Publius Revived

•informatioal posts from @pub-lius on American History, from the French and Indian War to the Reconstruction Period •feel free to send any questions, and i will do my best to answer

[pub-lius]

Hello! I was looking through your posts of Burr and Lafayette and I was wondering why you hate Monroe and Adams. Just curious since I don’t really know much about those two besides Alien and Sedition Acts for Adams and the Reynolds affair for Monroe. Have a nice day!

those are really good reasons you mentioned! now i could answer this question really quickly and just say that i hate straight white men who are too confident in their abilities that are, in reality, average. however, then i'd lose out on a great opportunity to complain, so here we go.

Your question prompted me to do some self-reflection: are these guys really that bad, or do I just find them annoying? I'm never annoyed for no reason, so after some knitting and watching House MD for the third time, I found myself asking a central question when determining if my dislike for Adams and Monroe was logically sound: did they actually do their jobs?

Monroe and Adams actually have a lot in common, even if one of them is kiki and the other is bouba. For example, they were both foreign diplomats and Presidents of the United States. A diplomat has the job of ensuring peaceful relations between to countries, or at least reaching an agreement both sides can live with. A President should attempt to utilize his executive powers to provide the greatest standard of living for the citizens as possible. I think we can all agree on that, right?

Source: Wikipedia: Bouba/Kiki Effect

Wrong, don't agree with that. It's entirely unrealistic, especially in the Early Republic of the United States. When the Constitution was being written, Britain was maintaining forts in the north that violated the Treaty of Versailles, France was revolutionizing, the Dutch were losing faith in the rest of the Western World, and the North African states were finding ways to exploit baby America's first steps away from Daddy Britain. How is a diplomat supposed to handle all of that? And as for the President, well New York is ashes, Philadelphia is all yellow and feverish (might be a word for that later), the South is already thinking of secession because they're that racist, and DC hasn't even been built yet. Standard of living isn't even a consideration when the country is literally falling apart.

So, with that in mind, I'm going to do something I never do: give these white men the benefit of the doubt. I'm going to redefine my definitions here: a diplomat's purpose is to set a positive precedent for the newly born country and the President's purpose is to keep the Union unified. Can we agree on that? With the background information and a grain of salt? Yes? Okay moving on, I'm going to roast John Adams on an open flame now.

John Adams- Ignorant, Self-obsessed, Meanie pie

Let's start with my least favorite country's least favorite country: France. John Adams was shipped off to France because Congress didn't know what else to do with him (or something like that, I don't know, I wasn't there) in the final years of the American Revolution. Now, John Adams had very bad taste because he was from Boston and was raised on Dunkin' Donuts, so he immediately hated everything about France- yes, even the bread. Don't worry, France hated him too, and showed it almost immediately.

Honestly, it was mostly his fellow Americans with whom he had the biggest problems (no shock there). The shock was that Adams hated Benjamin Franklin the most. Well, maybe hate is too strong a word, since they got along extremely well during the Second Continental Congress; however, these fuzzy feelings did not extend across the pond:

"He may be a Philosopher, for what I know, but he is not a sufficient Statesman, he knows too little of American Affairs or the Politicks of Europe, and takes too little Pains to inform himself of Either. He is too old, too infirm too indolent and dissipated, to be sufficient for the Discharge of all the important Duties of Ambassador, Secretary, Admiral... &c. &c. &c...each of which would be enough for the whole Time of the most active Man in the Vigour of Youth."

Source: Founders Online- John Adams to Thomas McKean, 20 September 1779

Instead of working this out with Franklin, approaching Congress with his concerns, or learning how to work with a different type of personality, Adams seemed to have taken his anger out on not only the other Americans present, but the foreign officers as well, reportedly having quite the tense relationship with the Comte de Vergennes, which wasn't hard to do, but still not good.

Source: Massachusetts Historical Society, Adams Papers, vol. 9

Though Adams cannot be singlehandedly faulted for the continued animosity between the United States and France that would eventually lead to much more infamous events, it laid the groundwork for continued controversies and diplomatic conflicts. The Comte de Vergennes was a powerful minister, and by losing his favor very quickly, Adams had put himself at odds with the conservative party then in charge of the French Court. Though the incoming democratics and Jacobins were not buddy-buddy with the conservatives, Adams' brash behavior being noted in the French records certainly did not leave an opening for the United States government to have favorable relations with the French Revolutionary government(s).

Now, I would get into Adams' experience as a diplomat to the Dutch Republic and Great Britain; however, it's basically the same story twice over. Adams mean, foreign representatives annoyed, William Pitt yapping- whatever, who cares. Here's a source or two to prove it happened.

Source: The National Archives- Eyewitness, "John Adams- Audience with King George III, 1785"; Nationaal Archief, Dutch-American Stories: Johnny goes Dutch

Along with Comte de Vergennes, William Pitt, and the Dutch Bros, John Adams added three more items to the List of Important People who Hate John Adams: Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.

Note: I'm not going to talk about his falling out with Jefferson because who actually really cares. It was so petty and lame that it's genuinely hard to read about because it reminds me of the friend breakup I had in middle school. So, if you wanna know about it, read this and listen to The Subway by Chappell Roan.

For some reason, Adams thought that he might have a stake in the game against George Washington in the Election of 1788. Some will argue that he actually did, but given the fact that Washington had already been placed on the greatest pedestal in United States History, he had no chance. Thus, he was stuck with the role of Vice-President, which he described as such:

"But my Country has in its Wisdom contrived for me, the most insignificant Office that ever the Invention of Man contrived or his Imagination conceived: and as I can do neither good nor Evil, I must be born away by Others and meet the common Fate."

Source: Founders Online- John Adams to Abigail Adams, 19 December 1793

As you can imagine, this attitude didn't exactly make him Washington's favorite because he regularly made his opinion very well known. Hindsight being what it is, we've seen that Vice Presidents can be very influential (ie. JFK's death being totally caused by his VP, Burr being cuntier than Jefferson, etc.) However, it was due to Adams' continued burning bridges and self-victimization that he was unable to define the role of Vice President as being significant.

This is where the problem arises with John Adams. When he feels unappreciated or when controversy arises, he has a tendency to take a black and white perspective of the issue: it's them versus him.

This is a common phenomenon with individuals in the public eye. For example, take our current president, who, upon successfully enacting a ban on TikTok in 2025 (which he and his supporters previously endorsed in 2020), stated this:

"...Crooked Joe Biden is responsible for banning TikTok... doing it to help his friends over at Facebook become richer and more dominant, and able to fight, perhaps illegally, the Republican Party... he is destroying our Country, and is a MAJOR THREAT TO DEMOCRACY!" -Donald Trump

Source: X, qtd. Alan Rappeport 22 April 2024; The New York Times- "How Donald Trump Went From Backing a TikTok Ban to Backing Off"

In a similar vein, referring to the early Democratic Republican party, John Adams said this, "I know not how it is: but in proportion as dangers threaten the Public, I grow calm. I am very apprehensive that a desperate Antifœderal Party, will provoke all Europe by their Insolence."

Source: Founders Online- John Adams to Abigail Adams, 19 December 1793

These quotations have a few things in common: 1) a specific target (in Trump's case, it's his opponent Joe Biden; in Adams', it's his opposing party led by political enemy, Thomas Jefferson); 2) an allegation of wrong doing (T: banning TikTok which serves as a form of news to the younger generation and illegally fighting the Republican Party; A: provoking Europe, which at the time could mean war); 3) hypocrisy (T: he sought to ban TikTok four years prior, portraying it as a public security threat; A: he had caused more tension with Europe than Jefferson or others ever had, having directly offended them rather than just doing nothing as the DR party had).

Now, this is a particular effect that has lasted as long as we've had leaders in society, but it has been emphasized by the two-party system in the United States. Though Trump can be blamed for a lot, he didn't set that system up- Adams did. Because of that, and my outstanding sense of humor, I've started to call this effect John-Adamsification.

Speaking of! John-Adamsification is accompanied not only with projection of one's mistakes onto the enemy, but also with random and baseless lies against the opposition. Though Hamilton did many things wrong, and wrote many pamphlets, he did not plot a coup d'etat against Washington through publication. Like seriously, who in their right mind would even suggest that? It would be completely insane to think Hamilton would attempt to destroy the man who he relied on-

"You inquire what passed between W[ashington] and Hamilton at York Town. Washington had ordered or was about to order another officer to take the command of the attack upon the redoubt. Hamilton flew into a violent passion and demand the command of the party for himself and declared if he had it not, he would expose General Washington's conduct in a pamphlet."

Source: Gilder Lehrman Institute, John Adams to Benjamin Rush, 1805*

*This was the only online source I could find for this since I was on the road while writing this, so the website is a little sketchy but the quote is direct!

Well!

In case you had any doubts about the fact that this is, in historical terms, Fucking Bullshit, here's what Hamilton did have to say when he hated Washington the most.

The General ⟨is a very honest⟩ man. His competitors ⟨have slender⟩ talents abilities  and less hone⟨sty integ⟨rity⟩. His popularity⟩ has often ⟨been essential to the safety of America, and is still of great importance to it. These considerations have influenced my past conduct respecting him, and will influence my future. I think it is necessary he should be supported.

Source: Founders Online- "Alexander Hamilton to Philip Schuyler, 18 February 1781" *Hamilton removed and added a lot of words*

Note: there is no documentation about the interaction Adams is talking about even happening. the closest thing I can think of is when Lafayette's aide-de-camp was considered for Hamilton's position at Yorktown, but Hamilton requested it be shifted to his detachment, arguing seniority, and the aide was given a different role, and it was settled peaceably.

So yeah, I have no clue why Adams said that other than the fact that he wanted to make Hamilton look bad. Posthumously, mind you!

I'm not done. Even though Adams' allegations against Hamilton weren't true, no one fucking likes Hamilton, so Adams was voted in as the Federalist second president (get hype). You mentioned the Alien and Sedition Acts so I'm not going to cite those as a reason (though they definitely are), but I will mention them as part of a larger story I'm telling here.

The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by Adams because his self-induced paranoia (tbf it was made worse by political tensions) told him that the French were invading the country and telling the American people to violently overthrow the government. This was a pervasive belief among the Federalist party, encouraged by a loud minority of radical French revolutionaries seeking refuge in the United States, but Adams put it into an Executive Order. This belief is inexplicably tied to Adams' negative experience in France, as well as his belief that "men could never be governed but by force." ...Hot take, Johnny.

Source: Founders Online- Notes on John Adams and the French Revolution, 15 January 1793

Well, let's say you're a Federalist/Royalist reading this. You might say, "Erm, publius, Citizen Genet was actively encouraging a US uprising against the government and the French Revolution was very bad! John Adams' opinion on it doesn't mean he was a bad president :("

Ok fine. I'll focus on domestic issues then.

We've already established that Adams didn't like the Democratic Republicans, and he certainly didn't like the big one: Jefferson. Unfortunately for our rotund Bostonian, Jefferson cut his administration off at one term and inherited the newly constructed White House. Womp womp.

What was Johnny to do? Let power peacefully transfer to the other party, setting a beautiful precedent that showed the function of the parties was not to divide the country, but to represent different groups of people within it?

