i remember reading about james mchenry joking about notninviting hamilton when they are trying to get girls. I don’t know if i hallucinated it or it was indeed real, albeit i just misrembered it. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Hi, Anon!
Hm… unfortunately this doesn’t ring a bell for me. Realistically, I don’t see something like this having happened, but I could just not know something.
There are plenty of similar silly stories to be found among Washington’s staff though—if that would be up your alley.
A comedic romp through the American Revolution, this inventive new work unfolds as a lively staged reading.
I am intrigued by this play concept. I wonder if any of our favorite aides de camp will make an appearance or if they will bring it to additional cities in the future.
Francis Kinloch writing to Henry Laurens that Charleston will likely not be surrendered to the British after Charleston was already surrendered to the British
"I wish you were at liberty to transgress the bounds of Pensylvania. I would invite you after the fall to Albany to be witness to the final consummation. My Mistress is a good girl, and already loves you because I have told her you are a clever fellow and my friend; but mind, she loves you a l’americaine not a la françoise." - Alexander Hamilton to John Laurens, September 17, 1780
"God Bless you, & make you happy_ when you cease to be so in Europe, America, whose voice I undertake to be on the occasion, stretches out her arms_ my house shall be your's; in short I will share any thing with you but my wife_ who is too pretty for a Professor with his large wig_" - Francis Kinloch to Johannes von Müller, June 10, 1783
“May 1st was May Day, a traditional feast that celebrated the end of winter with drinks and songs. In Valley Forge every regiment erected a maypole, and bands of soldiers toured the camp with flowers in their hats, cheering each pole and being rewarded with glasses of rum. Elsewhere various games, such as ‘base,’ a forerunner of baseball, and wicket, a version of cricket, were soon in progress. Some officers, doubly inspired by May Day and the good news from France, spent the afternoon enjoying a bibulous barbecue on the banks of the Schuylkill. A fifer and a drummer played patriotic and sentimental tunes, which the celebrators bellowed into the sunshine. Not a few of them drank more than they could handle and noticed that the two musicians were giving them peculiar looks. One officer, Alexander Graydon of Pennsylvania, called their expressions ‘sneering.’”
Hello. Are there any surviving letters from John Laurens to either of his sisters?
Hello!
There are indeed, but just three that I'm aware of, and only to Martha.
There are two surviving letters from 1775 – 5 May and 31 August – and one from 29 May 1781 that @john-laurens made me aware of.
I don't have permissions to share the scan of the latter one, but I've included a transcript because it's very brief. For context, John returned to France in 1781 to sollicit financial and military aid from the French court and, by late May 1781, had embarked on a ship back for America. Unfavourable winds kept him in port for several days, during which time he wrote a flurry of letters – finally taking a moment to reply to his sister. It seems Martha had proposed a plan to travel to England and assist Henry in some way during his captivity in the Tower of London.
---
Brest 29th May 1781
I am upon the point of departure my sweet Friend and sister_ a moment only remans for me to repeat the tender assurances of my unalterable love, the ardent and incessant vows I offer to heaven for your preservation and happiness_ and the cruel regret I feel at quitting France without having the happiness of passing a moment with you, except in imagination_ Devoted to the service of my Country I submit to this sacrifice_ I love you the more for the patriotism which animates you when you speak of America_ in my separation from you, it is a consolation that I am serving our common mother_ & that our friendship cannot be affected by time place or circumstance_
I can’t express to you my surprise at your application to our minister plenipotentiary for a passport to go to England_ I hope that our dear friends my Uncle and Aunt will reconsider the matter and that your project will not take place_ it will have a very ill effect both in france and America_ in a public point of view_ and I do not conceive any good that can arrive from it to our dear and respectable father_
I entreat you to present all the expressions of tender friendship to them in my name, & accept all the wishes that a heart sincerely attached to you can form_ give my love to Polly_
Adieu_
John Laurens.
This is all pure typical John stuff, and it's a pretty stark show of how he prioritises his revolutionary idealism over even his closest family – I'm particularly struck by the reference to America as their "common mother", considering they did share an actual mother.
The life of John Laurens (1754-1782). PDF version.
