quasi war

IIIIT’S CRYSTAL AND ALL HER SIBS!! :DD finally finished this, it’s been sitting in my sketchbook a long while;;

Crystal is the tallest with the big toothy smile XD next to her is her twin brother Quasi, between them is their younger sister Vessca, and the rest are their younger siblings whom I have not yet named. xD

Might try to color this? Kind of hard bc it’s on tan paper oops;;

anonymous asked:

Habt ihr dieses "Jojojo", was am Ende von IO, kommt eigentlich schon einmal in einem anderen Song verwendet? Weil ich immer so ein Gefühl habe, es schon einmal gehört zu haben, aber ich weiß nicht wo. Oder ich bin einfach dumm.

Das hast du gut erkannt! Im Song “Missets” kam’s nämlich schon vor. Es ist tatsächlich auch nur am Ende des Songs gelandet, weil wir auf der ersten Tour eine Kombination aus “IO” und “Missets” performt haben, bevor der Song überhaupt ganz fertig war. Das “Yoyoyo” war quasi der Übergang zum “Missets”-Teil und ist letztendlich auf dem Track geblieben, weil es uns als Abschluss ziemlich gut gefallen hat.

America’s Forgotten War with France,

During the American Revolution the French were close allies with the early United States, supplying the country with weapons, gunpowder, cash, while harassing British forces around the world.  However by 1797, relations between the United States and France had soured.  The French Monarchy had been toppled and replaced with the French Republic.  Many Federalists in the US government were wary of the French due to the bloodshed and chaos that had occurred during the French Revolution. Then the US signed the Jay Treaty in 1794, which opened the US up to trade with its former enemy Great Britain.  This further angered the French, who was then at blows with Britain.  Finally in 1797 the French recalled all their loans owed by the United States.  The US refused to pay however, citing that they owed the money to the French Monarchy, not to the new French Republic.

The refusal of the US to pay off its loans was the last straw.  While France never formally declared war, the French Government began issuing letters of marque to French privateers giving them permission to raid American ships.  By then the United States had developed a far reaching network of merchant contacts and shipping routes, with a large merchant fleet that numbered in the thousands.  However, the US had no navy, selling off its last warship in 1785.  Thus American merchant ships were easy prey for French privateers, many of whom became wealthy due to their raiding enterprises.

Helpless against the French privateers, at the end of 1797 Secretary of State Thomas Pickering had the misfortune of announcing to Congress that 316 merchant ships had been captured by the French in the past 11 months.  Shocked by the losses, Congress authorized a rebuilding of the US Navy.  Overnight a navy consisting of 18 frigates each was built on a shoestring budget.  Most of the frigates were former transports and merchant ships that were purchased by Congress and converted into warships.  By 1798, the Americans were fighting back, and several pitched naval battles occurred between American warships and French privateers.  By 1799, the US Navy had managed to capture or damage a number of French privateers.  The only loss that occurred was USS Retaliation, which was captured by the French, but quickly recaptured several months later.  In response to American resistance against the raids, the French Government issued more letters or marque against American ships, and French raids intensified in number.

The Quasi War ended in 1800, when France’s new First Consul, Napoleon Bonaparte, ended French raids against the United States.  Bonaparte had a number of reasons for doing so, first and foremost, France was too busy with events in Europe to devote resources to a war against the United States.  By then the US Navy and Revenue Cutter Fleet  had captured 85 French vessels.  It was no victory, however, as the French had captured or destroyed over 2,000 American merchant ships. The war devastated the American shipping industry, allowing Britain to dominate the waves for decades to come.  

July 2, 1917 - Greece Declares War on the Central Powers

Pictured - Greeks in action.

On July 2, 1917, after months of debate, political infighting, Allied blockade, a quasi-civil war, and the forced abdication of its king, Greece finally joined the Entente and the First World War. Now presided over by liberal politician Eleutherios Venizelos, who had headed a splinter regime dedicated to fighting the Central Powers and quashing royalist power, Greece declared war on Germany, Bulgaria, Austria, and Turkey. The Greek army had already began mobilizing, and 300,000 troops would head north to Salonika to join the multinational Allied army encamped there.

absolxguardian  asked:

Are what are some of the problems with Ron Chenrow(you can be brief)? I was thinking of buying the Hamilton bio, but I need to know what basis I need to look for.

