William Hogeland
@williamhogeland.bsky.social
280 followers 47 following 500 posts
Author of "The Hamilton Scheme" and other works. Blog at HOGELAND'S BAD HISTORY: [email protected]. Liberal--so I mostly criticize liberal discourse. Also, "roots" music.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
williamhogeland.bsky.social
This is an excellent distinction.
jonseidel.bsky.social
Perry: "You think that 'unable to execute the laws' doesn't mean 'unable to respond to legal violations.' It's 'unable to prevent legal violations.'"

Long pause from Hamilton, who eventually says the crime seen in Chicago "weights in favor of the president's conclusion."
williamhogeland.bsky.social
Finally: The judge was quoting from the Federalist. So much of what's in there is disingenuous. Hamilton was arguing here against opponents, in order to get NY to ratify; he wasn't actually analyzing the Constitution or expressing his convictions.
williamhogeland.bsky.social
(The PA militia was also involved--because the administration pressured the hell out of the opposition-party governor and he reluctantly acquiesced.)
williamhogeland.bsky.social
When they appeal, all they have to say is "he didn't just envision using other states' militias,"--they'll fudge the purpose, call her phrasing tendentious--"he did it!"
williamhogeland.bsky.social
We shouldn't be forced to go to history at all. It's the horrible legacy of Bruenn to deliberately confuse legal precedent with historical precedent. Don't fight on the enemy's chosen ground when you don't have to.
williamhogeland.bsky.social
The problem you run into is that the other side, seeking precedent in the founding for its heinous exercises of executive overreach, gets the history right: the first two administrations did a lot of that.
williamhogeland.bsky.social
The problem with getting this so wrong isn't that the judge doesn't have the history right. She shouldn't have to. It's an unforced error to go to the founding administration and get it wrong, because the other side is *always* going there for precedent. John Yoo did it.
williamhogeland.bsky.social
Hamilton literally led literally three other states' militias against the residents of western Pennsylvania--and one of his goals was to punish members of the party opposing Washington.
williamhogeland.bsky.social
Judge April Perry, getting it precisely wrong, when enjoining Trump: "Not even Alexander Hamilton could have envisioned one state's militia to be used against another state's residents because the president wants to punish those with views other than his own."
williamhogeland.bsky.social
This is a deeply disturbing article.
wsj.com
Compared to Dylan and Springsteen, country-music legend Johnny Cash can seem deeply uncool. It took time for me to appreciate his profound, plainspoken strength, writes Jon Fasman.
Essay | Can We Finally Give Johnny Cash His Due?
Compared to Dylan and Springsteen, the country-music legend can seem deeply uncool. It took time for me to appreciate his profound, plainspoken strength.
on.wsj.com
williamhogeland.bsky.social
What in the wide world of fuck is going on here.
williamhogeland.bsky.social
I'm not paying to read this thing, but above the paywall, this: "Cash went from the folk-rock scene back to country, a smaller sandbox..." So it's Opposite Day now?
williamhogeland.bsky.social
The writer isn't some kid. At fifty, he's decided to tell us that we should be taking Johnny Cash--Johnny Fucking Cash! who everybody's known as an icon this guy's whole life!--more seriously.
williamhogeland.bsky.social
"It’s Finally Time to Give Johnny Cash His Due"? What the Hell is this guy talking about?
williamhogeland.bsky.social
"can seem deeply uncool"
wsj.com
Compared to Dylan and Springsteen, country-music legend Johnny Cash can seem deeply uncool. It took time for me to appreciate his profound, plainspoken strength, writes Jon Fasman.
Essay | Can We Finally Give Johnny Cash His Due?
Compared to Dylan and Springsteen, the country-music legend can seem deeply uncool. It took time for me to appreciate his profound, plainspoken strength.
on.wsj.com
williamhogeland.bsky.social
Ah, I get it. "This article was adapted from Jeffrey Rosen’s new book, The Pursuit of Liberty: How Hamilton vs. Jefferson Ignited the Lasting Battle Over Power in America." Good grief. That stuff again?
williamhogeland.bsky.social
"History suggests that [Hamilton and Jefferson] were both right about the threats to popular sovereignty." No, it doesnt.
williamhogeland.bsky.social
"History suggests that [Hamilton and Jefferson] were both right about the threats to popular sovereignty." No, it doesnt.
williamhogeland.bsky.social
"Trump’s critics...see him as the second coming of Aaron Burr" (i.e., an Aaron Burr made up by Hamilton and others).
williamhogeland.bsky.social
... because of evidence like this obvious bullshit: "one of his associates testified that he had also hoped to enlist the Marine Corps in a plot to seize Washington, D.C. ('Hang him!' Burr reportedly said of President Jefferson.)"
williamhogeland.bsky.social
"During Burr’s eventual trial for treason..." (in which he was acquitted)
williamhogeland.bsky.social
Burr "offered his services to the British ambassador as the leader of an insurrectionist movement that would incite the western states to secede from the Union." He did in fact exercise very poor judgment here--trying to bamboozle money out of Britain, in fact for an invasion of Mexico.
williamhogeland.bsky.social
Just factually totally wrong here on a matter very simple to understand: "an account of Hamilton calling Burr a 'dangerous man' found its way into the newspapers. Burr demanded an apology."
williamhogeland.bsky.social
"Hamilton ... recognized in Burr [i.e., projected on him], a man who might become the American Caesar he’d foreseen."