Special thanks to @my-deer-friend and @john-laurens who have been so incredibly helpful and supportive through this project, and to @ciceroprofacto, whose amazing timelines and research inspired me.
This was a long-term, ongoing project that is sadly unfinished because the project files were tragically deleted. There are definitely parts that I wish I could rework and parts that are unfinished or blank (or perhaps even inaccurate), but I am proud of how it looks so far. I wanted to create this timeline infographic to have as reference, and now here it is for everyone as well!
*Images used in the public domain. The images used are listed chronologically and linked here.
Is there any evidence or indication that any of Laurens’ friends or just people outside of his family knew about his being married with a child prior to Hamilton finding out about it? Did he just not tell anyone at all (aside from his father and siblings)?
You seem to be generally unbothered by questions and are very informative so that’s why I ask you.
I am entirely unbothered by questions – just occasionally waylaid by [waves at rest of life], so if it takes me a while to get to it, that's probably why.
The only people that we have direct evidence of Laurens telling about his marriage are his father, uncle and father-in-law. One must assume that his siblings heard the news pretty quickly through the family grapevine, and the Manning family would obviously have witnessed the union. John and Martha moved to a house in Chelsea together, which would have been noted in their social circle. We also know, as @john-laurens has shared, that both Francis Kinloch and Gabriel Manigault knew about the marriage and visited Martha over 1777 and 1778 while they were in London. Other South Carolinians in their London circle, such as the Izards and Steads, were also present at some of these dinners. So, at least on one side of the Atlantic, word was getting around.
The same does not seem to be the case in America, but here we must lean a bit more on conjecture.
First, the fact that Hamilton – Laurens' closest friend and confidant – was suprised by the news indicates that this was not common knowledge in their very tightly knit military circle. It just seems inconceivable that it had never come up, especially when we see the kind of banter related to lovers and sweethearts that the aides regularly shared. So we must assume that Laurens was deliberately evasive or even outright dishonest about his marriage.
Second, we don't see a single mention of Martha in any correspondence directed to Laurens from his military colleagues – even in cases where we might expect to see wishes to family members included for politeness ("please send my regards to...") or offers to carry letters to her by those sailing for Europe. Even Benjamin Vaughan, Martha's brother in law, felt the need to explain this relationship to Laurens when he wrote to Benjamin Franklin – and this after Laurens had spent months in Paris negotiating with the French court.
So, in sum, quite a few people eventually knew about the marriage, but Laurens wasn't the one actively sharing this news.
One might believe that Francis Kinloch's birth date has been definitively established as March 7, 1755 - a quick Google search of the man will certainly report that date across numerous sites. Certainly this fact must have been established from some surviving record, right? That's a question I have been asking myself as I have come to find several inconsistencies that could suggest a different birth date (or at least cast some doubt on the certainty of the March 7, 1755 date). You've seen the "was Alexander Hamilton born in 1755 or 1757" discourse. Allow me to now introduce you to my "was Francis Kinloch born on March 7, 1755 or March 6, 1756" ramblings. I will present several pieces of information that point to the different possible birth dates, and I welcome any additional information or interpretations that others may have! After reading, add your vote to the poll to establish Kinloch's new birth date through democratic means.
When was Francis Kinloch born?
March 7, 1755
March 6, 1756
Other
Voting ended onMar 14
Kinloch's birth date is given as March 7, 1755 across various sources
We begin with the most basic piece of evidence. Several encyclopedias, biographical sites, and ancestry sites give March 7, 1755 as Kinloch's birth date. Kinloch's siblings typically don't have such certainty associated with their birth dates - they often just have a year and perhaps a month given, but rarely (never?) a specific date. The fact that this specific date has been reported across various books and websites with such confidence suggests that there must be some record pointing to this date. But what is it? I've searched some ancestry sites and generally found that the March 7, 1755 date was cited from online biographical entries, but I have yet to find a historical record that gives this date. Birth certificates did not exist in the 18th century, but there were baptismal records, birth/baptism announcements, and even records kept by the families themselves. The Kinloch family history and genealogy research files held by the South Carolina Historical Society mention a Kinloch family Bible that contained the birth and death dates of family members. However, the book was rebound, and some information may have been lost:
The old Kinloch Bible has just been returned by Mrs. Lesesne, whose mother had it. It was left to Grandmama; it was rebound some years before the war, the Green Baize covers being replaced by leather; only one entry of Birth is now in it (see below) but others may have been lost in the rebinding.
