Articles

Thomas Hamilton

Thomas Hamilton



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Thomas Hamilton was born in New Cummock on 10th February, 1893. He played local football before joining Kilmarnock in the Scottish League.

In 1920, Preston's manager, Vincent Hayes, signed Hamilton, an outstanding full-back, for a fee of £3,100.

Preston North End did very well in the FA Cup in 1921. Led by veteran defender, Joseph McCall, the club defeated Newcastle United (3-1), Barnsley (3-0), Arsenal (2-1) and Tottenham Hotspur (2-1) on the way to the final against Huddersfield Town. Preston lost to the only goal of the game, a penalty conceded by Hamilton. It was awarded after Hamilton tripped Huddersfield's outside-left Billy Smith. Hamilton admitted the offence but claimed it was outside the penalty area.

After the retirement of Joseph McCall, Hamilton became captain of Preston North End. Despite the goals from Tommy Roberts, Preston struggled in the league. The club finished 19th (1919-20), 16th (1920-21), 16th (1921-22), 16th (1922-23) and 18th (1923-24).

Tommy Roberts signed for Burnley in 1924. In the previous five seasons he had scored 118 goals in 199 games. His former club missed his goals and in the first season without him finished in 21st place in the league and were relegated.

Hamilton remained as captain of Preston North End until he left to join Manchester Central in 1928. During his time at the club he played in 267 games.

Thomas Hamilton died in 1959.


Who was Thomas Hamilton? The evil Dunblane massacre murderer behind Britain’s deadliest shooting

LORRAINE Kelly presents Return to Dunblane tonight ahead of the 25th anniversary of the horrific gun massacre.

Thomas Hamilton shot dead 16 children and their teacher as they took part in a PE lesson at Dunblane Primary School, near Stirling on March 13, 1996.

The 43-year-old killer then took his own life following the atrocity.

The Dunblane massacre remains the deadliest mass shooting in Britain's history and the Snowdrop Campaign following the tragedy led to tighter gun control.


Just about everyone in Hamilton owned slaves

There are a few glancing mentions of slavery in Hamilton, but in general, the subject is largely ignored. In fact, as Oprah Magazine notes, when the filmed performance debuted on Disney+, controversy erupted over this, with some arguing for the play to be "canceled" over these omissions.

The fact is, just about every major character in the musical — including our first president, George Washington — owned slaves. Attitudes varied a great deal, and many of these men spoke out against the institution and freed the slaves in their households (as Washington did toward the end of his life), but the simple fact remains that no one in the musical was free of the stain of slavery, including Hamilton himself.

Although Miranda writes Hamilton to emphasize his abolitionist beliefs, as Esquire reports, those beliefs were very mild. Hamilton never directly owned slaves, but he traded slaves, buying and selling them for others. And he married into the Schuyler family, which owned slaves. And although he belonged to at least one organization which aimed to abolish the slave trade, and Miranda's lyrics work hard to suggest otherwise, Hamilton actually did almost nothing in his otherwise very energetic career to end the practice. In fact, the only person who gets shade for his slave-owning is Thomas Jefferson, who Miranda uses as a villain in the story.


The life and death of Thomas Watt Hamilton

Article bookmarked

Find your bookmarks in your Independent Premium section, under my profile

Once he was dead, everyone knew how to sum up Thomas Hamilton. He was a lone mad-man in the Lee Harvey Oswald mould an obsessive misfit who bottled up his paranoid resentment until he was ready to write himself into the national consciousness with other people's blood.

The boys whom he ordered to strip and run around in swimming trunks laughed at him behind his back and called him Mr. Creepy. The scores of adults he knew in Dunblane recognised his weirdness and nicknamed him Spock. His podgy face and insinuating voice had made their flesh crawl, they said.

Even if they had not heard the rumours about Hamilton and his boys' camps which had been going on for 25 years, people in Dunblane suspected that something was wrong. And to his neighbours in Kent Road, Stirling, he stood out in the poor but friendly street as a man with little to say. George Smart said he had not got a word out his neighbour in two years. He would see him walking by dressed in the classic nerd's anorak, head down, hands shoved into pockets.