Fuck no!! He started tampering with shit, specifically by replacing the federal judges that didn't like him with those that did at the very last minute, rushing poor, boring little John Marshall to get their commissions out, which even led to one of them never properly receiving it. All of this hassle, just to inconvenience Jefferson when he came into office. This created a historical precedent (obviously) for division and hostility between the two parties.

Source: Federal Judicial Center- "The Midnight Judges"

WE'RE NOT DONE WITH THE FRENCH!!! All of the aforementioned fighting with the French and their supporters in the United States culminated in the Quasi War at the end of Adams' presidency.

The Quasi War was entirely unnecessary. The United States did not gain anything material or even symbolic from this conflict, since its naval supremacy was questioned the same year that the Treaty of Mortefontaine ended the war (1801, with the start of the Barbary Wars). Although it provided the US Navy with a stage for its major launch, the Navy suffered greatly from a lack of organization that extended all the way up to the Executive in Adams' cabinet. The cost of not only the war, but also the problems caused by the disorganization, made it a greater loss for the United States than the young nation could afford. Thanks, John.

Source: Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy by Ian W. Toll (with particular interest in James McHenry's service as Secretary of War, p. 98); The USS Constitution Museum- "The Quasi-War with France (1798 – 1801)" btw I've been to this museum and it is an absolute MUST if you're ever visiting Boston :)

So, it's up to you to make of this what you think, but here's my conclusion: John Adams did not set a positive precedent nor did he encourage the unification of the country. As a diplomat, he stirred discontent in foreign nations which would later cost the nation in the form of an unnecessary and expensive war. As president, he furthered party and sub-party divisions by being aggressive, petty, and self serving in his executive actions. Therefore, he was a bad diplomat and a bad president and I don’t like him or his koala ass haircut.

Okay, so that was pretty long. For the sake of my sanity and yours, I’ll be doing Monroe’s part in a reblog of this post! Also, sorry for the wait. I’ve already posted this but I’d like to reiterate my apology and let y’all know about the other things I’m doing at the moment. I’ve mentioned that I am a Freshman at Hamilton in college, and I’m now an Admissions intern as well as working towards a study abroad program in France, as well as starting my major in history. I’m still going to be posting on here and existing in other amrev/history spaces online, but i’ll be more popping in and out. One thing about them letting me into a prestigious institution is that I now have access to Hamilton’s archives! So please, keep the questions coming. I also am still working on that Alexander Hamilton post for my #do it for richie 💪 series, so I’ll be working on that and the frev project I started a few years ago. If I manage to complete that, I’ll then go into some more niche studies of the amrev. Though asks are definitely my favorite, so pls pls pls ask your questions!! Love ya

[publius-library]

What Hamilton biography do you recommend? I've read one in Polish (which was quite good, but there were many things missing, and I would like to improve my knowledge about him :) ) and I saw you don't like Ron Chernow's version so I came to ask if you know the other, maybe better one :)

…i dont know a better one

there are definitely others, like flexner’s biography is one of the more commonly cited ones, but if you want information to fill in the gaps, its chernow all the way. you have to tolerate his fucking ATROCIOUS personality, but all the information is there. there are only a few things he gets wrong, but they’re minor details about other historical figures besides the ones he focuses on.

ive also heard good things about forrest mcdonald’s bio of him, but i haven’t read it. chernow’s is the only one ive read, the rest of my knowledge has just been accumulated through other sources.

ofc im going to recommend George Washington’s Indispensable Men by Arthur S. Lefkowitz, which has a lot of information on hamilton and is overall a better read.

im sorry this answer is ass, but chernow is both my enemy and the only thing i have so. good luck, brave soldier

[lillaurens]

you didn’t ask but i’m going to give my two cents in case anyone else is reading, lolll

i think flexner’s is much better, i’ve read both his and chernow’s (and a few others, but if you already have a base level of information and you’re trying to fill gaps, they’re probably not worth the read!) he’s (imo) much more respectful and much less biased.

(referenced book is, “the young hamilton” by james thomas flexner, i got mine on thriftbooks for like 3 usd)

[publius-library]

THANK YOU

[publius-library]

I’ve read two more which I can recommend:

Hamilton: The Energetic Founder by R.B. Bernstein

Short (less than 100 pages)

Comprehensive yet gives full story

A good introductory source to get timeline and terminology

Alexander Hamilton, American by Richard Brookhiser

I have not completed it

One of the newest publications

Detailed yet concise

Entertaining

More qualified author, specializes in Founding Fathers

[publius-library]

Hamilton: The Energetic Founder by R.B. Bernstein- A Book Review by a Teenage Know-It-All

In general, when an author refers to the Founding Fathers as "The Founding Guys" in the dedication page of his novel, my hopes are set pretty high from the get-go. I found this book while taking shelter in the Harvard Bookstore after a particularly distressing bus ride with my mother, so my judgment could have been clouded, but I actually don't regret this purchase.

Bernstein's book is short, concise, and comprehensive. While you may not be bored to death with every available anecdote about Alexander Hamilton as some authors (who will remain nameless until later) would want you to be, someone with limited knowledge of the bastard founder would be substantially educated after reading this easy 100 page read (not including the preface or epilogue).

Preface and Acknowledgments

You could not pay me to read anyone's preface or acknowledgments unless it is under 20 words. Bernstein's was not, so it won't be included in my review or in my household.

Chapter 1: Life

Early Life

I hate to say it, and you hate to hear it, but Bernstein's novel has very minimal footnotes (not at the bottom of the page, can't slip that past me), only being used for direct citations. So, there is no telling where he got the birthyear of 1758 for Hamilton because it's not cited. However, to his credit, he refers to an ambiguous "latest major biographer", and I admire anyone who does not invoke the name of the devil.

When it comes to the argument about Hamilton's birth year/age, it depends largely on which sources you believe are more credible, as well as which explanation for the discrepancy between them that you believe is most viable. It also depends on whether or not you believe Hamilton, who continuously used the 1757 year that has been considered truth by many. However, this was only used by Hamilton after his college years, and that is an important distinction.

On April 6, 1771, a teenage Alexander Hamilton submitted a poem to the Royal Danish American Gazette and, wanting to seem just a little older than he was, he summarized himself as "...a youth about seventeen..." Doing some simple math with an overqualified calculator and the knowledge that Hamilton was an insecure 16 year old, we can calculate from those numbers that Hamilton was born in 1755.

Source: Founders Online, Alexander Hamilton Papers: Alexander Hamilton to Royal Danish American Gazette, 6 April 1771. This document also includes Hamilton's first recorded poem, which is very interesting and a worthwhile read to understand his developmental years.

When Hamilton arrived in the continental British colonies in 1773, the age he gave in the above letter would put him in Boston Harbor at the age of 18- far to old for college in this time period. The exact age of entry and graduation is not precise, but it can be estimated that students would enter in their early teens (around 13-14) and graduate before they turned 17. That makes an 18 year old Hamilton far behind his would-be graduating class.

Source: University of Pennsylvania, Penn Libraries, "Penn in the 18th Century: Student Life". I thoroughly enjoyed this article, and it answered some more questions about what exactly college entailed in the 1700s, which is far different to the modern system as there was very little organized educational systems outside of these colleges and universities.

The running theory among recent historians is that Hamilton aged himself down two years (changing his birth year from 1755 to 1757) in order to apply to the College of New Jersey (modern day Princeton), which was the obvious path for him given that he was living in New Jersey and had several alumnus as mentors. Of course, we all know the story of him being denied access to Princeton after requesting an advanced curriculum*, so this detail of the age-change could fit into this attempt to get into the school on his terms. Since 1757 was now his documented birth year, it makes sense that he would continue to use that year throughout his life, as to not confuse his family, friends, and colleagues.

*According to Hercules Mulligan, Hamilton wanted to advance through the standard curriculum "with as much rapidity as his exertions would enable him to do. Dr. Witherspoon [President of the College of New Jersey] listened with great attention to so unusual a proposition from so young a person and replied that he had not the sole power to determine that but he would submit the request to the trustees who would decide." (Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow; The William and Mary Quarterly, April 1947). Hamilton remedied this by applying to King's College (modern Columbia) and was enrolled as a special student who was tutored privately and audited necessary lectures as according to the president, Dr. Miles Cooper.

Despite all this, I have never come across 1758 as a possible birth year for Hamilton- nor have I 1754 or 1756. The issue is decidedly between 1755 or 1757, and Bernstein's lack of citations does not wholly reflect badly on his credibility, but it is disappointing because it just leaves me wondering where he got those numbers from.

The American Revolutionary War

The book does generally suffer from this lack of citation/elaboration for the sake of clarity, particularly in instances like on page 5, where Bernstein writes, "After months of organizing and training his artillery company, which he financed with the remainder of the funds meant to pay for his college education..." I have not seen any other documentation that Hamilton financed his artillery company with his educational funds, so knowing where this statement comes from would be greatly beneficial, but any citation that might elaborate on this does not exist.

There are also issues with Bernstein's timeline, along with a few dates being off (such as claiming Hamilton was invited to Washington's military staff in March 1777, when that was actually when he appeared on the payroll, and had actually been invited after the Battle of Princeton in January 1777), but it is especially noticeable when there seems to be some overlap in his novel between Hamilton's service as an artillery captain and as an aide-de-camp.

The HMS Asia was a British warship that blockaded the port of New York Harbor in August 1775, and fired upon the city. At the time, Hamilton and his friend Hercules Mulligan were serving in a makeshift militia company composed of college students called the Hearts of Oak. The following account details Hamilton's involvement in this event, which I consider the beginning of his military aspirations:

"The Asia fired upon the city, and I recollect well that Mr. Hamilton was there, for I was engaged in hauling off one of the cannon when Mr. H. came up and gave me his musket to hold and he took hold of the rope...I told him where I had left [the musket] and he went for it notwithstanding [that] the firing continued, with as much unconcern as if the vessel had not been there." -Hercules Mulligan on the Attack of the HMS Asia

Source: Hercules Mulligan: Confidential Correspondent of General George Washington - A Son of Liberty in the American War of Independence by Michael J. O'Brien

Through his connection to Alexander McDougall, who was forming a New York regiment to resist the British army, Hamilton was able to be recommended on February 23 to the New York Provincial Congress as a "...Capt. of a Company of Artillery." Hamilton received the formal assignment to this position on March 14, 1776, and maintained that post until he was offered a spot on George Washington's staff on January 20, 1777, and the appointment was confirmed on March 1, 1777.

Source: Alexander Hamilton: Youth to Maturity 1755-1788 by Broadus Mitchell

The job requirements of one of Washington's aides-de-camp were extensive, and included nearly every administrative duty that went along with running an army- from writing out orders to delivering them, from monitoring troops to rallying them in battle, the aides were official extensions of the Commander-in-Chief. Very often, skilled riders with military experience (as well as exceptional nagging ability) such as Hamilton were sent on small raiding missions, given a few men under their command to destroy or pillage supply stores. However, this does not constitute actually commanding a detachment, so Hamilton did not do this as Bernstein claims. The only time he did while under Washington's direct command was during the Battle of Yorktown in 1781, but by that time, he had long since quit Washington's office due to frustrations with the man in charge.

Source George Washington's Indispensable Men by Arthur S. Lefkowitz

This discrepancy is not a major flaw in Bernstein's retelling by any means, but it is one example of how the overall timeline of chapter one is a little muddled, which may confuse someone who does not have a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of Alexander Hamilton's life like some of you weirdos on the internet (not me, obviously).

