Letters from the Archive

[vivelareine]

John Quincy Adams' letters to Louisa Johnson (his future wife) can be so mean, my feelings are getting hurt reading these y'all.

[digitalyarbs]

A profile view of the real face of John Quincy Adams, reconstructed life mask cast by John Henri Isaac Browere in 1825.

In the daguerreotype photographs depicting John Quincy Adams, we observe an elderly gentleman sporting white hair and mutton chops (sideburns). Nevertheless, back in 1825, during his presidential term, Adams had brown hair and a clean-shaven face. In that very year, John Henri Isaac Browere immortalized Adams' appearance at the age of 58 by creating a life mask. Adams mentions Browere in his diary, August 30: "Browere, is a sculptor who has made at New York a bust of General Lafayette, and proposes to take bust of all the presidents." Adams was unable to sit for Browere in August because he returned home to Massachusetts for a while. In October, when Adams was back in Washington he sat for Browere. Adams mentions Browere in two short diary entries: "At Browere's. He took my bust." (October 29) and "Browere. The bust finished. (November 5). The mask itself was taken on the first date and the finished bust was ready for display a week later. Browere has given us a rare image of John Quincy Adams smiling. When Horatio Greenough modeled a bust of Adams a few years later, he wrote, "I shall not attempt to make him look cheerful. He does not and cannot. Gravity is natural to him, and a smile looks ill at home." But Adams's smiling visage in Browere's portrait is surely due to the sitter and not the artist." The Fenimore Art Museum, located in Cooperstown, New York, houses the majority of Browere's life mask busts. Although the bust of John Quincy Adams is currently not accessible for public viewing, it is safely stored within the museum's collection.

[johnadamsbignaturals]

[aaronburrssexdungeon]

[Burr to Jefferson, April 1801]: Hamilton seems to be literally mad with spleen and envy and disappointment - as far as I can judge, his efforts are perfectly impotent.

[aaronburrssexdungeon]

no because this dumb poem about burr and hamilton written in 1795 has me speaking in tongues [more context]

[aaronburrssexdungeon]

digging this up again because i found yet another article about it. when this poem was (anonymously) published the author was presumed to be a democratic-republican lambasting federalism, and this poem was presumed to be about hamilton. ie unsuspecting democratic-republicans would read it and be like "YEAH, FUCK THIS GUY" (hamilton) and when they finally realized that it was, in fact, about burr and NOT hamilton they'd be in too deep. a sort of poetic bait-and-switch if you will. so not only was this poem about aristocratic conspiracy-- the poem itself was a conspiracy.

hello?

this person was out here larping as burr larping as aristus giving his actual villain monologue 4D chess biblical allegory hamburr posting in 1795 genuinely gagging all of new york city like . can ANYONE else taste metal.

[yr-obedt-cicero]

How many of Alexander Hamilton's letters to his children survived? And where can you find them?

Only a few have survived, but I'm sure he wrote to them constantly especially when they were away for school.

From Alexander Hamilton to Angelica Hamilton. [November 1793]

From Alexander Hamilton to Philip and Alexander Hamilton, Jr. [29 September 1794]

From Alexander Hamilton to Philip Hamilton. [5 December 1791]

From Alexander Hamilton to James Alexander Hamilton. [June 1804]

[sjkerry-wingsoverbobdylan-main]

“Generals Washington, Hamilton and Pinckney are at Philadelphia, not waiting for me, I hope.”

—

John to Abigail Adams, 16 November, 1798.

John Adams is demonstrating how to be a mature adult.

[theoburrsvirginitybalcony]

I really think The Pie Thing is some of the lamest shit Hamilton ever said

[theoburrsvirginitybalcony]

Like... Come the fuck on

[theoburrsvirginitybalcony]

Well... I made a google drive for your reading displeasures. Please do not enjoy.

[schuylering]

like i know chernow is bad at writing women but i came across this one singular page in the hamilton bio yesterday that just sort of blew my mind in how awful it was (it’s 133 in the paperback):

“Peggy was very beautiful but very vain and supercilious.” - literally “reducing women to their appearance and then mocking them for it.” also his one and only source for this appears to be that she married rich. literally six pages earlier he quoted the letter hamilton writes that’s like “yeah she’d better have money.” i just.

“Together, the two eldest sisters formed a composite portrait of Hamilton’s ideal woman, each appealing to a different facet of his personality.” - i literally wrote “fuck off” in the margin next to this. i hate it so fucking much. not only are they apparently not people in their own right but they’re not even complete people–they’re not even complete figureheads or icons or whatever chernow’s trying to turn them into here. not only do they only exist in relation to hamilton but they exist only in relation to what chernow projects hamilton’s fantasies to be.