Many other Kent Road residents, who occasionally looked through Hamilton's windows and saw the disturbing (but not blatantly pornographic) pictures of boys in swimming trunks covering his walls, painted similar portraits.

There was one exception: Cathleen Kerr, a pensioner who lives opposite the Hamilton home and was the nearest thing he had to a friend in the neighbourhood. He called round for coffee and always made kind inquiries about the health of her sick husband, Peter. Mrs Kerr knew a different Hamilton, a "quietly spoken, well dressed and placed" Hamilton. And as for the anorak the other neighbours mocked, well, she said, he "always wore a collar and tie underneath".

As the investigations into the life of Thomas Hamilton developed, it slowly became possible to recognise the man that Mrs Kerr knew. The Mr Creepy figure did not disappear, but he acquired an extra dimension. For the man who killed 16 children and their teacher in Dunblane Primary School- and who would have murdered two more teachers and 12 more children if his aim had been surer - was not simply a deranged loner. He had his collar-and-tie moments, his respectable moments, when he could be persuasive and deploy an unctuous charm.

He was only 22 when he was given the grievance that festered inside him for the rest of his life: his dismissal from the 4/6 Stirling District Scouts on the grounds that he was not suitable to be a troup leader. Convinced from that moment that people were seeing him as a pervert, Hamilton fought a running battle with officialdom for the next 21 years. And most of the time the misfit easily saw off all the police and bureaucrats.

Four Scottish police forces investigated Hamilton after parents made at least 12 complaints or accusations. Each time detectives failed to find a case that would stand up in court. Central Regional Council tried to stop him holding his boys' club meeting in Dunblane High School in the early 1980s. He forced it to back down.

Hamilton was not merely lucky, he was clever enough to organise support. The local government ombudsman for Scotland, gun-club managers, gun-shop owners, the police officers who approved gun certificates, councillors and parents all came to his aid. The rumours never went away, but Hamilton dared his accusers to come into the open. Convinced that "sinister" Scout officials were spreading rumours, he hand-delivered a letter to Dunblane parents last year proclaiming his innocence.

Hamilton may have been obsessed with real or imagined enemies but he was not frightened of them. The support he was able to raise should not be mistaken for affection. Many people in Stirling, Dunblane and the other towns and cities of Central Scotland where Hamilton ran clubs believed that he was the victim of unsubstantiated gossip.

Francis Saunders, a retired Stirling councillor who helped Hamilton when the local authority tried to kick his boys' club out of Dunblane schools in 1983, cast a bleak backward glance after the murders. "I saw him in the street about once a month for 10 years and he was always complaining," he said. "I never got the impression that he was concealing misconduct. He did have an ingratiating, almost oily manner but I put that down to the buffetings he received."

Mr Saunders took the view that Hamilton was innocent until proved guilty and so did dozens of others. When he was wearing his tie, Thomas Hamilton's enthusiasm for turning boys into athletes and his insistent denials of guilt could be very convincing indeed.

Hamilton's childhood was not the normal background of a white-collar man. Shame, deception and, possibly, hatred were the dominant emotions in his family. His grandparents pretended to be his parents and his mother pretended to be his sister. No one has yet said when Hamilton discovered the truth about the peculiar arrangements his family made to avoid embarrassment in a more censorious age.

His mother, Agnes, was born in 1931, the illegitimate daughter of a widow, Rachel Hamilton. To prevent a scandal, the baby was given away to a childless couple who were relatives. James and Catherine Hamilton looked after Agnes until she was 19 when she fell in love with Thomas Watt, a bus driver. They married in Bridge Church, Glasgow in 1950. On 10 May 1952, their son Thomas was born. Eighteen months later, the father ran off with another woman and a second "scandal" was hushed up. Agnes went back to her adoptive parents.

James and Catherine adopted Thomas as their child. His mother became his "older sister". Agnes Hamilton is still alive. She has made only one comment since the shooting. "He seemed to get on with everyone I know of,” she said. “I know he had pictures of boys when they went out camping and things like that but I never thought he was capable of anything like this."