Political Career

Moving out of the war and into the Constitutional Era (1786-89), Bernstein includes the almost mandatory anecdote of Hamilton's infamous six hour speech* during the Constitutional Convention (though he claims it was between three and six hours, though all sources I've seen have said it was six). Bernstein describes the speech as such:

"Taking the floor, he gave a speech between three and six hours in length. He mocked the Articles of Confederation and the delegates' plans to fix them. Instead, he described his own plan for a truly national government that would have reduced the states to administrative districts and vested the general government with sweeping national powers. Unfortunately for Hamilton, his proposal remained only a proposal. He could only declaim and argue, for Yates and Lansing would not support his proposal on behalf of New York, nor would anybody else in the Convention, not even Madison," (Bernstein 11).

And all of this is absolutely correct- however, it misses the point. Hamilton's plan, which was everything Bernstein said it was, was so distinctly Hamilton that even the man himself was well aware that he was not likeable enough for it to pass. Though Hamilton put effort into his plan and had faith that it would be successful, it was far too close to a monarchy to appease the Convention (especially with whisperings of uprisings blowing across the Atlantic from Paris by this time).

Instead, Hamilton continued to give his speech delivering his proposal in order to push the radicals behind the New Jersey Plan to consider the moderate nature of the Virginia Plan, which Hamilton and his comrade Madison favored. The Virginia Plan was essentially a modified version of the British government model, which is distinctly Hamiltonian, even though Madison claims the credit. Hamilton had his reservations about the final draft- but so did Madison. They were teammates at this point, as contrasting to their later relationship that might be. Hamilton would not propose a contrary plan if he genuinely believed it could succeed; he had temporary lapses in political judgment frequently, but this was one of those golden moments where he seemed quite intelligent.

*Hamilton's speech was given about half a month after the Virginia Plan was first proposed, and three days after the New Jersey Plan. So although it was not especially late in the game, that changes when you consider that Hamilton had not spoken in support of either of the plans at all. Hamilton did criticize the Virginia plan ("And what even is the Virginia Plan, but democracy checked by democracy, or pork with a little change of the sauce?" Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787 by Catherine Drinker Bowen), so there is an argument that he was offering an alternative plan, but it's overall effect was to lend support to the Virginia Plan, as well as damaging Hamilton's reputation by igniting rumors of British sympathies.

There is very little to critique with Bernstein's retelling of the Washington administration, aside from a few strange descriptions and excessive brevity, but this era in American history is so excessive, and not everyone can write a King James Bible sized treatise on just Federalist 1-5.

This, however, does benefit benefit Bernstein when he discusses the Reynolds Affair. It is the sort of subject you want to dedicate time and words to, exploring the multiple perspectives and dynamics, if you're going to go in depth on it at all. Bernstein's retelling is simple, delicate, and careful, respecting all parties, especially the women.*

*Unlike some less comprehendible authors, Bernstein is not aggressively sexist against the women in Hamilton's life- starting with Rachael Fawcett (his spelling, again, not cited; Rachel's name has many spellings and variations so this is not especially egregious). He speaks of her respectfully and factually, which I shouldn't be happy about, but that's what we've come to here. I'll get into the larger consequences of brevity in a similar area later in the review, but you should know that I don't entirely approve of how much he skips over Hamilton's relationships with women, but to be fair, that would probably taken 100 pages on its own.

The Last Few Years

Again, there isn't too much to say here except for a few notes and interpretation differences between Bernstein and I. Firstly, on the issue of Washington's death, Bernstein writes of Hamilton's response to the sad news, "It does suggest, however, that Hamilton was so moved by Washington's death, which ended a close personal and political partnership spanning nearly twenty-five years, that he did not heed his own choice of words, a tendency that affected him throughout 1800," (24).

The instance where Hamilton "did not heed his own choice of words" was when Hamilton wrote to Tobias Lear, "Perhaps no man in this community has equal cause with myself to deplore the loss [of Washington]."

I think Bernstein's interpretation of this is a little dramatic; the expression that someone's feelings were the most intense or profound was a common saying in the 18th century western society, and can be seen in many letters regarding friends or extended family, where the person writing is definitely not the most affected by the loss. It is the deep expression of grief, not a legitimate claim that Hamilton's grief supersedes all others'. I only think this worth mentioning because it slightly misconstrues Hamilton's character, and it's important to avoid that.

Source: Founders Online, Hamilton Papers: Alexander Hamilton to Tobias Lear, 2 January 1800

The Duel

Overall, there are few portrayals of the 1804 Hamilton/Burr Duel that don't horribly disfigure the intentions of one of the parties involved. In his book, Bernstein picks Burr as the scapegoat, and chooses the route of claiming that Burr was simply looking for anyone he could point his pistol at, shouting unreasonable demands at Hamilton who respectfully raised a hand to silence him and gloriously took to the field.

Of course, the duel is an especially complex issue, which Bernstein dedicates a chapter to, so I will reserve my interpretation until then, but it's clear that his biography is strictly anti-Burr, which taking sides is not the most accurate way to approach the matter of a duel- or anything in historical politics, if I'm being fully honest with you.

Chapter 2: Revolution and Politics and Chapter 3: Law and Constitutionalism

As the heading implies, chapter two focuses on the two revolutions during Hamilton's lifetime (American and French, chronologically) and the impact they had on his politics. Now, while reading this, I admit I was increasingly frustrated that details about Hamilton's life that would have helped the brevity issues in chapter one were found in the following chapters, I can see the vision, and will accept it. The author's retellings of these events are very well, so I have little to disagree with, so I'll be discussing what I do disagree with, and what I thought he handled well.

Of course, as the champion of not giving Hamilton too much credit, I'm going to critique Bernstein for referring to Hamilton as "Washington's principle aide" on page 34. I fought Chernow on this, so I'll be fighting Bernstein on this. Hamilton, while a very valuable asset in Washington's staff, was not literally or figuratively his "principle" aide-de-camp.

The literal title goes to Washington's military secretaries, which, during most of Hamilton's tenure on his staff, was Robert Hanson Harrison. The figurative title falls to Tench Tilghman, who served for longer than Hamilton in, arguably, more capacities. Hamilton's skills were in politics and organization, as well as military maneuvers, so he was most often picked for interactions with congressmen and foreign representatives, as well as raids, foraging parties, and bookkeeping. Tilghman, however, filled in wherever was necessary from 1776 to 1781. The philosophy of "credit where credit is due" dictates that these men be given the title of "principle" aide before Hamilton, who only has the advantage of being louder and more famous.

Source: George Washington's Indispensable Men by Arthur S. Lefkowitz

One thing I think could have warranted a mention was Hamilton's paranoia towards mob rule. Of course, Hamilton's political theory of preventing both majority and minority rule are necessary to mention, as they are interwoven in both The Federalist and the Constitution itself, which can be pinned down as the best models for (most of) Hamilton's political philosophies.

However, Hamilton's fear of the mob dates back to before the French Revolution, where it really kicked up and paired well with Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts. These are major historical events that Bernstein does not neglect, however he could have gone a little deeper on this. Hamilton's fear of the mob can be traced back to his childhood in the Caribbean, where the fear of slave uprisings was implanted in every citizen's head, especially if they were raised in the area. This fear motivated Hamilton's actions in the aforementioned Dr. Miles Cooper incident, regardless of how you spell Miles/Myles, which was before both major revolutions, so it is a topic worth exploring.

There was a third revolution that Bernstein does not discuss: the Haitian Revolution in 1791. The results of this revolution was the founding of the country of Haiti, and the liberation of the island's enslaved people, who went on to govern the new country. This was, as you can imagine, every white person's nightmare at the time, especially if they were up to date on the recent occurrences in France, where the violence was increasing by the day. Hamilton's only references throughout his correspondence (that I could find) were in regards to a French fleet arriving in what is now Haiti, and "...the late disturbances in those Islands..." so unfortunately, we do not know his exact thought on that event. However, there is much to be speculated and discussed, given that this revolution occurred so close to his birthplace, and I think that the mention of this could have given this chapter of Bernstein's novel a new perspective that we don't normally see in a Hamilton biography.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow; Founders Online, Alexander Hamilton Papers: Alexander Hamilton’s Final Version of the Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 5 December 1791, Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 5 November 1796

One continuous pattern throughout the book is the idea that Hamilton had a fully "American" or "federal" perspective; that his priorities were dedicated to the entire country's interests, rather than to one particular state or region, (Bernstein 42, 66). This is, unlike most things in this novel, wholly untrue. Hamilton, although he would very much appreciate this statement, was very often biased towards the interests of New York as well as that of the upper merchant class of that state. Though he was not scheming to convert the whole American economy to being run by bankers and merchants like Jefferson claimed, he did still lean towards the class which he belonged until he was unable to maintain that position. In general, Bernstein is very kind to Hamilton, which is charitable, but inaccurate at times.

Bernstein is very talented at summarizing Hamilton's political philosophies, specifically when he describes Hamilton's four basic principles as being "...popular sovereignty, energetic government, checks and balances, and federalism," (Bernstein 40). These are themes that are abundant in Hamilton's political actions, and are espoused in The Federalist and other major publications of his, as well as the Constitution- because they mimic the foundations of the British government. Bernstein is clearly an incredible academic and historian who is greatly worthy of respect and a wonderful source for descriptions such as these.

Note: I included these two chapters in with each other since they're largely interlinked and I didn't have anything noteworthy to say about chapter three that I didn't already say about chapter two. That isn't to say that chapter three isn't noteworthy, but it stands on its own, in my opinion.

Chapter 4: Political Economy and Public Administration

For the two areas where we can see Hamilton's greatest accomplishments, Bernstein does an exceptional job at discussing his actions and motivations, as well as his conflicts with political rivals. My favorite sentence in particular can be found on page 74:

"Even at those times when most Americans have turned to worship at the ideological shrine of Thomas Jefferson, students of public administration have devoted close, admiring attention to Hamilton's thought and work." -Bernstein

I just really like it.

Another thing I really like was Bernstein's categorizing of the factors that went into Hamilton's view on the national economy, as well as his explanation (Bernstein 75-76). I'll include a summary here so those who do not have the means to buy his book can still appreciate his genius here.

Unity: authority organized from top down; keeping all government officials on the same page to execute orders from the top dog exactly as they were meant to be executed

Duration: the system in place would have to remain in place for an extended period of time in order to be properly incorporated, but the time period must also be short enough to ensure the efficiency of government

Adequacy: the government must have enough power to be able to actually execute the policies it puts in place, but cannot have too much that it infringes on the states' or individuals government given or fundamental rights

Responsibility: every official was responsible to the department and nation when executing policy, and must conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the overall public administration

This categorization is effective in that it does not leave anything wanting- the reader is able to fully understand what went into Hamilton's thinking- but it is also concise enough that it does not bore you with 100 pages of doing over every. single. Federalist. paper. So, I appreciate Bernstein's mercy.

Chapter 5: War and Peace and Chapter 6: Honor and Dueling

Note: For chapter 5, I again had nothing to say, though I did write notes; however, they were only my typical complaints about having to read about my favorite subject in the world. That being said, there is more to chapter 6.

