-
Wincing at Cumberbatch
May 21, 2013 | 10 comments
-
Pain & Gain
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
As She Likes It
April 30, 2013 | 13 comments
-
42
April 23, 2013 | 19 comments
-
56 Up
April 17, 2013 | 7 comments
Movie Takes
Rediscovering Alexander Hamilton
Tonight on PBS, from Michael Pack and Richard Brookhiser.
There’s been rather a fuss in the British media lately over the teaching of history in schools. Niall Ferguson, professor of history at Harvard and Oxford and what the British call a “telly don,” decries the ignorance of British schoolchildren and the parlous state of history teaching when “it is possible to leave school in England knowing only about Henry VIII, Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr.” Others say that the study of history is alive and well. Somehow, I doubt it. In America, we have heard similar arguments, and they are perhaps alluded to in the scene in the new documentary, “Rediscovering Alexander Hamilton,” (screening on PBS at 10:00 on Monday, or check local listings), when the host and narrator, Richard Brookhiser, goes to Hamilton’s alma mater, then known as King’s College but now as Columbia University in New York, and asks random students if they know who Alexander Hamilton was. Not surprisingly, although Hamilton’s name is everywhere as the university’s most distinguished alumnus, few of them do. Where do you start with these kids?
I found it rather touching that the one group which had heard something about this once well-known Founding Father whose face is on the ten-dollar bill were part of Columbia’s equivalent of ROTC, still banned on campus at the time the film was made, who called themselves “The Hamilton Society.” They did so as a tribute not only to the great man himself but to the militia which he helped to form while still a 19-year old student and which he led to assist General Washington at the battle of Princeton in January of 1777. Elsewhere in the film, we see high school kids from Virginia re-enacting Hamilton’s heroic action at the Battle of Yorktown, using brightly colored red and blue plastic bats as weapons. Afterwards a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan explains to the youths the differences and similarities to real battles today. He tells them that in real battles people get hurt and killed. Perhaps that’s where you start.
What I liked best about the film is that it begins and ends with the idea that, although he has no equivalent to the magnificent monument in Washington of his great rival, Jefferson, Hamilton’s monument is really the world’s great commercial center of New York City, as beautifully photographed here as you will ever see it, which would not have evolved as it did without the legal and economic system he did so much to put in place in the early days of the Republic. Hamilton, “the bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar,” as John Adams called him, was born in the West Indies and came to colonial America while still in his teens, making his way to pre-eminence there entirely by his own efforts. As President Washington’s Treasury Secretary, he set us on the course to become the commercial and cosmopolitan nation we have always been rather than the agrarian utopia that Jefferson would have preferred. In this sense Hamilton is, in spite of political failure and ultimate tragedy during his lifetime, victorious in the eternal struggle between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians that many see as still continuing to this day.
One way in which it continues is in the spitefulness of Gore Vidal, who tells Mr. Pack’s camera that both Hamilton and his nemesis, Aaron Burr, were “tiny guys” with “the egos of giants.” Well, he ought to know. They never wrote any novels, after all. This is one of numerous interviews which Mr. Brookhiser, the author of Alexander Hamilton, American, and his producer-director Michael Pack are to be commended for using to get around the inherent difficulties of making a film about the days before photography. It’s a great story, and they tell it with great resourcefulness and originality. Yet they also show that they are aware of the great, perhaps fatal concessions they have to make to an audience that knows next to nothing about Hamilton or the early days of the nation’s founding.
As today’s history teachers will tell you, the way to get history into the heads of today’s children is by analogizing from the familiar to the unfamiliar. You know the sort of thing: imagine that you are a soldier in Washington’s army or an Indian girl at the time of Pocahontas or whatever. The trouble with that is that you bring too much “you” with you, and it is bound to get in the way of trying to imagine what it’s like to be somebody else. It’s no criticism of “Rediscovering Alexander Hamilton” to say that it takes analogizing to its limits and beyond, as that is doubtless what PBS, no less than the teaching profession, has expected of it. In addition to the Yorktown reenactment, there are also amusing representations of Hamilton as he argues a case before the People’s Court’s Marilyn Milian and of his meeting with Talleyrand as impersonated by the dapper French philosophe, Bernard-Henri Lévy — BHL, as he is known to his legion of French fans, didn’t care much for Mr. Hamilton’s wine — and, less amusingly but without live ammunition, of the fatal duel between Hamilton and Burr with two present-day members of their respective families in the starring roles.
The limits of the analogizing technique, however, are reached with the part where the sex scandal involving Hamilton and Maria Reynolds prompts a visit to Larry Flynt and his team of muckrakers, where they are asked for their tips on “covering” such scandals. Though Mr. Flynt is described as a modern-day Callender — the pamphleteer who broke the story in 1797 — there are too many differences between them, and between the political culture then and now, to make the comparison seem very helpful. Almost as bad was the interview with some plug-ugly gang members, one of whom has “Death Be4 Dishonor” tattooed on his beefy arm, to get their take on the duel with Burr. Mr. Brookhiser asks one of these thugs, who aren’t exactly into analogizing themselves, what he thinks of the speculation that Hamilton wasted his shot in the duel with Burr. “Stupid,” says the thug. Duh!