Thomas Watt, the father, is 65 and last week was anxious to deny responsibility for the child he abandoned. He said that he had had no idea whether his son was dead or alive until the killings. "I didn't want to know, I had my new family to think about. People who know me know I'm a good man. I don't want to be associated with Thomas Hamilton in any way. I need counselling."

James, the "grandfather", is now 88. He lived in the Bridge Road flat with Thomas Hamilton until he walked out in 1992. Neighbours say Thomas regularly humiliated the old man he urinated in his drinks, they claim, and pushed him around. All Mr Hamilton would say was that Thomas "wanted everything his own way and I got fed up and left him to it". The two men had not spoken in four years.

Some Crimes are so pitiless they appear beyond comprehension. Last week, nobody could help asking "why?” Yet Thomas Watt Hamilton made sure that everyone would know his reasons for massacring the children. The complexities and misfortunes of his family were not among them.

Last Wednesday, with a calculation that suggest he carefully planned the slaughter, he posted copies of letters explaining his grievances to BBC Scotland, The Scotsman and the enemies whom he thought had branded him a pervert. Only then did he pick out four of the six guns that British law allowed him to own and set off for Dunblane Primary.

The 14 A4 pages of letters and circulars date from March 1992 to a few days before the killing. They were addressed to Dunblane parents, the Queen, council officials and Michael Forsyth, the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are well written and, in the words of David Vass, Assistant Scout Commissioner for Stirling, "utterly bewildering". Dr Vass was on the murderer's mailing list because of Hamilton's dismissal from the scouts, the letters' main theme. Scout leaders in Dunblane were "jealous" of the success of his boys' clubs, Hamilton told the Queen. They were spreading rumours that he was a pervert the whispers had "over the past 20 years of youth work caused me untold damage". Their lies, Hamilton alleged, had been passed to councillors, social workers and the police. One letter he copied just before the killings had originally been sent to Mr Forsyth in March 1993. In it, he told the minister that "the horrific murder of James Bulger" by two boys made the work his Boys' Sports Club Committee did to instil "good discipline" all the more important. It was outrageous, he said, that he was a victim of a "sinister witch-hunt" which was alarming parents and destroying his youth group.

Dr Vass is bewildered because the reason why the young Hamilton was expelled from the Scouts in 1974 was so trivial that 99 people in 100 would make a joke about it in their middle age if it had happened to them.

The Scottish Scout Association is adamant that there was no hint at the time that the Scouts believed Hamilton was molesting boys. Nothing was said which could somehow infuriate a repressed homosexual. Nor, the Scouts added, was there any public disgrace. Hamilton was asked to resign quietly and without fuss simply because he was an incompetent leader.

He had led two camping trips to Aviemore in the Highlands. On the first he told the parents of eight boys that there was a hostel for their sons. No hostel had been booked and the boys ended up spending a cold night in the back of a van. ON the second expedition, boys got tired and cold when they were told to dig snow holes. Parents complained to Comrie Deuchars, the then scout organiser in Stirling, and the young Hamilton was asked to go.

In his letters, Hamilton is not consistent about the identity of the imagined villain. He told Buckingham Palace that it was Mr Deuchars who had made up the story that "I was a pervert, which was passed to the public in an underhand manner". Yet Dr Vass received mail identifying him as the villain and Mr Deuchars as a friend of Hamilton's.

Oddly, when Hamilton and his grandfather moved to Kent Road in 1983, they went into a flat directly underneath Mr Deuchars' family home. "I must admit that when I saw him get out of the removal van my heart sank," said Mr Deuchars. "I thought 'Oh My God, what have I done to deserve this?' But he was always very civil to me. When I was cutting the lawn he'd bring me cups of coffee. I wonder now that if he somehow saw me as the cause of all of this, why didn't he take me out on Wednesday morning instead of the kiddies in Dunblane?"

But Hamilton did not "take him out". Last Wednesday, like a good neighbour, he collected a morning paper for the former scout leader and posted it through the Deuchars' letter box before the travelled the seven miles to Dunblane Primary School.

In one twisted sense, Hamilton was right to worry about the Scouts. As he set up his independent boys' athletics clubs in school gyms, he used to cite his former position in the Scouts as evidence that he was a responsible organiser. He did not reveal, of course, that he had been thrown out for thoughtlessness and muddle.