Bernstein categorizes (once more) the men of this generation into two groups: gentlemen of extreme politeness and gentlemen of the sword. These classifications are based on a man's response to a conflict or insult. Gentlemen of extreme politeness, like Jefferson or Madison, who, when in the face of conflict, do whatever they can to avoid open warfare with diplomatic responses according to an unwritten code of the Enlightenment Era. Gentlemen of the sword, however, shoot each other.

I would not say that 18th century western gentlemen were quite so black and white as this description, but I'll roll with it. So, we have gentlemen of extreme politeness (Jefferson, Madison, the Randolphs, the Livingstons) and then the gentlemen of the sword (Hamilton, Burr, Monroe...) Who else? I don't know, because Bernstein does not mention this name once:

John Laurens.

I made a post mentioning "Laurens erasure" in July, and I swore off arguing whether or not historical figures were queer a long time ago, but the entire exclusion of John Laurens from a Hamilton biography feels sinful, so I cannot let it stand. Even if he is a footnote, he deserves to be mentioned in Hamilton's life story, not only for the personal relationship they had, but for the role he played in the development of Hamilton's view of class distinctions.

John Laurens came from an extremely prestigious family of South Carolina, a colony founded for the purpose of making money for the British Empire. Alexander Hamilton's background contrasts this, as he was raised a poor bastard on an island where there were only the very rich and the severely impoverished, no in-between. This seems to have caused tension between Laurens and Hamilton at various points, but by the end of the relationship, Hamilton had joined the bourgeoisie that Laurens was born into, and this marks a significant shift in his attitudes towards various social issues.

Source: Founders Online, Hamilton Papers: Alexander Hamilton to John Laurens, 8 January 1780

More specifically to the topic at hand, John Laurens provided Hamilton with his first personal exposure to dueling (aside from the duels that occurred in his Caribbean childhood*), when Laurens dueled Major General Charles Lee in 1778, and Hamilton acted as his second. You'd think that this would warrant a footnote, but, as we've established, Bernstein does not believe in those unless it is a direct citation.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow (pg. 18*) ; John Laurens and the American Revolution by Gregory D. Massey

Laurens and the honor culture we're discussing are inherently intertwined, and he's even further intertwined with Hamilton (usually in a military cot, I presume). It was the 18th century concept of "honor" that motivated Laurens to join the army, duel, and die in battle. It was honor that united Hamilton and Laurens, and it was Laurens who taught Hamilton the ins and outs of being an Enlightened, American gentleman with honor. Without John Laurens, Alexander would not have been Hamilton.

Now that I've said why Laurens should be mentioned, why shouldn't he? Brevity is one reason, and we've established that's very important to Bernstein, however I don't think it's good enough. Laurens would have prompted another question that Bernstein either didn't have time for or didn't have the answers for: were they gay? Well, I have the answers, but not the time, so we'll save that for another day. For now, tsk tsk, Bernstein.

Of course, Bernstein discusses the 1804 duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Bernstein doesn't say anything particularly extraordinary about this event, and neither will I, because everything has already been said about it that could have been said (probably, if you can find something original, please grace my ears with it). However, the particular narrative that Bernstein leans into is problematic in one particular way, and that is demonstrated in this excerpt:

"There are a few salient points about how this honor dispute escalated- or deteriorated- into a duel. First, what if Burr had gone first to cooper to ask what Hamilton's "despicable opinion" had been... Second, Burr's choice to confront Hamilton rather than [Reverend Charles] Cooper suggests how ready he was to accept a duel as the only way to resolve his dispute with Hamilton and vindicate his honor. Third had Burr been that ready to risk a duel, Hamilton could not have avoided it," (96).

For some context, Burr cited his reason for challenging Hamilton as being a letter between Reverend Charles Cooper and General Philip Schuyler that was published in the Albany Argus in which Cooper wrote, "I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mister Burr."

This is problematic in that it entirely pins the blame on Burr, and poses Hamilton as the victim. This is something fairly common, and the most common bias among historians, but it is simply not possible. There is never one complete villain, and Burr certainly wasn't someone who could be described as such. Not even Hamilton thought that, which says something.

To address Bernstein's first point, I don't see how reaching out to Cooper would have benefitted either Burr or Hamilton. If he had, and the "more despicable opinion" had been as bad as implied, the fault still would have lied with Hamilton. There would be no reason for Burr to fault Cooper for this, as Cooper did not say that he agreed with Hamilton's opinion of Burr; it was entirely attributed to Hamilton. (Even if it was implied that Cooper did agree, he could more easily frame it to Burr that this wasn't the case).

Additionally, the reason why Burr was concerned with this "more despicable opinion" is due to several rumors going around about him, some that were objectively vile, such as him having an incestuous relationship with his daughter. The specific instance cited by Cooper was something Hamilton said at the city tavern, discouraging others from voting for Burr. It is a common misconception that this is what motivated Burr to challenge Hamilton, but in actuality, it is the implication, and Hamilton's failure to deny, that Hamilton was guilty of spreading such horrible, false rumors against Burr.

Source: Founders Online, "Enclosure: Charles D. Cooper to Philip Schuyler", 23 April 1804; "The two men were often invited to dinner parties hosted by leading New York politicians, businessmen and even each other. During those years, Burr was widowed and lived with his daughter and husband. Hamilton reportedly suggested Burr committed incest with his daughter. Enraged, the Vice President challenged the Treasury Secretary to a duel in Weehawken, N.J. Hamilton was mortally wounded, dying a day later. Hamilton’s death destroyed Burr’s political career," North Coast Current, "Historically Speaking: The Forgotten Man- Aaron Burr"

The lack of acknowledgment of Burr's perspective contributes to this larger perspective that Burr was a malicious, conniving person, and it lacks empathy and understanding, while also showing poor critical thinking skills. Historians are human, and therefore can never be entirely unbiased, but there is a responsibility in this field to be open to all sides, and to provide the reader with enough information to take a different side than the one given by the author. I feel this was lacking in Bernstein's analysis of the duel, but he is absolutely not unique in this. This is partly why I dislike discussing the duel so much because when this occurs in a more opinionated work, such as Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow, it is simply frustrating. But, I digress.

Conclusion

Overall, I'd highly recommend this biography for someone seeking to start their investigation of Hamilton's life. Bernstein does a very good job of providing a simple, succinct resource that makes the factual evidence of Hamilton's life very easily accessible due to his book's brevity, but this feature does also limit the perspective you get from giving this book. In reality, this isn't very different from any other history book, at least in my perspective. I believe that this is a genre of literature that should be cross-referenced, and you should keep reading to seek what the whole truth is. The best thing about it is that that "whole truth" is not attainable by one person, and that makes history an inherently social art; you need to work with other people to fully understand. Read other people's work, question other people's opinions, have a discussion. In conclusion, keep reading.

[publius-library]

What Hamilton biography do you recommend? I've read one in Polish (which was quite good, but there were many things missing, and I would like to improve my knowledge about him :) ) and I saw you don't like Ron Chernow's version so I came to ask if you know the other, maybe better one :)

…i dont know a better one

there are definitely others, like flexner’s biography is one of the more commonly cited ones, but if you want information to fill in the gaps, its chernow all the way. you have to tolerate his fucking ATROCIOUS personality, but all the information is there. there are only a few things he gets wrong, but they’re minor details about other historical figures besides the ones he focuses on.

ive also heard good things about forrest mcdonald’s bio of him, but i haven’t read it. chernow’s is the only one ive read, the rest of my knowledge has just been accumulated through other sources.

ofc im going to recommend George Washington’s Indispensable Men by Arthur S. Lefkowitz, which has a lot of information on hamilton and is overall a better read.

im sorry this answer is ass, but chernow is both my enemy and the only thing i have so. good luck, brave soldier

[lillaurens]

you didn’t ask but i’m going to give my two cents in case anyone else is reading, lolll

i think flexner’s is much better, i’ve read both his and chernow’s (and a few others, but if you already have a base level of information and you’re trying to fill gaps, they’re probably not worth the read!) he’s (imo) much more respectful and much less biased.

(referenced book is, “the young hamilton” by james thomas flexner, i got mine on thriftbooks for like 3 usd)

[publius-library]

THANK YOU

[publius-library]

What Hamilton biography do you recommend? I've read one in Polish (which was quite good, but there were many things missing, and I would like to improve my knowledge about him :) ) and I saw you don't like Ron Chernow's version so I came to ask if you know the other, maybe better one :)

…i dont know a better one

there are definitely others, like flexner’s biography is one of the more commonly cited ones, but if you want information to fill in the gaps, its chernow all the way. you have to tolerate his fucking ATROCIOUS personality, but all the information is there. there are only a few things he gets wrong, but they’re minor details about other historical figures besides the ones he focuses on.

ive also heard good things about forrest mcdonald’s bio of him, but i haven’t read it. chernow’s is the only one ive read, the rest of my knowledge has just been accumulated through other sources.

ofc im going to recommend George Washington’s Indispensable Men by Arthur S. Lefkowitz, which has a lot of information on hamilton and is overall a better read.

im sorry this answer is ass, but chernow is both my enemy and the only thing i have so. good luck, brave soldier

[pub-lius]

Do you have a post on Maria Reynolds? I haven't been able to find much information about her, I read she became a nun or something after the scandal??

i know i do, i am struggling to find it because tumblr's search function has and always will be ass

RAHHH I CANT FIND ANY OF THEM fuck this im giving you a short history of her life because i love you with all my heart

DISCLAIMER: i fucking hate Ron Chernow, especially for his treatment of Maria Reynolds in his book, but him and wikipedia are all I have right now and my relationship with him is very toxic pls help

Early Life

Maria Reynolds was born as Mary Lewis on March 30, 1768 to Susannah Van Der Burgh and Richard Lewis, who was Susannah's second husband. She had eleven siblings, and they did not have very much money, and were likely a pretty average 18th century white family in America, with poor literacy rates, struggles with debt, and the women being taken advantage of. They lived in Dutchess County, New York.

Maria was literate, but not well educated. This is something she was strongly mocked for by both her husband, Hamilton, Chernow, and other men. Well, I guess Hamilton didn't really mock her, but he definitely looked down on her for it. Fucking asshole. She also seemed to have very strong mood swings from a young age, and this could have been something psychological, like a mood disorder, or it could have been physiological or hormonal, such a menstrual disorder that was never properly treated because women's issues were not taken seriously at the time, mental or physical. This is also something she was mocked for.

Maria was married off to James Reynolds, a Revolutionary War veteran, on July 28th, 1783 when she was 15 years old. James Reynolds often lobbied the government for money after the war, foreshadowing his debt problems and later exploitation of his underage wife for money.

Together, the couple would have one daughter, Susan, named after her grandmother, who was born on August 18, 1785. Maria showed herself to be a devoted mother who would do anything for her daughter, including putting herself in harms way to make sure she didn't face the same fate. Unfortunately, Susan would also later be in an unhealthy relationship, despite her mother's efforts.

Maria Lewis was always described as very emotional, innocent, smart, and pretty, despite those who attempted to degrade her.

Men before Hamilton

It was early in her marriage when she was looked down upon by men, beginning with the son of her first landlady in Philadelphia.