“Angelica was more Hamilton’s counterpart than Eliza” and “Angelica [in the Trumbull portrait]…looks more sophisticated than Eliza” - i hate this bizarre virgin/whore thing apparently all historians have to do when talking about angelica and eliza, i hate it. comparing them intellectually literally gets us nowhere, and serves as this platform to simultaneously turn eliza into a dull housewife and angelica into a air-headed socialite (undermining, by the way, the intelligence JUST USED to pit her against eliza).

“Angelica had a more mysterious femininity than her sister, the kind than often exerts a powerful hold on the male imagination.” - aaand we’re back to women existing only in relation to men’s fantasies, i’m so glad. also “a more mysterious femininity” is just, so bad.

“A playful seductress” and “She was to serve as a muse” and “there was a gossipy irreverence about her” - look, besides the playful seductress one these are, comparatively, and on their own, not that bad. but they just so clearly underline chernow’s modus operandi when it comes to describing her (and, you know, women in general) that these small phrases that are peppered throughout his writing say a lot. again, they can only exist in relation to men, both intellectually (”muse”) and bodily (”seductress”); again, she’s portrayed as silly (”gossipy”).

“Unlike Eliza, she learned to speak perfect French. Where Eliza bowed reluctantly to the social demands of Hamilton’s career, Angelica applauded his ambitions and was always famished for news on his latest political exploits.” - again, we can’t talk about angelica and eliza without comparing them. the only way, apparently, to talk about angelica at all is through putting down eliza. unsurprisingly, however, the resultant portrait of angelica isn’t necessarily positive–they’re compared only so both of them can seem deficient.

anyway, that was just one page. i’m so damn tired. 

[handsome-enemy-you-despise]

We gonna have a little chitchat on Mrs. Mazzeo and her bio of Betsy Hamilton so you should brace yourself.

You know, I bet most of us have more trust to book written by historians by obvious reasons. For example when I’m buying a history book I wanna be more or less confident in the information I’ll get from it. I don’t wanna sit 30% of my time reading it and 70% of it checking sources author thought proper to put in it.

This book isn’t exception. I gave it more trust since it’s hard to find information on Eliza tho. Sadly it became clear really fast that the quality of this was just as suspected. “#1 New York Times bestseller author”. not a good thing to see on a history book.

So back to problems of this one.

1. First of all, sources. Half of them isn’t stated at all and one third of others is stated wrongly. You may see three wrongly stated sources in a row. You may see sources that have no information that he mentioned at all. You may see sources that no historian can seriously use for a BIOGRAPHY. Yes, I’m talking about this blasted post from tumblr. Come on, this is just embarrassing.

2. The narrative closer to novel and it is more novel than a history book since 70% of things she says about Eliza are very wild and bald presumptions, most of which are based on nothing. For god’s sake you can’t look me dead in the eyes and say “Hamilton was drinking on the other side of the river while Eliza was at home alone”.

3. Aaron, sweetheart, I’m so sorry. No minimal job was done here.

4. This book is inspired by musical and bio of Hamilton by Ron Chernow. It shows in author’s note in the end of the book and in the book itself. And it’s not a compliment.

5. Maybe I’m delusional but I think it’s not exactly right (to put it lightly) to say that last 50 years of Eliza’s life were just constant attempts to be a Roman wife Alexander wanted. To justify every good thing she have done by her determination to please her dead husband. Doesn’t sit right with me at all.

And the good stuff... for me there’s nothing good in this bio. It doesn’t state facts right way, it doesn’t really work as a novel. Apparently if you’re historian you can just say whatever you want and source however you like cause no one is gonna check your shit because you get more trust than other people (*looks in Chernow’s direction*). Yes, I understand it’s very hard to write about women in general, since (and especially in Eliza’s case) barely any documents were preserved. But it’s not really an excuse when you’re deciding to write a book. For example biography of Mrs. Jumel by Margaret A. Oppenheimer. Despite having to deal with huge age gaps as well and relying mostly on correspondence of other people she did a good job, using articles on women history in general to close some holes in the narrative. You can actually enjoy this book tho I’d like to read a few more to make conclusions.

In the end of the book she writes “you hold in your hands the first full-length biography of Eliza Hamilton”. Do we tho? This book isn’t really about Elizabeth Hamilton. It’s about Hamilton. And the worst thing is by the end of the book you wish this biography have never been written. Because Eliza Hamilton deserved so much better than this.

[madtomedgar]

ok but what if during their engagement alex’s constant referencing of all the sex they were going to have on their wedding night and how awesome it was going to be made betsey really uncomfortable?? and we will never knooooooooooow

[deadbishop-blog]

yep. i mean the letters he wrote to her can be quite funny and affectionate to read, but how could we know for sure how betsey, in her position, felt about this? betsey was (PRETTY surely) a virgin, possibly much more inexperienced than her husband with anything connected to sexuality. she had her own ideal of a perfect wife, so there was all that pressure to ‘succeed in satisfying her husband’. of course it’s possible that they had a similar sense of humor and great time courting each other, but i would be careful of just automatically assuming that that was the case.