This kind of thing too often produces not knowledge but the illusion of knowledge. “Oh,” the ignorant are encouraged to say, “so x is just like y,” where x is a person or an event in the past of which he has no knowledge and y is a person or event in the present of which he has some — if, usually, very little — knowledge. But of course x is not like y, or is like y only in the most superficial ways and, in fact, everything that ought to be most interesting about x is precisely what is unlike y. Thus, the honor code that Hamilton felt himself bound by in 1804 has a very superficial similarity to that which today’s street toughs promulgate among themselves, to the bewilderment or admiration of the larger society, but the ways in which it was different are legion as well as being more likely to repay the effort necessary to explore them.
In spite of such blemishes, “Rediscovering Alexander Hamilton” tells in a thoroughly accessible way one of the great American stories that too few among the young today will have heard of before. If they can be inveigled to watch it by parents or teachers who still care, as some of them surely must care, about historical literacy, I think I can promise them an enjoyable couple of hours with a great man whom they may be surprised to find it is well worth their while to know more about.
About the Author
James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Articles by James Bowman
More Articles From Movie Takes
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/11/rediscovering-alexander-hamilt
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Her Unrequited Letter
- A President Loses His Power
- The End of the Castros?
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Derek Leaberry| 4.11.11 @ 9:39AM
We can thank Hamilton for two nefarious institutions which have centralized the republic. First, the office of president with the dominating power granted it by Hamilton. Hamilton had George Washington in mind when he created the neo-royal office of president yet others not so honorable would take advantage of the powers of the office- Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson among others. Barack Obama won this past week's confrontation over the budget because of the power provided by the right of veto. Second, the seeds of Wall Street's muscle grip on the economy originated with the seeds Hamilton planted in the 1790s. Even today, when Wall Street brought about its own doom in 2008, it could arrogantly and shamelessly ask for a bail-out. The American economy is ruled by a largely unproductive and greedy banking mob based in Manhattan.
Rogue Elephant| 4.11.11 @ 9:57AM
Hamilton was a strong advocate of central banking because he understood central banking's central purpose - financing deficit spending. He well understood that this was why the Bank of England was established in the first place (as did his contemporaries).
Central banking was not then shrouded in fable and mystery. It was understood for its grubby purpose - taxing the people through the invisible tax of inflation. Yes, the Federal Reserve and the Wall Street kleptocracy is a monument to Hamilton's misguided ideas. Hamilton's ideas have run their natural course and brought our republic to the eve of destruction.
J.P. Travis | 4.11.11 @ 11:03AM
Like the first two comments, mine is to remind everybody that we still suffer from the New York-based political philosophy of strong federal government founded by Alexander Hamilton. The battle between those who value freedom and the Hamiltonians has never ended.
Wayne | 4.11.11 @ 1:25PM
And Hamilton himself would have run for president except he didn't have that birth certificate - hmm. What was he doing in a duel with the Vice President of the United States? If he didn't get killed by Burr, he is guilty of sedition. What is he doing on the 10 dollar bill?
Anommynous| 4.11.11 @ 3:38PM
Wayne, you mean the same Burr who was accused (and even indicted) for the potential treasonous conspiracy of attempting to form his own independent nation?
It was a different time, and it was not uncommon for people to settle their differences in a duel. They usually weren't fatal (often each man would take just one shot, usually missing their target, before the combatants agreed to cease, honor fully intact). Hamilton was a hothead and frequently wrote pernicious things about his targets (a blueprint for today's political discourse) and in the case of Burr actively worked to thwart his political ambitions. It was Burr who challenged Hamilton to the duel in response. Hamilton in fact fired his shot into the air, never intending to hit Burr. Burr, for his part, either didn't understand or else really hated Hamilton that much, but in response he took aim right at Hamilton and fired, mortally wouding him. Burr did not come out of that duel looking very good, and public sentiment lay with Hamilton.
Hamilton is honored with his likeness on the $10 bill largely due to his tremendous role in developing the financial system of the United States. Hamilton was an opinionated, brilliant idea man, and while he often found himself at odds with some of his contemporaries (including Jefferson, at times), many others of his accomplishments have endured and the United States has thrived.
