Take Alexander Hamilton, for instance. He's on the ten dollar bill -- but was he President? We conducted a very in-depth and factually accurate investigation to find out for sure.
Was Alexander Hamilton President?
It's President's Day, an opportunity for Americans to reflect on the great men who have led this country since its inception. But what about the men who don't get the recognition they deserve?
Take Alexander Hamilton, for instance. He's on the ten dollar bill -- but was he President? We conducted a very in-depth and factually accurate investigation to find out for sure.
Take Alexander Hamilton, for instance. He's on the ten dollar bill -- but was he President? We conducted a very in-depth and factually accurate investigation to find out for sure.
Hot Links
- How to Throw an Easter Brunch Buffet - Holidays Central
- Easter Centerpiece Ideas - Holidays Central
- Spring Clean Like a Pro - Reader's Digest
- Easter Egg Decorating Ideas - Celebrations
- Unique Twists on Spring Cocktails - Celebrations
- Easter Bunny Cake - KitchenDaily
- How to Play: Easter Egg Race - ParentDish
- Early Spring Flowers: What's Blooming? - Shelterpop
Reader Comments (Page 4 of 8)
Add Your Comment
Holidash Videos
-
DIY Paper Favor Boxes
These simple DIY favor boxes are an easy way to decorate your table and ...
-
Birthday Cards: How to Make Your...
Make your birthday wishes even more special with this delightful DIY ...
Eco-kitty,2-21-2011, 9:31AM
LOL Hamilton never invented the telephone! That was Alexander Graham Bell. But it was very entertaining. :) nice to start off my morning laughing.
Reply
JOHN,2-21-2011, 9:50AM
HAMILTON WAS NEVER PRES OF THE US. HE WAS A THE SEC.TREASURY AND WANTED TO SELL OUT AMERICAN TO THE EUROPEAN BANKERS. ARRON BURR WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRES. GAVE UP THAT CHANCE WHEN HE KILLED HAMILTON IN A DUEL. BURR WAS THE PATRIOT, HAMILTON WAS THE DIRTBAG.
Reply
Eleanor,2-21-2011, 2:39PM
Alexander Hamilton was never President of the United States. He was not born in the US, therefore, could not be president. He had a great deal to do with the Treasury of the United States.
Reply
MRJ8GD,2-21-2011, 9:59AM
Per the Constitution anyone alive and in the US at the time of its creation could become President whether they were born here or not. Technically Washington thru Harrision were non US Citizens a birth they were all born as British Subjects. Art. II, Sec I Clause 5.
SFScubaguy,2-21-2011, 3:25PM
No, George Washington was born in Virginia. He was native born. A requirement of Article II of the US Constitution to become president. Alexander Hamilton could not become the US president because he was born on the island of Nevis in the British West Indies.
mrj8gd,2-21-2011, 7:32PM
If you read the Constitution Article 2 sec 1 Clause 5 it clearly states that any citizen of the US whether natural born or not was eligible for the Presidency. By 1840 it had been out dated as no person born prior to the Constitution was going to run, William Henry Harrison was our last pre Constitutional Born President. Washington was born in Virginia not the State the Commonwealth Colony of Great Britain.
John,2-22-2011, 1:44AM
Actually, the constitution states that anyone who was a resident of the United States as of July 4, 1776 could hold the office of president though no one has.
Eric,2-21-2011, 11:03AM
Alexander Hamilton is not buried in Trinity Church Cemetery, but in Trinity Churchyard. They are not the same place. Trinity Church Cemetery is located 10 miles farther uptown in Washington Heights.
Reply
Doc,2-21-2011, 10:10AM
One of the most interesting things about Hamilton was that he was the child of a slave. He rose to prominence because of his personal brilliance as well as service to General Washington.
It interests me that those who want to see the late President Reagan on currency want him to replace Hamilton on the ten dollar bill. Is it because he was not a President or is it because of his ethnic similarity to President Obama? I'm just askin' . . .