"Her mind at this time was far from being tranquil or consistent, for almost the same minute that she would declare her respect for her husband, cry and feel distressed, [the tears] would vanish and levity would succeed, with bitter execrations on her husband. This inconsistency and folly was ascribed to a troubled, but innocent and harmless mind... [Reynolds] had frequently enjoined and insisted that she should insinuate herself on certain high and influential characters- endeavor to make assignments with them and actually prostitute herself to gull money from them." -Richard Folwell, August 12, 1797

Her complicated feelings about her husband allowed men to reduce her to being deceptive, however it shows that she was torn between her bias towards her husband, who had been around her and influencing her throughout her formative, adolescent years, and the things he was asking her to do, including prostituting herself.

These escalated to more than requests for her to prostitute herself to rich men into demands and threats. Reynolds became physically abusive to his wife if she did not comply with his demands to sleep with and extort rich men. Eventually, this became a pattern, and she became known as a prostitute who slept separately from her husband so she could entertain her midnight visitors, when essentially she was being human trafficked by her husband at the age of 18.

There is evidence to suggest that she only slept with Hamilton when Reynolds threatened to physically abuse her daughter, Susan. I'm not going to go into too much detail about the affair because I believe it's over done, but I am going to discuss how Ron Chernow talks about this woman, and the consequences of victim blaming.

Ron Chernow Hates Women

Ron Chernow discusses the Reynolds Affair in chapter 19 of his novel Alexander Hamilton. Already, he places some of the blame on Elizabeth Hamilton with the sentence "It was a dangerous moment for Eliza to abandon Hamilton,", even though he likes to put her on a pedestal so people think he's a feminist (Chernow 363). You're not a feminist, Ron, you're a 75 year old incel, and I feel bad for your wife.

Chernow introduces Maria Reynolds by stating her age at the time of the affair (23), and for some reason, making up the fact that her name is pronounced "Mariah"??? He gives no citation for this, so I'm assuming he made it up to make her seem more slutty. Her name was Maria. Actually, her name was Mary, but if we had any link between her and the Christian figure for maternity and purity, well that wouldn't work with the portrayal of her as a disgusting, crazy, lying whore, right?

Chernow uses words like "doleful tale", "fanciful", "conspired", and "trickster" to describe Maria, but gives no proof of her malicious intent towards Hamilton. He portrays Hamilton as vain, however a savior to Maria, and she simply HAD to have been in love with him because of how good of a person he was. Ron Chernow manipulates Maria Reynolds' character to fit his personal belief that there are two kinds of women: good, pure, Christian homemakers, and uneducated sluts who deserve their mistreatment from men (Chernow 367).

Even though Ron Chernow finds it more comfortable to believe that Maria worked in cohorts with her piece of shit husband, and that they together decided to use Hamilton for his money, the truth is that she was a severely abused woman throughout her entire life, especially at the hands of James Reynolds. Her manipulation of Hamilton was not to gain something, but to prevent her and her daughter from being abused. Chernow glosses over this, dismissing it as something she made up to secure a divorce, but it was proven true in a court of law. Chernow's famous cognitive dissonance strikes again: the US government is very securely made with a magnificent justice system, yet uneducated, illiterate women can manipulate it to get... a piece of notarized paper! Yeah, don't let this senile old man write any more books. Thanks.

Aftermath

The backlash from The Reynolds Pamphlet, published 1797, would haunt Maria for the rest of her life. She remarried twice, once to Jacob Clingman, who is another piece of shit who should have his dick guillotined, and the other time to Dr. Matthew (idk his last name) who she was a housekeeper for. She allegedly wrote her own pamphlet, but never published it. Idk anything about that.

Maria would raise her two grandchildren after her daughter's untimely death. She also changed her name back to Mary, becoming Mary Matthew for the rest of her life. She was devoutly religious, joining the Methodist Church, but not a nun. She died loved on March 25, 1828. And if there isn't someone on earth who loves Mary Matthew, then I am dead.

Here's your Maria Reynolds post. I love her so much, and I will defend her until I have no voice left, my fingers can't write or type, my eyes can't move, and my legs can't walk. She deserves so much better than what she got and how she's been portrayed. Vive Mary Lewis.

[pub-lius]

Hey, so recently I saw a post about the misogyny of hamilton, so I wanted to ask you if it was true. Not the part of misogyny (because in that time it was normal, I guess), but rather how much was? (does make sense?), did it affect the relationship with eliza or with her daughters?

Thankyu!!! (Muak)

hm okay so im not completely sure what you mean but i am going to do my darndest

So, in the time period which Hamilton was alive, which is the latter half of the 18th century, there definitely was a profound attitude of misogyny, but it was very different from what we know today. Most of our idea of sexism comes from the religious revivals of the 20th century (and people who know me know how i feel about the godforsaken 20th century when it comes to history). This is yk your typical idea of a housewife being at home, taking on the burdens of homemaking and child rearing and basically keeping everything together at home while the husband worked a stressful 9 to 5 and didn't do shit at home and weaponized incompetence and implicit biases and yadayada

This was not the case in the 18th century! 18th century gender roles are very different from what we're used to, and even more different than what the Victorians and Edwardians considered the norm. This is especially visible in Hamilton's relationship with women, so I'm quite excited to talk about this.

Firstly, I want to talk about the joker to my batman: Ron Chernow. A major theory he supports in his biography of Hamilton is the two sided nature of Hamilton's perception of women. He says that there is a clear distinction between two "types" of women in Hamilton's wife-- the good, Christian mistress of the house and the stupid, mentally unstable skank. These are his terms. I want to hit him in the head with a brick.

"Together, the two eldest [Schuyler] sisters formed a composite portrait of Hamilton's ideal woman, each appealing to a different facet of his personality. Eliza reflected Hamilton's earnest sense of purpose, determination, and moral rectitude, while Angelica exhibited his worldly side- the wit, charm, and vivacity that so delighted people in social intercourse." -Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, page 133

Yeah, this is horseshit. It gets worse when he compares Elizabeth Hamilton and Maria Reynolds on page 367, but I'm not going to get started because I won't stop. And this isn't about him anyway.

Instead, I want to talk about WHY this is horseshit. First of all, even Alexander "thinks with the wrong head" Hamilton didn't have this fucked up mindset, because it is heavily based in 20th century evangelicalism that didn't even exist in Hamilton's world.

Yes, obviously there was religious attitudes that condemned certain actions from women, but this was not as intense as in later periods. In the 18th century, an upperclass woman, such as Elizabeth Hamilton, would be responsible for maintaining the household, but this meant being in charge of the servants rather than doing the work herself. The work she did do would be maintaining the finances and the family's reputation.

Reputation was everything in the 18th century, and this especially applied to women. Not only did they have to maintain their own reputations, but they had to raise their children to have the skills necessary to do the same, and often had to fill in for their husbands in this department if they held public office. It's very difficult to maintain your reputation if you're beating people with walking sticks in the Continental Congress.

When it came to lower and middle class women, their jobs weren't different in that they carried an equally important role in the family. They would be doing household chores just as well as their husband, and these weren't easy chores that made women "feeble". They very often took a lot of physical strength and endurance, and it wasn't considered unladylike for women to do "men's" chores while their husbands were away. This isn't to say that women in later eras didn't do the same, but it wasn't as publicly frowned upon.

Hamilton had a very unique perspective as he was witness to both sides of this coin. His mother, a single, working class mother would be juggling both the man and woman's role. I think it was really this background that allowed him to have a much more informed perspective on womanhood. He was one of the few men in this period that I've seen write from the perspective of a woman, specifically a grieving mother.

"For the sweet babe, my doting heart Did all a mother's fondness feel; Careful to act each tender part And guard from every threatening evil. But what alas! availed my care? The unrelenting hand of death, Regardless of a parent's prayer Has stopped my lovely infant's breath-" -Papers of Alexander Hamilton, volume 1, page 43.

Chernow attributes this to Hamilton's deeply empathetic nature, which is fair, however I think it also shows that he was able to understand a woman's experience specifically.

I say this because Hamilton does tell us a little bit about exactly what was expected of women in the time during Elizabeth's first pregnancy in a letter that is usually used to call him a sexist, but I think it's a little more complex than that. Here's the excerpt:

"You shall engage shortly to present me with a boy. You will ask me if a girl will not answer the purpose. By no means. I fear, with all the mothers charms, she may inherit the caprices of her father and then she will enslave, tantalize and plague one half [the] sex, out of pure regard to which I protest against a daughter. So far from extenuating your offence this would be an aggravation of it." -Alexander Hamilton to Elizabeth Hamilton, October 12, 1781

In this letter, Hamilton isn't telling Elizabeth that he wants a boy to inherit his fortune, to carry on his name, or the other reasons that were given by his contemporaries for preferring sons over daughters. He specifically states that his reasons are his fear that his traits will be passed onto his children, and that if its a daughter, she will be more discriminated against than his son because of her sex. Essentially, it was easier to be a gay son in the 18th century than a thot daughter. In that question, Hamilton would choose gay son because he knew that men were generally less criticized than women.

So, I'm not saying Hamilton wasn't sexist, because, by definition, he was. He was taught that women were fundamentally different than men, but he didn't look down on women for that, because that simply wasn't normal. You wouldn't be a gentleman if you looked down on a woman for being physically and psychologically different from a man, you'd be an asshole. While their interpretations of these differences don't align with what modern medicine has determined, they weren't the same as in the later eras in American history. Women were, most certainly, oppressed because of these perceived differences, but it was a different system of oppression than what typically defines our idea of sexism.

It's hard to say if it affected Hamilton's relationship with his wife and daughters, as there isn't any real written proof, but I imagine Hamilton's attitude specifically towards women did make their relationship different than other fathers, daughters, husbands, and wives of the time. We do know that Hamilton was a very hands on father who dedicated a lot of time and care towards his children, and he did not treat his daughters any differently than his sons. He put the same amount of energy into their education, though they weren't educated in the same thing, and he seemed to be equally close with all his children.

Hamilton and women is a very interesting topic, and it gets more complicated when it comes to Rachel Faucette and Maria Reynolds and those parallels, but that is a topic for another time. Good thing its women's history month! Hope this helped :)

[publius-library]

Can you tell me everything you know about Martha Jefferson?

I would love to. In my opinion, Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson is one of the most tragic figures of the 18th century, and her life shows the many challenges a woman would face in this time period, due to the incredible expectations put on them. I'd like to open by saying that the importance of discussing women in history not only gives us a more full perspective on any and every historical event, but it also gives light to less commonly discussed historical figures that were equally important that we don't know as much about. Martha Jefferson is undoubtably one of those people.

Martha Wayles was born on October 30, 1748 to her wealthy father. Her father was an English immigrant who moved to America and accumulated a decent fortune through slave trading, planting, and his law practice.

Content warning: mention of sexual assault within slavery, skip next paragraph if this may be distressing

Her father is a very interesting figure. In his law practice, he specialized in debt collections, which made him very unpopular among the locals. Additionally, he raped an enslaved woman on his property several times, Elizabeth Hemmings, after the death of his third wife. She would have several children by him, including Sally Hemmings, who would later be raped and have several children by Thomas Jefferson. It is disgusting, but crucial to mention that because of the slave system in America, and the violation of African American women, Martha Jefferson was the half sister of Sally Hemmings.

Martha married Bathurst Skelton when she was 18. They would have one child, John, who died in infancy. Her first husband died six months before Jefferson married Martha, and her first child with Jefferson, Martha aka Patsy, would come nine months after Martha's first child. Her almost constant pregnancy and troubles in maternity would eventually lead to her death.