I cannot join with the Paulites with their diatribes against the very idea of a central bank and their rigid, uncompromising opposition to any and all debt in all circumstances. While I agree that balanced budgets are good policy in general, I do not support a balanced-budget amendment. Hamilton famously said, "A national debt, IF IT IS NOT EXCESSIVE, will be to us a national blessing." Hamilton's tools give us the flexibility to finance military conflicts and invest in crucial infrastructure in the short term, which a healthy United States economy pays off in the long term. A modest, consistent inflation rate of about 1 to 2% is actually indicative of a healthy economy and is the rate the Fed strives for. To do away with these tools would be to hamstring ourselves.
Clearly, though, our debt has become excessive, but that's not something I fault Hamilton for. I blame creeping socialism, entitlements, the fall of the traditional family in favor of the government nanny state, the removal of God from all aspects of public life.
Dee See| 4.11.11 @ 9:32PM
---UH, I think we've ALLLL by now gotten
the BIG picture on Alexander Hamilton's aims.
Wayne | 4.11.11 @ 10:10PM
Anonymous, I was actually being facetious. I was thinking how we trash everyone who might run for president. I know Hamilton and Jefferson were at odds and Washington actually encouraged it. Also I know Burr was a bad guy who waged his own revolution.
What I find interesting is Andrew Jackson, who eliminated the US Bank. The guy is really the first democrat and the dirty tricks he started were not much different than what the Dems do today. He was scoundrel and also a war hero. He was a fiscal conservative who did not believe in a national debt, yet he treated Indians like scum and stole their lands for himself.
Wayne | 4.11.11 @ 10:10PM
Anonymous, I was actually being facetious. I was thinking how we trash everyone who might run for president. I know Hamilton and Jefferson were at odds and Washington actually encouraged it. Also I know Burr was a bad guy who waged his own revolution.
What I find interesting is Andrew Jackson, who eliminated the US Bank. The guy is really the first democrat and the dirty tricks he started were not much different than what the Dems do today. He was scoundrel and also a war hero. He was a fiscal conservative who did not believe in a national debt, yet he treated Indians like scum and stole their lands for himself.
Dee See| 4.12.11 @ 12:13AM
---A national march on the New York offices
of the Federal Reserve, and the Rockefeller/Ford/Carnegie ---GATES 'benny-violent' tax free, EUGENICS driven---and driving
foundations ----this July 4th.
HUAC meets NUREMBERG by 2012.
This as the Fukishima cover-up just got another
'EUGENICS friendly' blast and as meters,
and standards, everywhere are being siezed and 'adjusted'
Listen closely, and you can hear the Yuppie giggles
CAUSE THEY'RE NO LONGER JOKING
Emojad Dajome| 4.12.11 @ 11:26AM
As a former history major, I have grown more than weary of the academic monopoly of United States History held by universities ranging between Virginia and New York. The regional influence undergirding, if not preceding, most presentations, i.e., interpretations, has gotten beyond nauseating. As a supporting example, the bulk of C-span's Civil War sesquicentennial panel discussions are held in Virginia. Two hundred seven years after Hamilton's death the largess of the states continue to suffer the vicissitudes of southern states politics and the machinations of New York City's money changers.
thebackbencher | 4.12.11 @ 7:01PM
hamiltons curse by thomas delorenzo...read in full with an intro by 2 lib callers to mark levin including crazy jim from brooklyn...
http://vimeo.com/18999969
spokelement | 4.15.11 @ 6:11AM
Hamilton was not as strong an advocate for a central bank as many like to portray. He did enable a private national bank to help extend badly needed credit to many war torn Colonies, but with only a 20 year charter because he understood the danger of central banking power.
A government sanctioned Central Bank was not instituted until the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. That occurred over a hundred years later under the Wilson Administration with the help of progressive Democrats.
The accusations of being for an imperial presidency or monarchy is the result of Jefferson and Madison's relentless muckraking as they sought to limit Hamilton's considerable political influence with both Washington and Congress.
Whoever implied that Alexander Hamilton was not for freedom has a poor grasp of both history and reality. Hamilton understood this nation's critical need to be funded and prepared to defend liberty. He was painfully aware of this after barely prevailing in a war with woefully inadequate funding. Washington could not even provide shoes for his soldiers at Valley Forge.
To state that today's insane monetary and fiscal policies are the inevitable result of Hamilton's economic and government models is at best conjecture if not complete and utter none sense.
Both the Left and the right like to cast Hamilton as the foil to their own elevated views of what constitutes good government, but no one more that Alexander Hamilton has given them the Liberty to maintain their delusional views.
J Baustian| 6.6.11 @ 12:47AM
I just finished Brookhiser's book and enjoyed it immensely. It deepened but did not change my previous mostly-positive impressions of Hamilton. However, Jefferson comes off very badly -- nearly as despicable as Aaron Burr, harsh as that may seem.
Hamilton thought Jefferson to be an opponent who was badly mistaken and uninformed; but Jefferson thought of Hamilton as an enemy who needed to be destroyed both professionally and personally. There is no one today who is exactly like either man, but there are plenty who share each man's flaws.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 10:31PM
is good