...
At the top of the blank page between "The Prophets" and "The Apocrypha", is the following in the handwriting of Mrs. Ann I Kinloch.
"James Kinloch born at Weehaw near George Town the 11th of August 1762 a quarter before nine at night & privately baptised by the Revd Mr. Prince on the 22d of the same month. Died at Kinsington 12 December 1765 & there buried." (The last in in [sic] lighter ink)
Anne Kinloch was Francis Kinloch's mother, and James Kinloch was his younger brother. Perhaps the Bible previously contained birth dates of others in the Kinloch family, including a potential March 7, 1755 date for Francis. Maybe this information was retained by descendants of the Kinlochs despite it not being retained in the family Bible after its rebinding. Unfortunately, there is likely no way to know what information was lost here. But what else does the Kinloch family have to say?
The Kinloch family history and genealogy research files show much uncertainty about Kinloch's birth date
It is clear from these files that I am not the only one confused about Kinloch's birth date! Across these files, Kinloch's birth date is given as March 6, 7, and 8 with the year given as 1755 and 1756. Often there are cross-outs, numbers written over other numbers, slash marks (e.g., 1755/1756), and question marks surrounding the given dates. If the Kinloch descendants are this unsure of their ancestor's birth date, how can we be confident in the March 7, 1755 date given across various sources? Was March 7, 1755 just picked as Kinloch's birth date at one point and then just parroted across different sources? Again, it's difficult to know the chain of events and passing along of information that happened to give the now-cited March 7, 1755 date. You may be wondering if there are any references to Kinloch's birth date during his lifetime. Thankfully, the answer is yes, but unfortunately, the information is just vague enough to contribute to further uncertainty.
Anne Kinloch mentions Francis's birthday in a 1776 letter
According to a transcript held in the Kinloch family history and genealogy research files, Anne Kinloch wrote the following to her son Francis on March 10, 1776:
Give me leave my dearest much loved Francy to congratulate you on your entrance into your 21st year
This does not specify March 7th as Francis's birth date, but we do get an explicit reference to his age! Unfortunately, this could be interpreted two different ways.
Francis was born in 1755 and turned 21 in 1776.
Francis had just turned 20 in March 1776 and therefore started his 21st year of life, making his birth year 1756.
Francis's 21st birthday would have been a very important one, as he would finally be able to access his late father's estate upon turning 21. It's possible that his mother was congratulating him on reaching this critical age. However, "21st year of life" and "21 years old" are two different things. Essentially, a person turns X years old upon completing their Xth year of life. For example, a newborn is in their first year of life from age 0 days to 365 days, but they do not turn one year old until day 365. The use of "21st year" does suggest a 1756 birth date, but it is possible that Anne was remarking on her son reaching the important age of 21, which suggests a 1755 birth date. Let's see what Francis himself had to say about his age and birth date.
Francis Kinloch stated that he was 56 years old on March 6, 1812
This is the piece of information that makes me believe Kinloch's birth date is either March 7, 1755 or March 6, 1756. @my-deer-friend made a post about a letter Kinloch wrote to his grandson Francis Kinloch Nelson, wherein he mentioned "this day I am 56 years of age." This letter was written on March 6, 1812. @my-deer-friend mentions that the grandson may have mentioned his age in the preceding letter, thus prompting Kinloch's note. According to findagrave, Francis Kinloch Nelson was born March 2, 1800, so it's quite possible that he had made a mention of his age/12th birthday in his letter, thus prompting grandfather Francis Kinloch to mention his age in his reply.
If Francis was 56 years old on March 6, 1812 and was born on March 6, that gives his birth year as 1756. You may think that his solves the whole birthdate issue and pretty firmly establishes Kinloch's birth date as March 6, 1756. Unfortunately, Kinloch was also notoriously a little shit. If March 7, 1755 is the correct birth date, then the date of this letter (March 6, 1812) was the eve of his 57th birthday. I think it's entirely within the realm of possibility that Kinloch confidently stated to his grandson that he was 56 years old at the time of writing this letter, despite him turning 57 in mere hours. This would be technically correct, but very pedantic! Finally, let's come to understand Kinloch's birth through his death.