In the prosperous and pretty town of Dunblane, opinions are formed and characters are judged on the golf course and at private parties, not in formal meetings. Dr Vass said he was always being asked to "wine and cheese social occasions" about why Hamilton had left the Scouts. He could never give a full answer because he did not know it- he only moved to the town and started helping the Scouts in 1978, but that did not stop people asking and did not stop Hamilton making him out as a rumour-monger.

One evening in December 1984 he arrived at Dr Vass's house to confront him, carrying a brown bag. "He was very intense, he accused me of maligning him. After 10 minutes I asked him to leave what he was saying was just wrong. He reached into his bag and turned off a tape recorder.

"All this week I've been asking myself if there was something more I could have done to warn people. But there was nothing. We did not know anything concrete until it was too late. All people here knew were rumours at the mutter level."

Many in Dunblane and Stirling did not like that mutterings. Between 1981 and 1984 the council made a sustained and serious attempt to get Hamilton and his club out of Dunblane schools. Yet it was defeated by parents and by Eric Gillett, the then local government ombudsmen for Scotland.

Formally, the club for 70 nine-to 16-year-old boys was ordered out of the High School because the council education department claimed that it had been misled into thinking that Hamilton was still connected with the Scouts. But the real reason, the ombudsmen found, was that council officers had heard "assertions" about Hamilton's character. No one was prepared to go on the record and make a concrete accusation.

Mr Gillett was contemptuous of the council's decision to close a youth club on the strength of rumours which were so "vague" they should "have been heavily discounted". Hamilton's treatment was unfair and unjust and the council was told to drop its ban.

Parents were just as angry on Hamilton's behalf. Seventy of them signed a petition in 1983 claiming that he was the "victim of malicious back-stabbing". Even the elected councillors were uneasy about their officers' behaviour. One told the Scotsman in 1983 that the affair "left a nasty taste in the mouth. At the end of the day all we had was a rumour."

Faced with this coalition, the council surrendered and let the club back into the school. Hamilton was still unhappy. He claimed that his kitchen-fitting business, which relied on orders from the Dunblane area, had been destroyed by the hint of scandal.

In Dunblane last week, there were many parents who understood why so many people could trust Hamilton. Penny King's son Michael went to the club when he was six. The English woman who had moved to Dunblane to escape the stresses of city life was quickly told about "Spock". She went to the club to confront Hamilton, but was instead reassured. "He told me that people had been talking behind his back for years," she said. "He left me feeling ashamed for believing tosh. My son was happy playing with his friends and in the end I did not see why I should stop him."

It is natural to assume that a mass child murderer with a long record of suspicious behaviour and pictures of half-naked boys on his wall is also a paedophile. But it is possible that Hamilton was not a systematic child abuser certainly he was never convicted.

Dave Norris, who knew Hamilton for 10 years, said he struck him as harmless. "It just seemed to me he wanted to give boys the childhood he never had. I couldn't believe it when I heard what this articulate, educated man had done."

To date there has been one accusation of serious abuse of a boy from a mother in Aberdeen. All other parents and former members of the boys' club told merely of strange behaviour.

George Robertson, the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, who lives in Dunblane, sent his eldest son to Hamilton's club. He heard the rumours and went to the High School. "I didn't like what I saw," he said. "There were lots of little boys there all stripped to the waist and Tom Hamilton and his cohorts all swaggering around. It was like something out of the Hitler Youth. I took Malcolm away".

Typically, instead of just accepting Mr Robertson's decision, Hamilton came round to the MP's home and demanded to know if he was making accusations against him. Mr Robertson also received angry visits from supporters of Hamilton. Looking back, the MP used the word on everyone's lips in Dunblane. He had no proof against Hamilton he was just "uneasy".

Colin Louden, now 30, remembers going to the club as a child and playing snooker and pool and learning how to fire pistols. Again, he had no direct experience of abuse. "There were some boys he was very familiar with his favourites if you like who we would call teacher's pet. They would go off on camps with him and seemed to be sworn to secrecy they got back."

The camps were held on an island in Loch Lomond. Parents have told how boys had to hand in their clothes and were dressed in baggy swimming trunks. One claimed that Hamilton made boys rub him with sun lotion.