Ron Chernow is an extremely biased author. So completely absorbed in the person he is writing about he looks past every incorrect or stupid thing the figure has done. He barely criticizes Hamilton’s faults and waxes and wanes on and on about what an amazing guy he was. 

He plays out the whole “everyone was against him” and “he was just misunderstood!” far too in depth when in some circumstances (such as the Quasi War army overtake) Hamilton was at fault and it was not another individual who was against him. In any occasion where Hamilton was at fault, Chernow immediately rebukes what occurred by placing Hamilton at fault and the other person as the one who was against him the entire time. For example: the Reynolds affair. The way Chernow displays this whole debacle as illustrating Maria Reynolds as a wench is absolutely disturbing considering after this she was forced to change her name due to the shame she had attached to her. In the Quasi War where Hamilton was clearly at fault, he shows then President John Adams as the once who “defiled” his legacy. 

In the biography, Chernow states that Hamilton was a fervent abolitionist in the New York Manumission Society and was a champion of freeing slaves his entire life. Later he states that Hamilton most likely owned one of two slaves that he inherited when he married (for power and money) into the Schuyler family. The Schuyler family was one of the most powerful slave owning families in the colony at the time. Chernow shows this marvelous Alexander Hamilton who was worked to free slaves his entire life. After speaking of the New York Manumission Society, Chernow further goes to display an attitude towards John Jay because he owned slaves and was in the Society. Excuse me? You’ll rip on John Jay for owning slaves and being in the New York Manumission Society but you will not show down Alexander Hamilton because he did the very same thing? Alexander Hamilton was in no way in abolitionist, he may of wanted free slaves but he differential besides the war did not work at any point in his life towards abolition. I spoke of why Hamilton was not an abolitionist here

In total, Chernow is definitely very education, an extremely talented author who has the ability to construct an entire eight hundred page biography on a man who made it to a mere forty-nine years and yet not a single Jefferson biography, Adams biography or Monroe biography (there are few of those) has ever surpasses six hundred pages. I highly recommend his books, you’ll learn a lot but there are many reasons why Chernow in my mind is a completely biased author who has received NO criticism and it worth some. 

Do you know that Madison and Jefferson rarely used the rank “general” to refer to Hamilton? Even years after his promotion to major general in the Quasi-War and after his death, they continued to use “colonel” (his rank at the end of revolutionary war). Does anybody know why?

Life Portraits of Alexander Hamilton

I was looking into which Hamilton’s portraits are the closest to what he actually looked like. A lot of them were painted after his death, or even during his life were actually copies from other potraits, and even the copies made by the same artist from their own work look different. I couldn’t find any good listing, and information on art pages is lacking. In my search, I came across this article: 

The Life Portraits of Alexander Hamilton
Harry MacNeill Bland and Virginia W. Northcott
The William and Mary Quarterly
Vol. 12, No. 2, Alexander Hamilton: 1755-1804 (Apr., 1955), pp. 187-198
Published by: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture

It’s from the 1955, so definitely outdated, but it’s the closest I could find to a comprehensive list, so here we go. It lists 16 portraits, but I will shorten the list because some of them were made by memory, or look like the artist has some problems with perspective and coonstruction of volume (it happens a lot with older painters).  

The earliest portraits it lists are by Charles Willson Peale, 1777:

This one was long considered to be of Washington, and I can see why; to me, it actually looks more like Laurens by the same painter.

This portrait by Peale was lost at the time the article was published, but we all know it now - the one Eliza embroidered so beautifully. There are also some later portraits by Peale, but I don’t find them very life-like, style-wise. (Not that these two look very much like other Hams portraits, either, but we don’t have anything else from that period.)

The first of the big Trumbull portraits (1792) is actually based on the bust portrait painted by Trumbull for John Jay, apparently this one:

The full-length portrait is a copy of this bust with the body added to it, not from life but probably from someone else modelling. (So, not Ham’s pretty legs, pity.) 

Then we have the Ceracchi bust. The terracotta model for it was produced about the same time, from life, but it is somewhat difficult to reconcile the painting and the sculpture. Of course, Ceracchi worked in the Roman tradition and probably embellished the likeness towards the more heroic and cesarian looks. On the other hand, the later portraits cited as having great likeness also show sharp and strong lines similar to this one. 