Kinloch's age at his death on February 8, 1826 is recorded as 69 years
Kinloch died on February 8, 1826, and the "Return of Deaths within the City of Charleston, from 5th to the 12th February 1826" gives his age at death as 69 years. Assuming that Kinloch would have turned 70 on his birthday the following month, this places his birth year as 1756. In Kinloch's obituary authored by his son Frederick, his birth year is again given as 1756. Presumably the Kinloch children would have reported their father's age to the physician who recorded his death as well. This again points pretty clearly to a birth year of 1756, but the obituary does contain a definitive error pertaining to Kinloch's age. It states that he left for England at the age of 9. In reality, Kinloch departed for England in 1768 and would have been 12-13 years old. Did they get both the birth year and the school age wrong? I think it's understandable that children would be less certain about their father's early school years and could have easily made a mistake there, but I think they would have had greater confidence in their father's birth year.
Conclusion: ?
Overall, it's difficult to be certain about Kinloch's birth date. I think the mentions of ages and birth dates by Anne Kinloch, Frederick Kinloch, and Francis Kinloch himself do suggest a March 6, 1756 birth date, but then the question remains why a March 7, 1755 birth date has become so established.
In a letter to his 12-year-old grandson written on 6 March 1812, Kinloch includes the note that "this day I am 56 years of age". Now that's correct, because he would not turn 57 until the next day, but for a moment I wondered if he was intending to highlight that it was his birthday, and had perhaps gotten the date or the year wrong somehow.
But after a little consideration, I suspect what he's actually doing is playfully copying his grandson, who may well have included a similar note about his own age in his previous letter – we all know how serious young kids are about this.
(This is the same letter where he sets the poor kid some Ancient Rome homework.)
One might believe that Francis Kinloch's birth date has been definitively established as March 7, 1755 - a quick Google search of the man will certainly report that date across numerous sites. Certainly this fact must have been established from some surviving record, right? That's a question I have been asking myself as I have come to find several inconsistencies that could suggest a different birth date (or at least cast some doubt on the certainty of the March 7, 1755 date). You've seen the "was Alexander Hamilton born in 1755 or 1757" discourse. Allow me to now introduce you to my "was Francis Kinloch born on March 7, 1755 or March 6, 1756" ramblings. I will present several pieces of information that point to the different possible birth dates, and I welcome any additional information or interpretations that others may have! After reading, add your vote to the poll to establish Kinloch's new birth date through democratic means.
When was Francis Kinloch born?
March 7, 1755
March 6, 1756
Other
Voting ended onMar 14
Kinloch's birth date is given as March 7, 1755 across various sources
We begin with the most basic piece of evidence. Several encyclopedias, biographical sites, and ancestry sites give March 7, 1755 as Kinloch's birth date. Kinloch's siblings typically don't have such certainty associated with their birth dates - they often just have a year and perhaps a month given, but rarely (never?) a specific date. The fact that this specific date has been reported across various books and websites with such confidence suggests that there must be some record pointing to this date. But what is it? I've searched some ancestry sites and generally found that the March 7, 1755 date was cited from online biographical entries, but I have yet to find a historical record that gives this date. Birth certificates did not exist in the 18th century, but there were baptismal records, birth/baptism announcements, and even records kept by the families themselves. The Kinloch family history and genealogy research files held by the South Carolina Historical Society mention a Kinloch family Bible that contained the birth and death dates of family members. However, the book was rebound, and some information may have been lost:
The old Kinloch Bible has just been returned by Mrs. Lesesne, whose mother had it. It was left to Grandmama; it was rebound some years before the war, the Green Baize covers being replaced by leather; only one entry of Birth is now in it (see below) but others may have been lost in the rebinding.
...
At the top of the blank page between "The Prophets" and "The Apocrypha", is the following in the handwriting of Mrs. Ann I Kinloch.