It is clear that Hamilton convinced himself that he was behaving properly. Nothing in his behaviour suggests that he believed he had guilty secrets which must be hidden from the world.

The pictures of bare-chested boys on his walls could be seen by anyone looking in his window a woman neighbour was shown his collection of videos of boys running around his Loch Lomond camp as if they were the most natural thing in the world for a youth leader to film.

Hamilton explained to anyone who questioned him that he had a mission. It was his job to instil old-fashioned discipline. Children had to be stopped from turning into "thugs, scum and vandals" like the boys who killed James Bulger.

He had an absolute confidence in his own position. Time and again he confronted people he thought were calling him a pervert. He sent his remarkable circular letter to the parents of Dunblane, denouncing scout officials he said were spreading rumours about him.

When the police investigated him, he complained to Mr Forsyth about a witch-hunt. He demanded an apology from the Central Regional Council after he heard or convinced himself that teachers near Stirling were warning pupils to have nothing to do with him.

Both Mr Robertson and Dr Vass got the impression that Hamilton wanted the opportunity to sue them for slander. Both had no evidence to defend themselves in court. As Mr Saunders the councillor who helped Hamilton beat off the attempt to bar him from Dunblane schools, said, he did not behave like a man with something to hide.

Yet for all his aggressive certainty, Hamilton may have had the feeling that his enemies were closing in. The police refuse to comment about their investigations into Hamilton until the inquiry is over - which allows them to avoid for now awkward questions about their decision to repeatedly renew his gun licence. Others, however, are speaking out.

One mother said she handed the police a dossier in 1988 and they followed it up by raiding the Loch Lomond camp. No prosecution followed. By the early 1990s, photography shops in Stirling were refusing to develop Hamilton's pictures of boys at Loch Lomond. They said they were obscene, but the police said they were not obscene enough for a prosecution.

In 1992 Fife Council, which borders Dunblane, banned Hamilton from its schools after concern about the films he was making of boys. Two more police inquiries were made in 1993. Central Regional Council warned teachers to contact its legal department before dealing with Hamilton. IN 1994, he was cautioned by police after being caught behaving indecently with a young man in Edinburgh. In the months before the murders, a gun club refused to let Hamilton join. Two members knew him and said the club should have nothing to do with him.

Was it the mounting pressure that caused Hamilton to snap? We do not really know. Mr Norris, who knew him as well as anyone, said he had recently undergone a transformation. "He became a changed man, someone I did not recognise."

In the coming months there will be many attempts to explain the change that came over Hamilton, that drove him to an unprecedented act of savagery. Last week, though information was still scarce, theories abounded. Yet even the best-informed explanations can only go so far.

Canon Kenyon Wright, who was a minister in Dunblane for many years, turned to Matthew II after the shootings and read: "A sound is heard in Ramah/the sound of bitter crying and weeping/Rachel weeps for her children/she weeps and will not be comforted/Because they are no more."

The Canon substituted Dunblane for Ramah and asked "why me? why us?" There is no one who can answer him.


Rev Thomas Hamilton

The Rev Thomas Hamilton had a rich and varied career. Born on 28 August 1842 he was a son of the manse, his father being the Rev David Hamilton (born near Ballynahinch in 1805 and married Eliza Weir of Banbridge) of York Street Presbyterian Church, Belfast, who became Moderator of the General Assembly in 1854. After graduating from Queen’s University with two first class honours degrees, a B.A. in 1863 and an M.A. in 1864, he also studied theology at Assembly’s College, Belfast.

Following his licensing by Belfast Presbytery in 1865 he was ordained in the same year to York Street, the same church that his father ministered in, but he retained contact with both Queen’s University where he served for a period as examiner in Botany and Zoology and with Assembly’s College where he examined in Greek and Biblical Criticism. During his ministry in York Street he continued to add to his academic qualifications – a D.D. in 1887 by the Presbyterian Theological Faculty, a second doctorate LL.D. by the Royal University of Ireland in 1891 and another D.D. by the University of Aberdeen.