She married the very eligible bachelor Thomas Jefferson on New Years Day, 1772 at her plantation home, "The Forest". There was a five year age gap between them, as she was 22 going on 23, and he was 28. Jefferson would actually scarcely mention her first husband, and would even report false information that he did not exist, that Martha was a spinster when he married her. The motivations for this are not confirmed.

The young couple arrived at Jefferson's home, Monticello, during a snowstorm, where all the servants were asleep and the house was cold. They toasted their marriage with a leftover bottle of wine, and entered into a period of domestic happiness.

Martha and Thomas had complimentary personalities, balancing out each other's characteristics. They shared an interest in music, as Jefferson played the violin or the cello, and Martha played the piano or the harpsicord. She was said to be very talented.

While there is no known portraits of her, she was described as very beautiful and accomplished. She was slim with hazel eyes and auburn hair. She was the subject of frequent praise from all that knew her.

The Jeffersons had five children in ten years, but only two would survive to adulthood, Martha (Patsy) and Mary (Polly or Mary). Martha was under such strain from her frequent pregnancies that she fell very ill in 1781. The British had invaded Richmond, which forced her away from her husband back to Monticello, but Jefferson often left his political career to stay with her during her sickness. The British would raid Monticello, forcing her to travel in her poor condition yet again.

Her condition continued to worsen, until she died on September 6, 1782, at 11:45 AM at the age of 33. Jefferson would never record his relationship with her, so her life remains mostly a mystery among historians.

Martha Jefferson was far more than the deceased wife of the third president. During her life, she was the mother of several children, who frequently had to grieve their deaths. She was the mistress of a fashionable household, and the wife of an energetic, young politician who was making strides in the cause of liberty and American independence. Her life was riddled with tragedy and mourning, but she was a lively, creative woman who had an untimely death at a cruel age.

[illimitable-freedom]

@imobsessedwiththeatre I know you didn't ask me, but I wanted to add some additional details: (also, I realize both prev and I have assumed you meant Martha Wayles Skeleton Jefferson and not Martha Jefferson Randolph (their eldest daughter), but I've already written all this out)

It's theorized that she had gestational diabetes, which contributed to her difficulties childbearing and eventual death

Jefferson burned/destroyed all their correspondence after her death. He was distraught for months afterwards, riding silently around the plantation with his eldest daughter and reportedly fainting at the sight of his children. Allegedly, Martha asked Jefferson to promise that he would never remarry [he never did]; she did not want her children to have any stepmothers after she had disliked her stepmothers so much.

Martha was active in raising funds for the war effort while Jefferson was governor of Virginia; her letters requesting funds are some of the only examples of her writing that survive.

For some reason I can't seem to find any pictures on the internet today but when Martha was on her deathbed, she and Jefferson wrote out a passage from the novel Tristram Shandy together:

Time wastes too fast: every letter

I trace tells me with what rapidity

life follows my pen. The days and hours

of it are flying over our heads like

clouds of windy day never to return—

more every thing presses on—and every

time I kiss thy hand to bid adieu, every absence which

follows it, are preludes to that eternal separation

which we are shortly to make!

Here's a great video about what historians know/can deduce about Martha

One additional thing about Martha and Sally Hemmings being half-sisters is that allegedly Martha and Sally looked very similar, which if you ask me adds a whole additional level of creepy to Jefferson's abuse of Sally

Martha was evidently a very capable manager of plantations (she was responsible for her father's plantation before his death as well as Jefferson's) and seems to have had no qualms about slavery.

[purevanillacookies-therapist-de]

TYSM!!💖

ANYWAY, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION (sorry😭) DID JEFFERSON HAD SOME MISTRESS WHILE HIS MARRIAGE WITH MARTHA?

[publius-library]

From what I know, no. Before his marriage, he showed interest in a few women, but ultimately courted Martha. Then there was Betsey Walker, who he harassed for several years, but I believe that was after Martha’s death (correct me if I’m wrong). His relations with Sally Hemmings began at the end of his tenure in Paris, and the women he flirted with there were still long after Martha’s death.

Don’t apologize for questions. I love questions

[publius-library]

Can you tell me everything you know about Martha Jefferson?

I would love to. In my opinion, Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson is one of the most tragic figures of the 18th century, and her life shows the many challenges a woman would face in this time period, due to the incredible expectations put on them. I'd like to open by saying that the importance of discussing women in history not only gives us a more full perspective on any and every historical event, but it also gives light to less commonly discussed historical figures that were equally important that we don't know as much about. Martha Jefferson is undoubtably one of those people.

Martha Wayles was born on October 30, 1748 to her wealthy father. Her father was an English immigrant who moved to America and accumulated a decent fortune through slave trading, planting, and his law practice.

Content warning: mention of sexual assault within slavery, skip next paragraph if this may be distressing

Her father is a very interesting figure. In his law practice, he specialized in debt collections, which made him very unpopular among the locals. Additionally, he raped an enslaved woman on his property several times, Elizabeth Hemmings, after the death of his third wife. She would have several children by him, including Sally Hemmings, who would later be raped and have several children by Thomas Jefferson. It is disgusting, but crucial to mention that because of the slave system in America, and the violation of African American women, Martha Jefferson was the half sister of Sally Hemmings.

Martha married Bathurst Skelton when she was 18. They would have one child, John, who died in infancy. Her first husband died six months before Jefferson married Martha, and her first child with Jefferson, Martha aka Patsy, would come nine months after Martha's first child. Her almost constant pregnancy and troubles in maternity would eventually lead to her death.

She married the very eligible bachelor Thomas Jefferson on New Years Day, 1772 at her plantation home, "The Forest". There was a five year age gap between them, as she was 22 going on 23, and he was 28. Jefferson would actually scarcely mention her first husband, and would even report false information that he did not exist, that Martha was a spinster when he married her. The motivations for this are not confirmed.

The young couple arrived at Jefferson's home, Monticello, during a snowstorm, where all the servants were asleep and the house was cold. They toasted their marriage with a leftover bottle of wine, and entered into a period of domestic happiness.

Martha and Thomas had complimentary personalities, balancing out each other's characteristics. They shared an interest in music, as Jefferson played the violin or the cello, and Martha played the piano or the harpsicord. She was said to be very talented.

While there is no known portraits of her, she was described as very beautiful and accomplished. She was slim with hazel eyes and auburn hair. She was the subject of frequent praise from all that knew her.

The Jeffersons had five children in ten years, but only two would survive to adulthood, Martha (Patsy) and Mary (Polly or Mary). Martha was under such strain from her frequent pregnancies that she fell very ill in 1781. The British had invaded Richmond, which forced her away from her husband back to Monticello, but Jefferson often left his political career to stay with her during her sickness. The British would raid Monticello, forcing her to travel in her poor condition yet again.

Her condition continued to worsen, until she died on September 6, 1782, at 11:45 AM at the age of 33. Jefferson would never record his relationship with her, so her life remains mostly a mystery among historians.

Martha Jefferson was far more than the deceased wife of the third president. During her life, she was the mother of several children, who frequently had to grieve their deaths. She was the mistress of a fashionable household, and the wife of an energetic, young politician who was making strides in the cause of liberty and American independence. Her life was riddled with tragedy and mourning, but she was a lively, creative woman who had an untimely death at a cruel age.

[illimitable-freedom]

@imobsessedwiththeatre I know you didn't ask me, but I wanted to add some additional details: (also, I realize both prev and I have assumed you meant Martha Wayles Skeleton Jefferson and not Martha Jefferson Randolph (their eldest daughter), but I've already written all this out)

It's theorized that she had gestational diabetes, which contributed to her difficulties childbearing and eventual death

Jefferson burned/destroyed all their correspondence after her death. He was distraught for months afterwards, riding silently around the plantation with his eldest daughter and reportedly fainting at the sight of his children. Allegedly, Martha asked Jefferson to promise that he would never remarry [he never did]; she did not want her children to have any stepmothers after she had disliked her stepmothers so much.

Martha was active in raising funds for the war effort while Jefferson was governor of Virginia; her letters requesting funds are some of the only examples of her writing that survive.

For some reason I can't seem to find any pictures on the internet today but when Martha was on her deathbed, she and Jefferson wrote out a passage from the novel Tristram Shandy together:

Time wastes too fast: every letter

I trace tells me with what rapidity

life follows my pen. The days and hours

of it are flying over our heads like

clouds of windy day never to return—

more every thing presses on—and every

time I kiss thy hand to bid adieu, every absence which

follows it, are preludes to that eternal separation

which we are shortly to make!

Here's a great video about what historians know/can deduce about Martha

One additional thing about Martha and Sally Hemmings being half-sisters is that allegedly Martha and Sally looked very similar, which if you ask me adds a whole additional level of creepy to Jefferson's abuse of Sally

Martha was evidently a very capable manager of plantations (she was responsible for her father's plantation before his death as well as Jefferson's) and seems to have had no qualms about slavery.

[publius-library]

Thank you so much for adding this! I couldn’t find much, so im so happy to have more details about her

[publius-library]

Can you tell me everything you know about Martha Jefferson?

I would love to. In my opinion, Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson is one of the most tragic figures of the 18th century, and her life shows the many challenges a woman would face in this time period, due to the incredible expectations put on them. I'd like to open by saying that the importance of discussing women in history not only gives us a more full perspective on any and every historical event, but it also gives light to less commonly discussed historical figures that were equally important that we don't know as much about. Martha Jefferson is undoubtably one of those people.

Martha Wayles was born on October 30, 1748 to her wealthy father. Her father was an English immigrant who moved to America and accumulated a decent fortune through slave trading, planting, and his law practice.

Content warning: mention of sexual assault within slavery, skip next paragraph if this may be distressing

Her father is a very interesting figure. In his law practice, he specialized in debt collections, which made him very unpopular among the locals. Additionally, he raped an enslaved woman on his property several times, Elizabeth Hemmings, after the death of his third wife. She would have several children by him, including Sally Hemmings, who would later be raped and have several children by Thomas Jefferson. It is disgusting, but crucial to mention that because of the slave system in America, and the violation of African American women, Martha Jefferson was the half sister of Sally Hemmings.

Martha married Bathurst Skelton when she was 18. They would have one child, John, who died in infancy. Her first husband died six months before Jefferson married Martha, and her first child with Jefferson, Martha aka Patsy, would come nine months after Martha's first child. Her almost constant pregnancy and troubles in maternity would eventually lead to her death.

She married the very eligible bachelor Thomas Jefferson on New Years Day, 1772 at her plantation home, "The Forest". There was a five year age gap between them, as she was 22 going on 23, and he was 28. Jefferson would actually scarcely mention her first husband, and would even report false information that he did not exist, that Martha was a spinster when he married her. The motivations for this are not confirmed.

The young couple arrived at Jefferson's home, Monticello, during a snowstorm, where all the servants were asleep and the house was cold. They toasted their marriage with a leftover bottle of wine, and entered into a period of domestic happiness.

Martha and Thomas had complimentary personalities, balancing out each other's characteristics. They shared an interest in music, as Jefferson played the violin or the cello, and Martha played the piano or the harpsicord. She was said to be very talented.

While there is no known portraits of her, she was described as very beautiful and accomplished. She was slim with hazel eyes and auburn hair. She was the subject of frequent praise from all that knew her.