The article cites Allan McLane Hamilton as saying that the Sharples miniatures had the best likeness. The miniature was stolen by Talleyrand for his fanboying, and then after Hamilton’s death, an oil copy was ordered and sent back to Eliza because the pastels wouldn’t survive the travel. (There’s actually a bunch of copies made by the artists themselves, which one was the first is unclear.)

This portrait by Weaver shows Hamilton in his General’s uniform for the Quasi-War, also considered having great likeness:

 Finally, this potrait by Ezra Emes, painted in 1802 (after Philip’s death), Eliza called “a perfect and excellent likenes”.

Now I really wish someone took all these portraits and made an electronic reconstruction. And age-reversal.

anonymous asked:

Would Hamilton have been a good president?

If we look at this question solely from the standpoint of ideas and of intelligence, Alexander Hamilton would likely have made a very good president. If, however, we look at it from the standpoint of personality and politics, he would not have.

Alexander Hamilton was a brilliant man. He wrote most of the essays that became the Federalist Papers. He was the one who devised the economic plan that became the basis for the economic development of the United States in the early years after the ratification of the Constitution. He was a very smart man who had lots of good ideas.

However, that is not all there is to being a president. Hamilton was also very difficult to like. He was seen as a very arrogant man who rubbed many the wrong way. He was blunt and very good at making people dislike him. Several reasons also of course include his conquest for glory, including his army experience in the Quasi War and his invasion plans. He was an ultra nationalist who in my honest opinion, would not of made a good president. I doubt he would of ever followed advice from his cabinet or respected any of the farmers (he was angry because farmers were too self sufficient). Hamilton didn’t understand the view point of the farmers or how their lives work making his entire presidency favorable towards cities and factories. 

Between this and his contempt for the common people (he favored a monarchy of sorts), he would not have made a good president for the early United States.

rhilex  asked:

This might be a loaded ask, but... What on earth started John Adams' hatred of Hamilton? Why did he dislike him so much that he basically made it his life's mission to do so in every way?

I made a post a couple weeks ago where I stated I think the Adams-Hamilton feud was the result of three things: personality conflict, political differences, and culture clash rooted in xenophobia (in that post I discussed Adams’s hangups about Hamilton’s being a Scotch West Indian). So let’s discuss some of the former.

Let’s start with the political. In actuality, Hamilton and Adams had a lot of political beliefs in common, though Adams was more of a moderate Federalist and Hamilton the leader of the High Federalists. Both believed in a strong centralized government and were wary of France. But there were some key differences: Adams did not trust banking systems, whereas Hamilton obviously wanted to consolidate the state banks into a centralized banking system that answered to the federal government. Hamilton believed a standing army was becoming necessary to combat European forces in the West, but Adams believe a strong Navy would keep them at bey. 

But what really caused the political conflict started when, after Washington stepped down after two terms, it came up for a vote for who would take his place. Adams, naturally, thought as having been vice-president, he was the natural choice. Hamilton wanted someone more along High Federalist values, and so lobbied for Thomas Pinckney: in Hamilton’s ideal world, he wanted Pinckney as president and Adams back as vice-president (and he did the thing period to keep Jefferson from being either, remember this is when the person with the second highest votes became VP). Obviously it didn’t work, with Adams becoming president and Jefferson his VP. But Adams never forgot and never forgave Hamilton was his meddling - nor would the Republicans let him. 

During Adams’s presidency, he inherited Washington’s Cabinet and didn’t make any changes. The Cabinet members, being High Federalists, increasingly started going to Hamilton for his opinions on matters. This, understandably, upset Adams, tho he never actually cleaned out his Cabinet until it was too late. Then he and Hamilton got into an ugly mess with regards to the army being built after the XYZ Affair and the Quasi-War - after making Hamilton the second-in-command, Adams began pushing for peace with France, which upset Hamilton who suspected France was just going to fake peace with America and then later use its connections via its allyship with Spain and land in North America to launch an attack. Adams got his peace (and Jefferson lucked out when France did begin sending troops to the New World) and disbanded the army. That, coupled with a lot of nasty personal remarks leveled at Hamilton made the latter issue an affair of honor against the POTUS, which Adams understandably ignored, and then that pushed Hamilton to release the infamous Adams Pamphlet.

