it was because of ours when in fact it had nothing to do with it. England had not had an absolute monarch since King John and even more so since Charles I. So our revolution against the crown was not the same as the French Revolution. The French Revolution was a different beast entirely.

Jefferson was of privilege and Hamilton was not. Hamilton was a ******* child that made his fortune off his wits and hard work. The only hard work Jefferson ever did was picking up a pen and writing something or raping a slave. The most overrated one of that time was Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, etc. knew it. But if you will notice Jefferson never gave up his privilege. He only wrote about why one should.

Jefferson was one of the original, privileged, over-educated dolts of this country.