[general-george-washington]

took monroe 6 months to respond to jefferson's piss letter

[aaronburrssexdungeon]

crawling thru my google drive and came across this document crystal @tallulah--shark once sent me of a collection of descriptions of burr's followers and homies and they're all so fucking good lmfao:

Burr was the first efficient leader the Republicans had within their ranks. He was powerful, not only in a party sense, but because possessed of a large and faithful accompaniment of personal adherents. They were mostly gay, aggressive young men, who were attracted to Burr by his brilliancy and boldness, and who cared less for party principles than for victory and glory. They could be depended on to follow Burr at his merest beck, and, after the rough and ready troops of Achilles, they were styled Burr’s “Myrmidons.” Theodosia, his daughter, called them the Tenth Legion. (Ohio History, Volume 1, Ohio Historical Society)

He possessed the happy faculty of surrounding himself with young men who recognized in him a superlative combination of bravery, chivalry, and ability. Hamilton called them “Burr’s myrmidons,” but Theodosia, with a daughter’s devotion and diplomatic zeal, entitled them “the Tenth Legion.” (A Political History of the State of New York, Volume 1, DeAlva Stanwood Alexander)

He gathered round him a number of young men, the gay and thoughtless admirers of whatever is bold and specious, who, charmed by his conversation and proud of his abilities and accomplishments, were pleased to find in their chief no rigid censor of morals. In after years, Hamilton called them Burr’s Myrmidons, and, through many changes of fortune, they showed extraordinary fidelity and devotion to the hero of their choice. They became indeed a power in the commonwealth, but their objects seem to have been purely personal, and it would be difficult to define what principles they held in common. (The Life and Times of Alexander Hamilton, Christopher James Riethmuller)

Gradually certain young men of the town, who had nothing to hope from the ruling power, ambitious, like himself, were drawn into his circle, and inspired with his own energy and resolution. They were devoted to their chief, of whose abilities they had an extravagant opinion. In every quarter they sounded the praises of the man who, they said, was the bravest soldier, the ablest lawyer, and the most accomplished gentleman of his day: endowed with equal valor and prudence; formed to shine in every scene, and to succeed in every enterprise. Burr’s myrmidons, these young gentlemen were styled by General Hamilton. The Tenth Legion they were proudly called by Theodosia, the daughter. (Littell’s Living Age, Volume 57)

Burr's entry into politics seems to have been more by accident than design. In the beginning he steered clear of an alliance with either of the three great families—the Clintons, Livingstons, and Schuylers—creating for himself an independent party, the nucleus of which was a group of enthusiastic young men whom Hamilton denominated Burr's myrmidons. (The Aaron Burr Conspiracy, Walter Flavius McCaleb)

[aaronburrssexdungeon]

What does Catiline mean and why did Hamilton insult Burr by calling him that?

basically that burr was irredeemably perverse and corrupt, sexual and otherwise. the insinuation is that he is a corrupter of everything from the law to power to young men to the republic itself. not gonna lie hamilton was wild for this one tbh lmao......

a little bit from Cicero’s speech on Catiline (paraphrased bc i can’t find the full speech right now ): 

For what is there, O Catiline, that can now afford you any pleasure in this city? For there is no one in it, except that band of profligate conspirators of yours, who does not fear you,—no one who does not hate you. What brand of domestic baseness is not stamped upon your life? What disgraceful circumstance is wanting to your infamy in your private affairs? From what licentiousness have your eyes, from what atrocity have your hands, from what iniquity has your whole body ever abstained? 

 Is there one youth, when you have once entangled him in the temptations of your corruption, to whom you have not held out a sword for audacious crime, or a torch for licentious wickedness? 

 For what is there, O Catiline, that you can still expect, if night is not able to veil your nefarious meetings in darkness, and if private houses cannot conceal the voice of your conspiracy within their walls—if everything is seen and displayed? Change your mind: trust me: forget the slaughter and conflagration you are meditating.

 What prisoner, what gladiator, what thief…what assassin, what parricide, what forger of wills, what cheat, what debauchee…what spendthrift, what adulterer, what abandoned woman, what corrupter of youth, what profligate… what scoundrel can be found in all Italy, who does not avow that he has been on terms of intimacy with Catiline? What murder has been committed for years without him? What nefarious act of infamy that has not been done by him? 

But in what other man were there ever so many allurements for youth as in him, who both indulged in infamous love for others, and encouraged their infamous affections for himself-- promising to some enjoyment of their lust, and not only instigating them to iniquity but even assisting them in it. 

[handsome-enemy-you-despise]

Sorry what? I’m going to need you elaborate more on Burr encouraging Alston to breed Theo 😂 did he really?

yeah…. it’s right there, sadly. 💀

and the one on his success in breeding.

[yr-obedt-cicero]

It's definitely giving Adams