The Jeffersons had five children in ten years, but only two would survive to adulthood, Martha (Patsy) and Mary (Polly or Mary). Martha was under such strain from her frequent pregnancies that she fell very ill in 1781. The British had invaded Richmond, which forced her away from her husband back to Monticello, but Jefferson often left his political career to stay with her during her sickness. The British would raid Monticello, forcing her to travel in her poor condition yet again.

Her condition continued to worsen, until she died on September 6, 1782, at 11:45 AM at the age of 33. Jefferson would never record his relationship with her, so her life remains mostly a mystery among historians.

Martha Jefferson was far more than the deceased wife of the third president. During her life, she was the mother of several children, who frequently had to grieve their deaths. She was the mistress of a fashionable household, and the wife of an energetic, young politician who was making strides in the cause of liberty and American independence. Her life was riddled with tragedy and mourning, but she was a lively, creative woman who had an untimely death at a cruel age.

[pub-lius]

hi please let me pay u somehow if u answer this because i for the life of me cannot find this out and i’m pretty sure this isn’t the kind of thing u do but

what was the primary demographic of newspaper vendors in the 18th century? how much people got their papers through subscription over buying them off the street? did people usually stay “loyal” to one publisher or did they read multiple at a time? where would you usually see vendors?

sweats profusely

okay so yeah this is really hard to find information because it was such an every day part of life that people didn't really think to document it, so i've definitely had to dig. also it is the kind of thing i do!! this is very much within my area of study, and i've even been known to answer asks outside of that, so no worries! also don't pay me, i'm too southern to accept your money. also because of the lack of resources on this, i've really only been able to 18th century North America, but you might be able to find some information on my notes on Eric Hazan's A People's History of the French Revolution in this here doc.

So, first things first, what was the primary demographic od newspaper vendors in the 18th century?

This all really depends on what newspaper your talking about, what part of the 18th century, and where it was published. Newspapers in the early part of the century were mostly confined to the town they were published in, and featured a variety of subjects of interest to that community. At the beginning of the century, the only newspaper was the Boston News-Letter which was directly curated to Puritan readers. On a larger scale, newspapers coming from England were intended for English gentlemen, not colonists.

In several critical historical moments, such as the American pre-Revolution (1760s-early 1770s), politics became hyper-relevant and the papers began to be marketed to the masses, with language being more simplified for wider understanding. Critical documents such as Common Sense by Thomas Paine were published in this period.

Aside from this, it can be inferred by the price and the movement to make them more accessible to the masses that they were most often read by the middle to upper classes. Many newspapers were created with the almost exclusive purpose of making money, so having a well funded subscriber base was crucial.

We also see later in the century that the government gave sanctions to make newspapers more accessible financially, by creating a monopoly on paper distribution which would eventually become the postal service we know today.

This postal service is also relevant to your next question: how many people got their newspapers by subscription vs buying on the street?

This also seems to be a regional thing, but newspaper subscriptions seem to become more frequent throughout the century, as we see government acts such as the Postal Clause in the US Constitution and the Post Office Act of 1792, which made subscription-based newspaper delivery easier. That indicates that more people were purchasing newspapers through subscription. Newspapers also tended to be quite expensive, so most people would share copies of the papers that they got through their subscription services.

Additionally, many people got their news outside of newspapers, due to this high price. There were also public readings of printed materials (printers usually published other forms of literature besides just newspapers) in coffeehouses, taverns, and in the streets. These readers probably also advertised the papers they were reading! so people could buy them there.

Now the next question is what I found most difficult: were people loyal to one newspaper or did they read multiple papers?

I think the only way to find this out would be to look at subscription records, but I haven't come across records from the newspaper offices, so I'd think to know for sure you'd have to look at individuals' purchase records and no one has time for that.

However, my own personal knowledge of history can come into play here. Like I said before, newspapers were usually confined to the local area. In the Revolutionary period, people usually read political newspapers that adhered to their personal beliefs, with Tories reading Loyalist papers and Whigs reading Patriot papers. These are the papers that would publish radical and exciting news accusing people of being in the opposing party, which would prompt riots, boycotts, and yk. tarring and feathering.

In the Early Republic, we see the same partisan split but with Federalists and Democratic Republicans. The Federalist paper was the Gazette of the United States and the Republican paper was the National Gazette. These two papers frequently attacked each other, and there were smaller, more local papers based off the information that they published.

Now where would you usually see vendors?

I mentioned public readings before, and that seems to be a very frequent source of purchasing newspapers. Printers also tended to have stores that also functioned as their offices, with their presses in the back or in the basements. They would also sell merchandise, groceries, and patent medicines. These would be just like normal stores in the cities! So people walking the streets would pass by them along with taverns, coffee houses, law offices, etc.

I hope this gives you all you need, feel free to ask further questions, because I'd be happy to answer them. Again, information on this kind of thing tends to be scarce, but this is what makes history research fun! Thank you for the ask :3

[publius-library]

realized i forgot my sources at 3 am last night mb

Sources:

Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

American Antiquarian

Colonial Williamsburg

Stanford University

Library of Congress

[pub-lius]

hi please let me pay u somehow if u answer this because i for the life of me cannot find this out and i’m pretty sure this isn’t the kind of thing u do but

what was the primary demographic of newspaper vendors in the 18th century? how much people got their papers through subscription over buying them off the street? did people usually stay “loyal” to one publisher or did they read multiple at a time? where would you usually see vendors?

sweats profusely

okay so yeah this is really hard to find information because it was such an every day part of life that people didn't really think to document it, so i've definitely had to dig. also it is the kind of thing i do!! this is very much within my area of study, and i've even been known to answer asks outside of that, so no worries! also don't pay me, i'm too southern to accept your money. also because of the lack of resources on this, i've really only been able to 18th century North America, but you might be able to find some information on my notes on Eric Hazan's A People's History of the French Revolution in this here doc.

So, first things first, what was the primary demographic od newspaper vendors in the 18th century?

This all really depends on what newspaper your talking about, what part of the 18th century, and where it was published. Newspapers in the early part of the century were mostly confined to the town they were published in, and featured a variety of subjects of interest to that community. At the beginning of the century, the only newspaper was the Boston News-Letter which was directly curated to Puritan readers. On a larger scale, newspapers coming from England were intended for English gentlemen, not colonists.

In several critical historical moments, such as the American pre-Revolution (1760s-early 1770s), politics became hyper-relevant and the papers began to be marketed to the masses, with language being more simplified for wider understanding. Critical documents such as Common Sense by Thomas Paine were published in this period.

Aside from this, it can be inferred by the price and the movement to make them more accessible to the masses that they were most often read by the middle to upper classes. Many newspapers were created with the almost exclusive purpose of making money, so having a well funded subscriber base was crucial.

We also see later in the century that the government gave sanctions to make newspapers more accessible financially, by creating a monopoly on paper distribution which would eventually become the postal service we know today.

This postal service is also relevant to your next question: how many people got their newspapers by subscription vs buying on the street?

This also seems to be a regional thing, but newspaper subscriptions seem to become more frequent throughout the century, as we see government acts such as the Postal Clause in the US Constitution and the Post Office Act of 1792, which made subscription-based newspaper delivery easier. That indicates that more people were purchasing newspapers through subscription. Newspapers also tended to be quite expensive, so most people would share copies of the papers that they got through their subscription services.

Additionally, many people got their news outside of newspapers, due to this high price. There were also public readings of printed materials (printers usually published other forms of literature besides just newspapers) in coffeehouses, taverns, and in the streets. These readers probably also advertised the papers they were reading! so people could buy them there.

Now the next question is what I found most difficult: were people loyal to one newspaper or did they read multiple papers?

I think the only way to find this out would be to look at subscription records, but I haven't come across records from the newspaper offices, so I'd think to know for sure you'd have to look at individuals' purchase records and no one has time for that.

However, my own personal knowledge of history can come into play here. Like I said before, newspapers were usually confined to the local area. In the Revolutionary period, people usually read political newspapers that adhered to their personal beliefs, with Tories reading Loyalist papers and Whigs reading Patriot papers. These are the papers that would publish radical and exciting news accusing people of being in the opposing party, which would prompt riots, boycotts, and yk. tarring and feathering.

In the Early Republic, we see the same partisan split but with Federalists and Democratic Republicans. The Federalist paper was the Gazette of the United States and the Republican paper was the National Gazette. These two papers frequently attacked each other, and there were smaller, more local papers based off the information that they published.

Now where would you usually see vendors?

I mentioned public readings before, and that seems to be a very frequent source of purchasing newspapers. Printers also tended to have stores that also functioned as their offices, with their presses in the back or in the basements. They would also sell merchandise, groceries, and patent medicines. These would be just like normal stores in the cities! So people walking the streets would pass by them along with taverns, coffee houses, law offices, etc.

I hope this gives you all you need, feel free to ask further questions, because I'd be happy to answer them. Again, information on this kind of thing tends to be scarce, but this is what makes history research fun! Thank you for the ask :3

[pub-lius]

Hello, recently you answered an ask about how Hamilton reacted to the Hamilton-Madison fallout, and one of the things you said was "These men were very crucial figures in American law, which shows that, unlike men like Jefferson, he [Hamilton] was very selective in who he chose to associate with when it came to his work."

Was Jefferson particularly indiscriminate when it came to finding collaborators, or was Hamilton particularly selective (or a little bit of both)? Could you provide some examples for this contrast?

hello first of all, the structure of your ask had me literally salivating screaming crying on the floor because this is such a wonderfully structured ask and it is the perfect formula to get an in depth response bc there’s so much i could talk about here. i love you. anyway-

Let's break this down to each dude. First, the worst dude, Thomas "freak" Jefferson. Jefferson's political career began when he joined the House of Burgesses, which, as the name implies, is a house of Burges (its a legislature). His first major publication was A Summary View of the Rights of British America, a Revolutionary work of literature that called King George III a cunt in formal language, was done entirely by himself, and it was rejected by his contemporaries for being too radical. This gained him a reputation for being a blue haired liberal.

Source: The American Heritage Book of the Presidents and Famous Americans (book 2)

Jefferson would go on to write The Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms with John Dickinson in July, 1775 to, yk, explain the causes and necessity of taking up arms against the British. John Dickinson was a very well known politician, being a member of the Continental Congress and one of the elite group of Americans who had the chance to be educated in England. Both Jefferson and Dickinson were known revolutionary voices, despite the differences of opinion that would arise between them in the following debate on independence. They were also both members of the Second Continental Congress.

Source: American Battlefield Trust, Delaware Historical and Cultural Affairs

The question of why Jefferson worked with Dickinson is most relevant to this ask. And the answer, in my opinion, is just because it was convenient. The Continental Congress was the best- "best"- men of each state coming together to represent their respective homelands. Dickinson and Jefferson most likely had conversations about the subject they would go on to write about, and decided to write it down and publish it for public benefit. We'll come back to this later.

Okay, now the elephant in the room: the Declaration of Independence. I find this subject so boring so bear with me. Jefferson was chosen by the Declaration committee (consisting of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman) as he was already known as a Revolutionary writer and one of the best educated of them. He wrote the original draft on his own- well, technically- and then it was edited by the rest of the committee, and then by the rest of Congress.