Then the Election of 1800 happens, and since it obviously worked so well the first time, Hamilton pushed the Federalists to vote for Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and withhold enough votes from Adams to make him the VP again. Many factors ended up getting the Republicans elected (the biggest ones being the 3/5ths Clause, and Cotesworth Pinckney’s cousin Charles Pinckney straight-up bribing South Carolina electors to vote for Jefferson and Burr) but Hamilton got the blame and Adams never forgave him for his loss of a second term.

With regards to the personality conflict: Adams was an older statesmen, had been part of the Revolution since Massachusetts started the thing, and so believed he was due a degree of deference he frequently didn’t feel he was getting. He was utterly appalled by what he felt was the lack of respect he was getting from Washington’s administration, being stuck in the Senate where people wouldn’t listen to him. But then Washington’s listening to Hamilton, this young “upstart” in Adams’s view, giving him responsibilities and seeking out his counsel. This was a problem when Adams became president. Hamilton was used to having older statesmen seek out and agree with his opinions, but Adams found this aspect of Hamilton insolent. Hamilton found Adams’s snubbing of him, that he wasn’t grateful for his opinions, to be degrading.

They were also both really bad at compromising when they believed themselves to be in the right opinion, they were both extraordinarily indiscreet, very vain, and both seemed to have a sort of “fuck this I’m going to blow this mother up” mentality when things got to their boiling points rather than keep level headed. 

Now had they both sat down and actually got it all out with one another, I think things might have turned out for the better. But Adams always aimed his hatred of Hamilton to anyone who wasn’t Hamilton, meaning Hamilton was getting all of this info from his friends who were telling him that Adams was saying all of these terrible things about him (that he’s an agent of the British, constant snipes at his illegitimacy, etc.) that Adams would refuse to admit or source; Adams had been much the same with Benjamin Franklin. Which was a bit of a core difference: Hamilton’s hypersensitivity made him start issuing challenges when he was insulted; Adams stewed on abuse for years before confronting it via a third party (he didn’t respond to Hamilton’s pamphlet against him until nine years later, five years after Hamilton’s death when Hamilton couldn’t counter). 

There was also things about Hamilton that Adams just found morally repugnant. He, of course, found his adultery to be a sign of weak character, tho later used this as an excuse to believe the worst in Hamilton whenever he heard - or made - an amorous story about him (Timothy Pickering said Adams collected such stories obsessively). He also had huge hangups about Hamilton’s illegitimacy, basically believing that good fathers produced good sons, and because Hamilton was born a bastard, he was exempt from ever being capable of good character. 

Tbh it’s really tragic that Adams and Hamilton just constantly assumed the worst of each other because if they had been capable of working together, things nationwide might have had better outcomes in the long run. 

I realized that a lot of my FRUS headcanons revolve around their relationship becoming more established in the late 19th/early 20th century so I decided to summarize some of their history in that time frame as I interpret it relating to the characters. I wrote most of this from memory so I apologize if I miss anything major/over-simplify anything here.