Reply
John,2-21-2011, 12:10PM
You are incorrect. He was not born to a slave. His father was James Hamilton a business man from Scotland and his mother was Rachel Fawcett Levien a shop owner who was married but seperated from her husband John Levien a plantation owner. Alexander was orphaned at 13. Probate records proving this fact are available for you to inspect in the rocords office of the Island of Nevis in the British West Indies. Oh and just so you know, slaves did not have estates probated since they did not own property, they WERE property. His mother's will was probated around 1771.
ken,2-21-2011, 12:20PM
Child of a slave? No, I dont think so. Dad was a cad having Alexander out of wedlock, but also the son of a Scottish laird, and mom was a bigamist, and shopkeeper, but not a slave. He by no means had an easy early life, but he was no child in slavery. Check your facts Doc.
Maddog,2-21-2011, 10:48AM
I'm of the opinion that the only reason we got a favorable treaty out of the War of 1812 was not by anything Adams did but because Napoleon was running amuck in Europe and England needed all its power turned east to defeat him. That's not to speak against Adams but we hardly had the material or navy to defeat an otherwise unoccupied England. Remember that our greatest victory, the Battle of New Orleans, came thirty days after the Treaty of Paris was signed.
Reply
MRJ8GD,2-21-2011, 7:32PM
One President Madison was President duing the war of 1812, Adams served from 1797-1801. Two the reason why we almost lost the war was because the British had to deal with Napoleon and had by 1814 he was in his first Exile and Britain brought its full weight to bear on the US. Hence the burning of Washington DC and the Failed Attack on Baltimore. 3rd the treay ending the war of 1812, signed on December 24, 1814 was signed in Ghent Belgium and battle of New Orleans took place on January 8 or 2 weeks later. Why because it took 3 to 4 weeks to get new of the treaty just to the burned out capital in DC. Neither Jackson nor his British counter parts would know of the treaty until late January at best
Virgil,2-21-2011, 10:26AM
I dont know why I cant see the replies to my comment, however I have to be corrected. It was John Hancock who first presided over the first continental congress not Alexander Hamilton. My coffee is finally kicking in and brain is now functional again. Technically it was John Hancock who was the first actual president of the USA since he was the head of government at the time.
This is my second time trying to post this.
Reply
Arthur Segaul,2-21-2011, 10:38AM
Alexander Hamilton Was NEVER president. Those people that said he was on your video are ignorant of history.
Reply
Wrong,2-21-2011, 11:15AM
Getting facts wrong or just making them up is the job of Sarah Palin and everyone on Fox Fake "News." Dumbing down America 24/7.
Reply
C. Robertson,2-21-2011, 11:12AM
Too bad he never made it to the big chair. My best friend and I determinated decades ago when we were still in school that he was clearly the best looking of the founding fathers.
Reply
GOD DAMN OLD MAN,2-21-2011, 11:22AM
I just lost five minutes of my life!
Why go see someone that then ACT like your falling asleep? Ignorant.
Reply
Steve,2-21-2011, 11:30AM
Very funny...but something inspired by Daily Show reporting....very funny though.
Reply
Neal,2-21-2011, 11:31AM
I learned my history back in the days when history was still seriously taught in the schools. I have no idea what "winner" historian would ever choose to change simple facts of history as to who served as president of this country and who didn't. No battles, no wars were fought to gain the office, except politically, of course. The outcome of the elections would necessarily be a matter of recorded history. What purpose would be served in declaring a man as having served as president of this country, if, in fact, he'd never done so. I received my Bachelor's degree in history, years ago, and never realized that there was a controversy about Alexander Hamilton ever having served as president, or about Ben Franklin having done so either. I guess, these days, people can create controversies about almost anything historical.
I didn't find the interviewer to be particularly bright. History books might be written by winners, but I suppose some real losers can manufacture history into whatever they might want it to be. It doesn't make the re-worked "facts" believable.
Reply