"James Kinloch born at Weehaw near George Town the 11th of August 1762 a quarter before nine at night & privately baptised by the Revd Mr. Prince on the 22d of the same month. Died at Kinsington 12 December 1765 & there buried." (The last in in [sic] lighter ink)
Anne Kinloch was Francis Kinloch's mother, and James Kinloch was his younger brother. Perhaps the Bible previously contained birth dates of others in the Kinloch family, including a potential March 7, 1755 date for Francis. Maybe this information was retained by descendants of the Kinlochs despite it not being retained in the family Bible after its rebinding. Unfortunately, there is likely no way to know what information was lost here. But what else does the Kinloch family have to say?
The Kinloch family history and genealogy research files show much uncertainty about Kinloch's birth date
It is clear from these files that I am not the only one confused about Kinloch's birth date! Across these files, Kinloch's birth date is given as March 6, 7, and 8 with the year given as 1755 and 1756. Often there are cross-outs, numbers written over other numbers, slash marks (e.g., 1755/1756), and question marks surrounding the given dates. If the Kinloch descendants are this unsure of their ancestor's birth date, how can we be confident in the March 7, 1755 date given across various sources? Was March 7, 1755 just picked as Kinloch's birth date at one point and then just parroted across different sources? Again, it's difficult to know the chain of events and passing along of information that happened to give the now-cited March 7, 1755 date. You may be wondering if there are any references to Kinloch's birth date during his lifetime. Thankfully, the answer is yes, but unfortunately, the information is just vague enough to contribute to further uncertainty.
Anne Kinloch mentions Francis's birthday in a 1776 letter
According to a transcript held in the Kinloch family history and genealogy research files, Anne Kinloch wrote the following to her son Francis on March 10, 1776:
Give me leave my dearest much loved Francy to congratulate you on your entrance into your 21st year
This does not specify March 7th as Francis's birth date, but we do get an explicit reference to his age! Unfortunately, this could be interpreted two different ways.
Francis was born in 1755 and turned 21 in 1776.
Francis had just turned 20 in March 1776 and therefore started his 21st year of life, making his birth year 1756.
Francis's 21st birthday would have been a very important one, as he would finally be able to access his late father's estate upon turning 21. It's possible that his mother was congratulating him on reaching this critical age. However, "21st year of life" and "21 years old" are two different things. Essentially, a person turns X years old upon completing their Xth year of life. For example, a newborn is in their first year of life from age 0 days to 365 days, but they do not turn one year old until day 365. The use of "21st year" does suggest a 1756 birth date, but it is possible that Anne was remarking on her son reaching the important age of 21, which suggests a 1755 birth date. Let's see what Francis himself had to say about his age and birth date.
Francis Kinloch stated that he was 56 years old on March 6, 1812
This is the piece of information that makes me believe Kinloch's birth date is either March 7, 1755 or March 6, 1756. @my-deer-friend made a post about a letter Kinloch wrote to his grandson Francis Kinloch Nelson, wherein he mentioned "this day I am 56 years of age." This letter was written on March 6, 1812. @my-deer-friend mentions that the grandson may have mentioned his age in the preceding letter, thus prompting Kinloch's note. According to findagrave, Francis Kinloch Nelson was born March 2, 1800, so it's quite possible that he had made a mention of his age/12th birthday in his letter, thus prompting grandfather Francis Kinloch to mention his age in his reply.
If Francis was 56 years old on March 6, 1812 and was born on March 6, that gives his birth year as 1756. You may think that his solves the whole birthdate issue and pretty firmly establishes Kinloch's birth date as March 6, 1756. Unfortunately, Kinloch was also notoriously a little shit. If March 7, 1755 is the correct birth date, then the date of this letter (March 6, 1812) was the eve of his 57th birthday. I think it's entirely within the realm of possibility that Kinloch confidently stated to his grandson that he was 56 years old at the time of writing this letter, despite him turning 57 in mere hours. This would be technically correct, but very pedantic! Finally, let's come to understand Kinloch's birth through his death.