It is not surprising then to learn that in 1889 he resigned from York Street and took up an appointment as President of Queen’s College, an association which lasted until his retirement in 1923. When Queen’s College became a university in 1908 he was appointed the first Vice-Chancellor, a position he held until his retirement. His achievements at Queen’s University are well documented in Moody and Beckett’s ‘Queen’s University of Belfast 1845-1949’. They tell of how he sought to increase government financial aid, how he organised local support, planned new buildings and took a leading part in the discussions for an independent university of Belfast which came to fruition in 1908 when the Irish Universities Act was passed when Queen’s College became Queen’s University. During his time at Queen’s the number of students more than doubled and it can be said that he laid the foundations of the modern university. Moody and Beckett record the following tribute – ‘He had many critics and some enemies but even the strongest and bitterest of them could not deny that the value of his services to Queen’s far outweighed his errors and that his very faults were those of a great man’.

The ultimate accolade to the Rev Hamilton came in 1921 when he was appointed a member of the Privy Council by King George V.

Much of his writing took place while he was minister of York Street Church. Following his father’s death he wrote a short account of his life ‘A Biographical Sketch of the Rev David Hamilton, Belfast’ (Belfast 1875) entitled ‘Faithful unto Death’. In the same year appeared ‘Irish Worthies: A Series of original Biographical Sketches of Eminent Ministers and Members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland’ (Belfast 1875) which the Rev Hamilton edited. His next publication ‘Our Rest Day’ (1885) won first prize in a competition organised by the Sabbath Alliance of Scotland and for which he received £100, a not inconsiderable amount of money in those days. He is perhaps best known for his ‘History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland’ (1886). The last of his publications was published in 1888 in response to those who attended his series of Sunday evening lectures – ‘Beyond the Stars’ - on the subject of heaven that draws together in popular language all that can be gathered together from the Bible about this subject. In respect of his talk on heaven he writes ‘men crowded in to hear about the heavenly home and with unflagging eagerness they drank in all that could be told about it’.

Besides his substantive published works he also wrote many articles for the ‘Dictionary of National Biography’.

He died in Belfast on 18 May 1926 at the age of 83 and is buried in Belfast City Cemetery.

This article is based on one written by the late Rev Douglas Armstrong in the Presbyterian Herald, July/August 1989.


Historian Annette Gordon-Reed would like to make clear that she likes “Hamilton,” the Broadway hip-hop musical phenomenon about Alexander Hamilton, which audiences and critics have adored and some scholars and writers have scorned.

But she would like to make clearer that she found the show problematic in its portrayals of Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Fathers, and the issue of slavery. The musical is based on Ron Chernow’s biography of Hamilton, who in Chernow’s view has been the most underrated and misunderstood of the Founding Fathers.

“A Broadway show is not a documentary,” said Gordon-Reed, a history professor in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences who also holds the Charles Warren Professorship of American Legal History at Harvard Law School and the Carol K. Pforzheimer Professorship at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study.

“Artists have the right to create,” she added, speaking last week at a student-sponsored event about the musical, “but historians have the right to critique.”

The show portrays Hamilton as a “young, scrappy, and hungry” immigrant (he was born on the Caribbean Island of Nevis, but qualified as a U.S. citizen when the Constitution was adopted), an egalitarian, and a passionate abolitionist. All of this is wrong, Gordon-Reed said.

“In the sense of the Ellis Island immigrant narrative, he was not an immigrant,” she said. “He was not pro-immigrant, either.

“He was not an abolitionist,” she added. “He bought and sold slaves for his in-laws, and opposing slavery was never at the forefront of his agenda.

“He was not a champion of the little guy, like the show portrays,” she said. “He was elitist. He was in favor of having a president for life.”

The musical simplifies and sanitizes history, said Gordon-Reed. “The Hamilton on the stage is more palatable and attractive to modern audiences,” she said.

Set amid the Revolution, the play fails to depict the central role played by slavery at that moment in history, and also neglects to mention that most of the Founding Fathers were slave owners.

“In the musical, only Jefferson is shown as a slave holder,” said Gordon-Reed, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2009 for her book on the family of Sally Hemings, slave and mistress to Jefferson. “But Madison owned slaves too, and so did George Washington.”