  • France’s 3rd Republic was established in 1870, after decades of on-and-off political turmoil & numerous changes in governments. Relations between the US and France had been tense on several occasions since the American Revolution, but they still would refer to their alliance as unbroken in later years & have touted the fact that they’ve never been at war with each other since America became independent (because they both collectively act like the quasi-war didn’t happen; Francis was in a pretty bad mental place at the time so they likely wrote it off due to that; same with Alfred and the tension that arose during the American Civil War)
  • France & America became increasingly close once the 3rd Republic was established. America tended to view France as a ~bastion of democracy in Europe~, and therefore started favoring France over other European allies in a lot of ways.
  • The Statue of Liberty was presented to America to commemorate the US centennial.
  • They were definitely huge drama queens about being ~beacons of liberty and democracy~.
  • America was experiencing rapid industrialization & economic growth at a rate that was probably shocking to the European nations, making America an increasingly attractive trade/political partner.
  • The Spanish-American War occurred in 1898, in which America picked a fight with Spain and then took a bunch of his colonies, effectively ending the Spanish Empire. (America then turned around and granted Cuba independence, even though Cuba actually wanted to become a US state. They remained close allies until the Cuban Revolution.) This is the point when the Europeans collectively said “holy crap when did that American kid become so strong”.
  • Going into the 20th century, America & France were also engaging in a lot of collaboration/exchange of ideas in the development of film, aviation, etc. I really feel like they would have bonded a lot over film, and I tend to view film history as a very big part of Alfred bc of the way that American cinema has affected cultural consciousness)
  • By the turn of the century, America would have been interacting with European nations way more than ever before. Not just because they would have been more invested in developing their relationships with him do to the way he was growing into a world power, and because of the large influxes of immigrants that America was experiencing, but also because travel and communication between Europe & North America advanced considerably. During the American Revolution, it took an average of 3 months to sail from France to the US. By 1912, it took an average of 7 days. The first transatlantic telephone call was from the US to France in 1915.
  • America was understandably reluctant to get involved in WWI because it was a hot mess & even England would have stayed out of it if France and Russia hadn’t threatened to kick his ass if he rescinded on his alliance with them.
  • However, there was a not insignificant public sentiment that America should be helping France, and America would try to provide aid to them in whatever ways he could get away with while maintaining his neutrality. When America did get involved in the war, it was very much framed as “going to help France specifically” because America was wary of monarchists. There was a lot of rhetoric about “repaying the debt to Lafayette” & standing by France due to the history of their alliance. 
  • America showed up to WWI not knowing his way around Europe for shit and getting lost a lot, but he was also overzealous and full of energy. America’s arrival caused the trench warfare to finally shift into a mobile war, pushing the Germans out of France & being a bit more rough with the Germans than was strictly necessary in the process. England was super bitter about America taking so much control over the Allied war efforts.
  • American soldiers were very popular with French women so I am 100% about Francis fawning over Alfred for being so tall and buff and rich
  • Based on the literature from this period, I tend to imagine that America stuck around in Paris for a while after the end of WWI, with he and France trying to cope with their mutual PTSD from WWI by spending a lot of time drinking and smoking and seeing films together, with Alfred writing angsty novels while Francis draws/paints.
  • I headcanon that Alfred went full Jay Gatsby mode in the 1920s, throwing a lot of big parties to show off his money & generally being wildly overindulgent. I also imagine that Francis very much enjoyed those parties & having someone to drink excessive amounts of champagne with.
  • As WWII started, America was once again reluctant to get involved in a war, but also very much wanted to be able to help France, and would emphasize that to rationalize having to ally himself with dirty monarchists & commies. Even though America declared war on Japan before anyone else, he made “liberating France” his #1 priority. America was eager to rush into France but England basically had to hold him back, and throughout their time in North Africa & Italy there was a lot of tension between England and America over who got to call the shots, with England insisting that they take a more cautious approach in fighting the Germans.
  • Not gonna get into Cold War-era stuff yet because this post is long, ask me in a couple weeks

Real talk: Why isn’t there more fanart of Kingdom Hearts characters visiting Notre Dame? Or more wishes for Notre Dame to be in KH3?

I want Quasi to talk about the difficulty to forgive someone to Sora about Terra.

I want to see Mickey getting inspired by the beautiful architecture of Notre Dame for his own world.

I want Clopin to give advice.

I want Quasi to make wooden statues of the seven weilders of light.

I want to see Riku have another emotional discussion in Notre Dame like he did in DDD.

I want Sora to mention the upcoming Keyblade War to Quasi whom then offers prayer for their protection and safe return.

I want “God Help The Outcasts” to be the background music for Notre Dame.

I want Quasi to kick out Xehanort because he’s disrupting church service.

I want Quasi to show Lea, Roxas, and Xion the view from Notre Dame’s rooftops.

I want Quasi’s light to be strong enough to keep Notre Dame safe from the heartless/darkness.

I want the emotional gravity of Hunchback to be in KH3.

Just give us more Hunchback for KH3 please!

Originally posted by disney-doll

Hamilton fans help me out ...

I’ve not seen the show, I just have the album. But does the show skip the Quasi War with France? Where Hamilton, as head of the army, was making plans to invade Louisiana and Florida. His critics say he was planning a coup to make himself dictator, while his supporters say Hamilton was just trying to defend America’s interests with war looming with France and Spain. 

This is something I’ve read about before in Joseph J. Ellis’ First Family: Abigail and John Adams. Ellis, who won the Pulitzer for Founding Brothers, thought Hamilton was serious in his vision of an American Empire with him as it’s dictator. 

