A Comparative Analysis Of The Differences Between Hamilton And Adams
Even back in the 1700’s people fought. Especially in their own parties, people would dispute over trivial matters. To this day politicians fight and quarrel, maybe even more aggressively so. Political feuds date back to the start of the first parties, including the Democratic-Republicans, and the Federalists.
A memorable political friendly fire would consist of Alexander Hamilton’s attempt to undercut his fellow Federalist, John Adams, in two presidential elections. Hamilton claimed that Adams could not be controlled and that he was too independent. Hamilton also stated that he was too quick to jealousy and would do anything for power. Of course, Adams had his own opinions on Hamilton, such as Adams proclaiming that Hamilton was the most dangerous …show more content…
threat to America, and to not be trusted.
Though verbal disputes were not the only kinds of friendly fire in the fight between Hamilton and Adams.in 1796 Hamilton held a campaign, favoring the election of Charles Pinckney, and to ruin Adams. But in the end, Hamilton’s campaign led to being unsuccessful.
The next election, Adams ran for office again.
Hamilton, of course, did everything in his power to stop him from winning for the second time. Hamilton for the second time in a row favored Charles Pinckney. Hamilton wrote and published a letter, stating that Adams was unfit for president and criticizing Adams ideas. In Hamilton’s letter, I quote, Hamilton accused Adams of having “A vanity without bounds, and a jealousy capable of discoloring every object.” Later on, Adams lost.
An article I found, titled The Danger of Political Parties fighting from within. Relates to Hamilton and Adams dispute, by giving examples of a political friendly fire, and what it can do. I thought that the article showed that Some of even the deepest political wounds are inflicted from the inside of the party itself. It also showed that fighting within your group of people can only end in more and more problems. Causing grown adults to instantly turn into savage toddlers under the span of 2.5 seconds.
What I think about political disputes within a party, or within any group or organization at all, is that maybe you should know what you stand for before you decide to change your mind and attempt to heard an army of cats into a dumpster fire of political disputes. And if you do know what you stand for, try and negotiate with your peers about what you do not believe
in.
I feel that a certain quote could demonstrate the fact that you need to know what you believe in, or else you may cause unwanted problems. So, I quote to you “if you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.” - Alexander Hamilton
A memorable political friendly fire would consist of Alexander Hamilton’s attempt to undercut his fellow Federalist, John Adams, in two presidential elections. Hamilton claimed that Adams could not be controlled and that he was too independent. Hamilton also stated that he was too quick to jealousy and would do anything for power. Of course, Adams had his own opinions on Hamilton, such as Adams proclaiming that Hamilton was the most dangerous …show more content…
threat to America, and to not be trusted.
Though verbal disputes were not the only kinds of friendly fire in the fight between Hamilton and Adams.in 1796 Hamilton held a campaign, favoring the election of Charles Pinckney, and to ruin Adams. But in the end, Hamilton’s campaign led to being unsuccessful.
The next election, Adams ran for office again.
Hamilton, of course, did everything in his power to stop him from winning for the second time. Hamilton for the second time in a row favored Charles Pinckney. Hamilton wrote and published a letter, stating that Adams was unfit for president and criticizing Adams ideas. In Hamilton’s letter, I quote, Hamilton accused Adams of having “A vanity without bounds, and a jealousy capable of discoloring every object.” Later on, Adams lost.
An article I found, titled The Danger of Political Parties fighting from within. Relates to Hamilton and Adams dispute, by giving examples of a political friendly fire, and what it can do. I thought that the article showed that Some of even the deepest political wounds are inflicted from the inside of the party itself. It also showed that fighting within your group of people can only end in more and more problems. Causing grown adults to instantly turn into savage toddlers under the span of 2.5 seconds.
What I think about political disputes within a party, or within any group or organization at all, is that maybe you should know what you stand for before you decide to change your mind and attempt to heard an army of cats into a dumpster fire of political disputes. And if you do know what you stand for, try and negotiate with your peers about what you do not believe
in.
I feel that a certain quote could demonstrate the fact that you need to know what you believe in, or else you may cause unwanted problems. So, I quote to you “if you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.” - Alexander Hamilton