Although she praised the multiethnic portrayal of the Founding Fathers, she wondered whether the casting has helped “submerge” the issue of slavery. She also mused about how the play diverged from the efforts of historians who for the past 50 years have tried to bring a more complicated narrative to the era.

“It’s not a purely heroic narrative,” she said. “It’s not just celebration. The Founders accepted slavery as an institution.”

Still, she hopes the show’s popularity will serve as a catalyst for a renewed focus on early American history, both in schools and the wider culture. The show’s creator, Lin-Manuel Miranda, is a “genius,” she said.

But if one wants to find out who the real Hamilton is, insists Gordon-Reed, the answer is not on Broadway.


Thomas Hamilton of Darngaber

John Anderson claimed that Thomas Hamilton of Darngaber was the son of Sir John Hamilton of Cadzow and his wife Janet Douglas but he offered no prroof. He also claimed that it was Thomas Hamilton of Darngaber whose release from the Tower of London was ordered on 12 April 1413 but the published evidence does not make this clear. Hamilton Memoirs

In Heraldry of the Hamiltons, Walter Hamilton, third son of John Hamilton, is said to be progenitor of the Raploch line and Thomas Hamilton of Darngaber is said to be a servant of the family. Heraldry of the Hamiltons

Evidence from English Records

12 April 1413: The King commands the constable of the Tower of London to liberate from custody . Thomas of Hamylton. Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, 1357-1509, number 839 on p. 169

23 May 1424: Warrant for safe conducts to . Thomas of Hamylton. Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, 1357-1509, number 961 on pp. 195-96

3 December 1425: Warrant to the King's cousin the Bishop of Winchester, chancellor, for safe conducts till Midsummer next for the following . Thomas of Hamyltoun, John of Glasfurde of Welshehawe, servants of James of Hamyltoun. Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, 1357-1509, number 986 on p. 202


Thomas Hamilton Wiki, Biography, Net Worth, Age, Family, Facts and More

You will find all the basic Information about Thomas Hamilton. Scroll down to get the complete details. We walk you through all about Thomas. Checkout Thomas Wiki Age, Biography, Career, Height, Weight, Family. Get updated with us about your Favorite Celebs.We update our data from time to time.

BIOGRAPHY

Thomas F. Hamilton is a well known Celebrity. Thomas was born on July 28, 1894 in Seattle, Washington..Thomas is one of the famous and trending celeb who is popular for being a Celebrity. As of 2018 Thomas Hamilton is 75 years (age at death) years old. Thomas Hamilton is a member of famous Celebrity list.

Wikifamouspeople has ranked Thomas Hamilton as of the popular celebs list. Thomas Hamilton is also listed along with people born on July 28, 1894. One of the precious celeb listed in Celebrity list.

Nothing much is known about Thomas Education Background & Childhood. We will update you soon.

Details
Name Thomas Hamilton
Age (as of 2018) 75 years (age at death)
Profession Celebrity
Birth Date July 28, 1894
Birth Place Seattle, Washington
Nationality Seattle

Thomas Hamilton Net Worth

Thomas primary income source is Celebrity. Currently We don’t have enough information about his family, relationships,childhood etc. We will update soon.

Estimated Net Worth in 2019: $100K-$1M (Approx.)

Thomas Age, Height & Weight

Thomas body measurements, Height and Weight are not Known yet but we will update soon.

Family & Relations

Not Much is known about Thomas family and Relationships. All information about his private life is concealed. We will update you soon.

Facts

  • Thomas Hamilton age is 75 years (age at death). as of 2018
  • Thomas birthday is on July 28, 1894.
  • Zodiac sign: Leo.

-------- Thank you --------

Influencer Opportunity

If you are a Model, Tiktoker, Instagram Influencer, Fashion Blogger, or any other Social Media Influencer, who is looking to get Amazing Collaborations. Then you can join our Facebook Group named "Influencers Meet Brands". It is a Platform where Influencers can meet up, Collaborate, Get Collaboration opportunities from Brands, and discuss common interests.

We connect brands with social media talent to create quality sponsored content


18c. Growing Opposition


Thomas Jefferson supported the plan to build the young nation's capital along the Potomac River Alexander Hamilton disagreed with the selected site. Hamilton finally agreed to the idea when Jefferson pledged support for some of Hamilton's financial reforms.