Whatever Hamilton’s real views were, this is what ended his tenure in the Adams administration. It was depicted in the John Adams mini-series (made by Tom Hooper, who also directed the film version of Les Mis). See clip in the link below (this video has embedding disabled):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaWBs46USqE

So does the Quasi War with France get completely skipped over in the musical?

anonymous asked:

What was the XYZ affair and what was the significance?

XYZ Affair

date: 1797

who: John Adams, Charles Talleyrand, Agents X, Y, & Z, France, United States

aftermath: Quasi-War

During 1797, problems were arising between the Republic of France and the United States. In an attempt to avoid further conflict and possibly war, President John Adams sent three American diplomats to France to participate in formal negotiations with the French. However, when the American diplomats arrived in France, they were informally approached by agents of the French Foreign Minister, Charles Talleyrand, who demanded bribes and the like. While these “shady” forms of diplomacy were somewhat common in Europe, they were improper according to American diplomacy etiquette, and so the American diplomats were greatly offended and left France immediately without ever making it to the formal French negotiations. The American people were generally offended, and the Federalist party took advantage of this opportunity to increase the U.S. military power. This ultimately led to the undeclared Quasi-War (1798-1800), fought between France and the United States. 

Hope this helped a bit :)

- Madison

There’s still people who see Alexander Hamilton as a Slytherin, and because this is obviously serious business, I felt the need to explain why Hamilton is historically Gryffindor.

Let’s look at the dominant traits of the two houses:

Gryffindor: bravery, chivalry, courage, daring.
Slytherin: cunning, ambition, self-preservation, power

Lots of people stick Hamilton into Slytherin because he was ambitious. I’ll readily grant he was that, but if that trait were the single qualifying factor, then all the Founders would be sorted into Slytherin, since they were all ambitious little shits. People also give him more credit for cunning than he deserves. Certainly he tried to be the mastermind behind his party, to get things done behind the scenes to help things run more smoothly. But he wasn’t particularly good at it. Everyone knew which political pamphlets were his, despite using pseudonyms. No matter what Adams thought, Hamilton was never successful in maneuvering elections to his desired outcome. Rather than seek compromise and appeal across the board, Hamilton preferred to talk his enemies to death about why he was right and they were wrong. So while he may have wanted to be a good politician, he really wasn’t one.

People sometimes forget that the Sorting Hat also takes into account what house you prefer based on what personal traits you hold most dear. And, Hamilton, above all (above his family, his job, &c.) valued honor. And linked to this, I cannot imagine a Founder who lacked self-preservation more than he did, both in what was good for his career and what was good for his very life.

Take, for instance, his relationship with Washington. Hamilton almost severed probably the most crucial partnership of his career over a minor rebuke. A Slytherin would have gravitated to and above all court someone as powerful and influential as Washington (or at least someone his equal), but through Hamilton’s own admission, he was always something of an ice queen to the general, keeping him at arm’s length and refusing to satisfy the role of son that Washington seemed to expect of him, at least until shortly before Washington’s death.

This was also the guy who wrote not one, but two career-ruining pamphlets, something I cannot imagine a Slytherin doing. In the first, he had allowed his chivalric weakness of helping beautiful women in distress to get him caught in a honeytrap with Maria Reynolds. When it was revealed in the papers, along with accusations that it was a cover-up for insider trading, Hamilton, rather than just ignoring it as would have been better for his reputation, countered the charge of speculation with a 95-page pamphlet detailing his adultery, so his public honor could be saved. In the second instance, Hamilton was willing to blow up his political party, that which gave him a stepping stone into power, because Adams was mean to him, had pricked his honor by accusing him of being a British sympathizer among other things, and he felt everyone should know that.

There was also, you know, the eleven affairs of honor, including one instance where he challenged an entire political party.

But as far as power, Hamilton’s ambition drove him to where he believed he could do the most good, not to where he could get the most dominance. He certainly liked having influence on people (which is what caused the rift between him and Adams when the latter didn’t appreciate that), but Hamilton by-and-large wanted fame. And not fame in the sense that he’s popular and everyone loves him, but the lasting fame that comes with doing good deeds for one’s country. Hamilton had turned down multiple opportunities for lasting power, declining positions in the Senate and as a Supreme Court justice, on top of never running for president. He never used his position as Treasury Secretary to make a single penny of personal profit, and refused to give his friends insider tips when they asked. Because he thought it was wrong. And Hamilton wanted to be a hero so bad, it’s what drove him to make and expand his army during the Quasi-War, because he would be seen as the general at the lead of an American empire.