Kinloch's age at his death on February 8, 1826 is recorded as 69 years
Kinloch died on February 8, 1826, and the "Return of Deaths within the City of Charleston, from 5th to the 12th February 1826" gives his age at death as 69 years. Assuming that Kinloch would have turned 70 on his birthday the following month, this places his birth year as 1756. In Kinloch's obituary authored by his son Frederick, his birth year is again given as 1756. Presumably the Kinloch children would have reported their father's age to the physician who recorded his death as well. This again points pretty clearly to a birth year of 1756, but the obituary does contain a definitive error pertaining to Kinloch's age. It states that he left for England at the age of 9. In reality, Kinloch departed for England in 1768 and would have been 12-13 years old. Did they get both the birth year and the school age wrong? I think it's understandable that children would be less certain about their father's early school years and could have easily made a mistake there, but I think they would have had greater confidence in their father's birth year.
Conclusion: ?
Overall, it's difficult to be certain about Kinloch's birth date. I think the mentions of ages and birth dates by Anne Kinloch, Frederick Kinloch, and Francis Kinloch himself do suggest a March 6, 1756 birth date, but then the question remains why a March 7, 1755 birth date has become so established.
Hii, i was curious if you knew of any instances where Alexander Hamilton had refered to John Laurens' death as his "greatest wound of war"?? Since i've seen it quoted on the musical wiki and in reddit, but haven't found the source yet.
I hope this question doesn't bother you, but since i asked this before at the end of december, i wanted to make sure my question had arrived
This is not a direct quote from Alexander Hamilton, and I'm not sure where this phrase or claim originated. It's possible that someone on Tumblr, Reddit, AO3, etc. wrote this as their interpretation of Hamilton's reaction to Laurens's death, and it may have gotten misconstrued as a Hamilton quote somewhere down the line. I looked in Hamilton: The Revolution to see if it was something Lin-Manuel Miranda might have said about "Tomorrow There'll be More of Us" or the Hamilton-Laurens relationship, but I didn't find this phrasing in that book. Perhaps it is mentioned in some other text, but a quick search through Google Books did not yield any matching phrasing.
But anon. Dear, sweet anon. I looked at the Hamilton wiki to see how this phrasing was presented, and you completely failed to prepare me for the most ridiculous and unfounded claim that I would find there:
The Hamilton wiki editors are claiming that John Laurens was in a romantic relationship with the Comte d'Estaing???
There is so much to unpack here:
Where did this claim even originate? Did someone know that John Laurens had a close relationship with a man named Francis (Kinloch), and they just searched for an 18th century man named Francis whom Laurens may have known? Did someone read about the relationship between Laurens and d'Estaing and genuinely believe they had something going on? Sources and research methodology, please! I'm dying to know.
They got his name wrong! The full name of the Comte d'Estaing is Jean Baptiste Charles Henri Hector. Charles-François was his father!
This is reminding me of the ask I received back in 2018 about Laurens having a relationship with a woman named Francis Marion (wrong in so many ways). I enjoy speculating about Laurens's romantic relationships as much as the next person, but at least have some critical reading and analysis skills!
Something really fascinating recently fell into my hands by a very interesting twist of fate… ( of which I could go into a long, slightly sentimental story about, but alas). This is a Owen’s Dictionary dating from what I believe to be the mid-late 18th century (could be incorrect; don’t quote me on that) However, what made my heart race is what is written in the inside, or rather by who. John B. Laurens was the nephew of John Laurens. I have not yet found out who Frederick Laurens is as of yet, but I am working on that. If anyone has any insight, it would be greatly appreciated.
What an amazing piece of history, and how lucky you are to have acquired it!
I believe both John B. Laurens and Frederick Laurens were sons of Harry Laurens (Henry Laurens, Jr.) and therefore nephews of John Laurens. Here's a family tree from Henry and John Laurens: Tragic Heroes by Richard Fowler. I do not completely trust all the dates and other information presented here to be accurate, but I think given the context, we can be fairly certain of John B. and Frederick's relationships to others in the Laurens family. Harry Laurens was married to Eliza Rutledge, who had a brother named Frederick Rutledge. He was presumably the namesake of Frederick Laurens. The B. in John B. stands for Ball, the maiden name of Eleanor Laurens (mother to John and Harry Laurens and grandmother to John B. and Frederick Laurens). Harry also inherited Mepkin after Henry Laurens's death, so it makes sense why the inscription includes that location too!