The 1790s brought extraordinary divisions to the forefront of American life and politics. Strong differences about how best to maintain the benefits of the Revolution lay at the center of these conflicts. Hamilton's economic policies were among the earliest sources of tension. They sparked strong reactions not only from elected officials and ordinary farmers, but even split Washington's cabinet.

Thomas Jefferson, who was the secretary of state at the time, thought Hamilton's plans for full payment of the public debt stood to benefit a "corrupt squadron of paper dealers." To Jefferson, speculation in paper certificates threatened the virtue of the new American Republic. Even Madison, who had worked closely with Hamilton in co-authoring The Federalist Papers , thought the public debt repayment plan gave too big a windfall to wealthy financiers.

As a counter-measure Madison proposed that Congress should set aside some money for the original owners of the debts who tended to be ordinary Americans and not new investors and speculators.

On a pragmatic level Madison's idea would have been difficult to implement. Nearly half the members of Congress invested in public securities. They stood to benefit financially from Hamilton's plan. Its passage was doubly assured.


Many of Alexander Hamilton's economic policies were unpopular with people outside the northeast.

Hamilton's successful bid to charter a national Bank of the United States also brought strong opposition from Jefferson. Their disagreement about the bank stemmed from sharply opposed interpretations of the Constitution. For Jefferson, such action was clearly beyond the powers granted to the federal government. In his " strict interpretation " of the Constitution, Jefferson pointed out that the tenth amendment required that all federal authority be expressly stated in the law. Nowhere did the Constitution allow for the federal government to create a bank.

Hamilton responded with a " loose interpretation " that allowed such federal action under a clause permitting Congress to make "all Laws which shall be necessary and proper ."

Neither side was absolutely right. The Constitution needed interpretation . In this difference, however, we can see sharply contrasting visions for the future of the republic.


Thomas Jefferson opposed Alexander Hamilton's fiscal policies.

Opposition to Hamilton's financial policies spread beyond the cabinet. The legislature divided about whether or not to support the Bank of the United States. This split in Congress loomed as a potential threat to the union because northern representatives overwhelmingly voted favorably, while southerners were strongly opposed. The difference stemmed from significant economic differences between the sections. Large cities, merchants, and leading financiers were much more numerous in the north and stood to benefit from Hamilton's plans.

Keen observers began to fear that sharp sectional differences might soon threaten the union. Indeed, the Bank ultimately found support in Congress through a compromise that included a commitment to build the new federal capital on the banks of the Potomac River. In part this stemmed from the fact that southern states such as Virginia had already paid off their war debt and stood to gain nothing from a central bank. While most of the commercial beneficiaries of Hamilton's policies were concentrated in the urban northeast, the political capital of Washington, D.C. would stand in the more agricultural south. By dividing the centers of economic and political power many hoped to avoid a dangerous concentration of power in any one place or region.

The increasing discord of the early 1790s pointed toward an uncertain future. The Virginian Jefferson and the New Yorker Hamilton serve as useful figureheads for the opposing sides. While Hamilton was an adamant elitist whose policies favored merchants and financiers, Jefferson, though wealthy, favored policies aimed toward ordinary farmers.

Their differences also extended to the branch of government that each favored. Hamilton thought a strong executive and a judiciary protected from direct popular influence were essential to the health of the republic . By contrast, Jefferson put much greater faith in democracy and felt that the truest expression of republican principles would come through the legislature, which was elected directly by the people. Their differences would become even sharper as the decade wore on.


1 "I Survived, But I Paid For It."

Hamilton doesn't go into much depth about what happens to Aaron Burr after the duel. It simply mentions that he is the "villain in your history." A brief look at Aaron Burr's life after this incident will show that he truly did pay for it.

Burr's political career came crashing down and he was even forced to flee the US at a certain point. By not going into too many details, "The World Was Wide Enough" gives only a vague idea of the things that awaited Aaron Burr.


Watch the video: The Disturbing Case Of Thomas Hamilton. Dunblane Massacre. Tea and Crime (August 2022).