So while Hamilton certainly had ambition in spades, he held the Gryffindor traits of bravery and chivalry in much higher regard than self-preservation and power for the sake of power. He distrusted people who adapted themselves to whatever political purposes suited their interests - it’s what caused his riff with Aaron Burr (an actual Slytherin for those who want a comparison). Like Adams (another Gryffindor imo), Hamilton was so fixed to his principles he was willing to argue in favor of unpopular legislation at the expense of his own popularity multiple times. So while Slytherin might be his secondary house, Hamilton was such a Gryffindor, it hurts.

One relationship I really think the Hamilton musical hits out of the ballpark is Alexander’s relationship to Washington.  Besides the obvious emotionally frought surrogate father issues going on, I am very impressed by how Miranda walked the line to portray Hamilton as Washington’s indispensable right hand, and NOT as some (*cough*Jeffersonian*cough*) historians would have it, a puppet-master.  I mean, that theory is nodded to in “Washington on Your Side”, but it’s clearly Jefferson’s view rather than objective reality being expressed.

My own reading of history, when you compare the policies of the Washington Administration to what Hamilton pushed for as leader of the Federalist Party and acting-Senior Officer of the Army during the Adams administration (Quasi-War with France, Alien and Sedition Acts), is that Washington was actually a moderating force and rather than doing whatever Hamilton wanted, we only KNOW about the stuff he approved, because Hamilton didn’t bring up anything Washington didn’t approve publically.  Effectively meaning, Washington always agreed with Hamilton’s position in Cabinet meetings because those were the positions he’d already green-lit Hamilton to push for him.  If that hadn’t been the case, Hamilton would have been arguing for forging an alliance with England against the French Republic pretty much as soon as Robespierre came to power and Lafyette had fled - as opposed to the Washington-approved position of neutrality.

Which is not to say that all the positions were purely Washington’s and Hamilton was a mouthpiece - the debt assumption and bank were doubtless Hamilton’s creation, but he only fought for them because Washington had approved it behind closed doors.

The musical gets this right with Washington’s farewell address as well.  Yes, Hamilton wrote it.  Because Hamilton was a writer and Washington was not (George is in fact one of the only Founding Fathers not to have been a journalist or academic).  But like any good Presidential speech-writer, it was still his President’s sentiments and intent he was writing under the President’s guidance.

Why I Find the Sedition Acts Funny

Since my latest list of history anecdotes includes the Sedition Acts I’ve gotten some questions. I probably shouldn’t of put them on the top moments in American history but hey it’s too late now.

I don’t find the Acts themselves funny, because they infringed on the 1st amendment, which is not cool. It’s more the over simplification/absurdity of the entire thing, because everyone tends to boil the Acts down to John Adams being salty, which he was, but that’s beside the point. They are a whole lot more complicated, and Adams wasn’t really that supportive of them but they passed in the legislator, and he signed them because he wasn’t really opposed to them either. Remember, the country was sort-of-not-quite at war with France, and he wanted to foster unity among the people (which wouldn’t happen because the Quasi War is complicated). It was the wrong way to go about it. I laugh at the oversimplification of the reasons why they were passed.

Another thing. The Sedition Acts led to the arrest of James Callendar (? Spelling idk), the journalist who broke the Reynolds scandal and was paid by Jefferson to dig/dish the dirty on political opponents. Anyway, he was arrested bc of the Acts and spent nine months in jail, and after he got out he went to Jefferson to get compensation or something (I can’t remember, but that’s not the point), but Jefferson snubbed him and gave him fifty bucks. So Callendar got pissed and went to a federalist paper in Richmond, where he published the details of Jefferson’s “affair” with Sally Hemings and revealed that Jefferson had paid him off for gutter journalism. So because of the Sedition Acts Jefferson was fucked over in history.

Theories about Gun by CHVRCHES as ACOMAF Ending Song

@highfae-of-brooklyn has done a great analysis, and I just want to add some thoughts:

1. I’m 100 percent sure this is not referring to Rhysand.  Besides the fact that it would destroy the mating mythology SJM has weaved into both books, the reviews that have come out so far make no mention of a romantic betrayal of this magnitude for Feyre at the end of ACOMAF.  The comments have been:

Keep reading