Oh, but Henry! You said technically! Why? Well, dear reader, I'll tell you, be patient, jesus fucking christ. Jefferson highly based the Declaration off of Richard Henry Lee's resolution calling for independence in the Continental Congress, but mainly off of the philosophies of John Locke. That famous phrase we all know was almost word-for-word the writings of John Locke. I even once wrote an essay on how Jefferson essentially plagiarized John Locke in my sophomore government class.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..." -Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Source: my pocket Declaration/Constitution LMAO i really busted that out like an absolute nerd

"All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions." -John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, 1690

Source: brainyquote.com and a suspicious PDF of excerpts that I narrowly avoided a virus while accidentally downloading

I think that the Declaration is a pretty good example of how Jefferson, and 18th century American government, usually performed. This famous document was created by committee, and through education on 17th century philosophy. There were not multiple men working on the original draft of this, and the men who did work on it were not selected by Jefferson, and his major works are almost entirely attributed to him alone. He'd go onto write other historical documents such as Notes on Virginia and Anas (which are a more interesting and complex document) in this same form.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow, Founders Online

He did consult with other men when it came to information and intelligence on political enemies later in his political career. These men were mostly hyper-relevant Democratic Republicans, who tended to be rich, southern landowners (aka slaveholders), at least those who associated with Jefferson. The most iconic of these were, of course, James Madison and James Monroe. Jefferson frequently consulted them, and Monroe (allegedly) gave Jefferson copies of the documents Hamilton showed to him to prove he had not been speculating with James Reynolds, but had actually been sleeping with his wife.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow, The Three Lives of James Madison by Noah Feldman

To summarize, Jefferson was not necessarily indiscriminate with who he associated with, and he didn't even really work that much with other men on his major writings. However, we can see a definitive pattern of Jefferson only really associating with other members of his class, neither below or above him. And this just very simply makes sense. Jefferson, as did the rest of the 18th century, believed that there shouldn't be any cross contamination between the social classes. He also believed that the only really smart people were in his class. And he wasn't aggressive about this, it's just a passive belief due to the way society was structured.

UNTIL!

Alexander Hamilton was literally opposite to Jefferson in every sociocultural way. In Jefferson's eyes he was an ambitious upstart who rose through the ranks, defying the social order that kept society from collapsing.

You'll hear a lot of people say that in forming America, the Founding Fathers had undone this rigid social class system, but that really isn't true. The class system in Europe was entirely different than the one that developed in America, but it still definitely existed in some form. Without the court system, America formed a loose sort of aristocracy that depended on land ownership and/or success in the mercantile business. In Europe, you'd see members of the clergy having their own class, but in America, it was entirely based on wealth, and less on birthright, but if your parents were not wealthy, the only way you could become wealthy was by getting in on some kind of get-rich-quick scheme, like owning a plantation or being a lawyer.

What made Hamilton different from this was that Jefferson, and other enemies, could literally watch in real time as he rose through the ranks. He could see him go from a captain in the artillery, known for his bravery in the New York campaign (someone who would eventually be forgotten), to Washington's aide-de-camp (okay... but he'll probably still fade into obscurity), to a member of the Confederation Congress (oh! well, okay, but that doesn't particularly mean anything, this is probably the highest he'll get), to the only New York delegate in town for the Constitutional Convention and the only person from New York to sign it (well that'll get him in the history books...), to the FIRST SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OF THE NEW US GOVERNMENT (WHAT THE FUCK HOW DID HE FUCKING DO THAT WHAT THE FUCK GET HIM OUT).

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

So, let's talk about Hamilton's political career now, specifically through tracking his writings.

One thing the musical gets right is that Hamilton DEFINITELY utilized anonymous pamphlet publishing throughout his political career. And these are some of my favorite documents ever. From A Farmer Refuted to The Monitor to The Publius Letters to Pacificus, Hamilton absolute served irreparable cunt in all of these writings, and there are more than what I've listed, I just haven't finished my chronological list of Hamilton's published works.

"I'll use the press, / I'll write under a pseudonym, you'll see what I can do to him [Jefferson]." -Alexander Hamilton in Hamilton by Lin Manuel Miranda

Source: Blumenthal Performing Arts

All of these anonymous publishings had some things in common that I've used to categorize them:

A target (usually a person he didn't like and thought was immoral)

A core lesson (typically a political stance he was taking at the time that he wanted to defend and garner support for publically)

A newspaper publisher that was symbolic or strategically important in some way (either an enemy newspaper, and up-and-coming newspaper, an old friend's newspaper, etc.)

multiple editions

2-3 coauthors/beta readers

Almost each one of these publications follows this pattern, though number 5 tends to be the least common among all of them. But, since his college days, Hamilton would ask for his friends' input on his writings (whether or not he accepted their advice is not confirmed). Before he would give his college-era speeches, he would consult with the small debate group he and his friends made before he gave those speeches. When he was writing The Publius Letters, he most likely consulted with his lover, John Laurens, on the subject matter, as Laurens had close connections with congress, and the target (number 1 on the above list) was Samuel Chase, a congressman who had basically scammed soldiers out of food, causing many to starve for a prolonged period.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow, John Laurens and the American Revolution by Gregory D. Massey

Like Jefferson, Hamilton had his magnum opus, and the influence of others played a major role in defining the document. Hamilton would ask other men, including William Duer, and Gouverneur Morris to write this document, but ultimately settled on John Jay and James Madison. This was, of course, The Federalist.

William Duer was related to Hamilton by marriage, as they married a set of cousins. Duer was educated in England and worked for the East India Company, which gave him a very good resume to be one of Hamilton's coauthors. However, the two submissions Duer made for The Federalist were rejected. Gouverneur Morris was a blue-blooded politician who gave the most speeches at the Constitutional Convention, a whopping 173. He spoke multiple languages and had been educated at King's College, which is now the ivy league Columbia. Morris was too busy to contribute to the project.

John Jay was the first coauthor selected. He had been the main draftsman of the New York State Constitution, a negotiator of the Treaty of Paris (1783), and was another alumni of King's College. He later became the first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, and negotiate a treaty with Great Britain. Hamilton often called on him in regards to political matters, and the two were close, lifelong allies. Jay only wrote five of the 85 Federalist essays, because he was hit in the head with a fucking brick during the Cadaver Riots.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

The other principal author of The Federalist was James Madison. James Madison, in my opinion, was the most qualified to write The Federalist, despite his later delusions about the Constitution (which were largely the result of Jefferson's influence on his opinion but that's neither here nor there). James Madison was educated at what was considered the greatest educational institute in 18th century America: Princeton (then called the College of New Jersey). Madison was the reason Hamilton wasn't able to take an expedited course to his degree, because Madison had attempted to finish his four year education in two years, and had a nervous breakdown... fun fact...

But, still, he got his law degree from Princeton, and was in several legislatures, including the Virginia Governor's council where he met Jefferson. And of course, he was the author of the Virginia Plan, which was the foundation of the US Constitution of 1787. His notes on the Constitutional Convention are the most complete set of notes, and he was there every fucking day. So yeah, James Madison knew the Constitution pretty well, even if he eventually cared too much about states' rights to recognize what was blatantly written in the Constitution, and maintained that viewpoint until his presidency.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow, The Three Lives of James Madison by Noah Feldman

The Federalist was not as evenly divided between the authors as Hamilton intended, since he could not shut the fuck up, but that's not the point. The point is that the men he sought to be his coauthors had several things in common: they attended prestigious educational institutions and had long histories of Revolutionary work. Reading of these men's person histories reads like you're going through a company's qualifications for their employees. Because it almost was except they weren't getting paid. Hamilton sought out these men based on their qualifications, and, as you can see by William Duer's rejected submissions, he had a high standard that they had to fit for him to affix his name next to theirs (which he didn't do until the weeks leading up to his death because he knew he was gonna die but that's a topic for another time).

I KNOW THIS IS LONG BUT IM STILL FUCKING GOING BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GIVE ME THE CHANCE TO ANSWER COMPLEX QUESTIONS ABOUT HISTORY INSTEAD OF THE SAME FOUR SHIT SUBJECTS THAT EVERY HISTORIAN COVERS IN THEIR BOOKS THANK YOU OKAY

This pattern of finding qualified contributors to his works continued throughout his life. Now, idk if you know this, but Hamilton was actually planning another The Federalist-style publication right before his death and i am LITERALLY SO EXCITED TO TALK ABOUT THIS

Hamilton told his visiting friend James Kent that he wanted to look through all of history and analyze government and the various forms it took throughout all of written history. Mirroring The Federalist, he intended to invite six to eight authors, including John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, Rufus King, John M. Mason, and James Kent. He thought that each of these men would write about the subjects in which they specialized (Kent on law, Mason on theological history, etc.) Hamilton would be in charge of writing a synthesis on the previous volumes.

"The conclusions to be drawn from these historical reviews he intended to reserve for his own task and this is the imperfect scheme which then occupied his thoughts." -Chancellor James Kent

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

As you can imagine, these additional dudes followed the pattern shown above for Hamilton's qualifications for his coauthors, especially for a project this big. I mean, if this could have happened, it would have been literally incredible. I did the calculations, and it would have taken Hamilton five years after 1804 to get rid of all of his debts. If he had lived for that length of time, he could have started on this project, and alleviated the debts that later plagued his family. But that ties into my other theories on Hamilton's death, and that is just too weighty of a subject to get into in a post that's already this long.

To wrap this all up, the conclusion we can draw here is really just related to the class differences between Hamilton and Jefferson. Alexander Hamilton was not bound by a lack of social mobility in the 18th century, since he completely decimated that concept by his existence, which allowed him to view his co-contributors more objectively and more selectively. He handpicked those who he worked closely with based on their qualifications and their experience. His categorization of their abilities in that last example shows that he specifically sought them to speak on subjects they were most acquainted with.

Jefferson, on the other hand, didn't have that kind of social mobility, nor did he desire it. Jefferson stuck with his peers, who were mostly all lawyers of the same religion and political beliefs. While I'm not saying Hamilton was going around and writing alongside Democratic Republicans, he certainly didn't pick those he worked with based on like-mindedness or status. He chose them entirely on the basis of their revolutionary resumes, and that is really the difference we see in these two men's respective political careers. Was that the reason Jefferson was president and Hamilton wasn't? Definitely not. Was that the reason they didn't get along? Well, it certainly didn't make them like each other. Does it make Hamilton smarter? No, surprisingly. Do I like Hamilton more because of this? No comment.

I know this is lengthy, but I've literally been brewing up historical theory in my head for the past six months without having any outlet for it besides ranting at my parents and scribbling in the margins of Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow (as you can tell by my sources). I genuinely cannot say how much I appreciate this kind of question, because it not only gets me thinking, but it allows me to remember why I got into history in the first place, and why I want to spend the rest of my life educating people on the wonderous world of pussy politics between middle aged men that are so decomposed, the matter that made up their bald ass heads is probably in your drinking water (have fun thinking about that). Anyways, thank you for the ask and I hope you got enough examples :3

[pub-lius]

back back back again with the lafayette content (lafayette pt. 5)

you know the drill, here's pt. 4, gay people

Where we left off, Lafayette had just had a very exciting campaign in Rhode Island (the most exciting thing to ever happen in Rhode Island), but now what? Nothing. Nothing is happening. I'm not joking, he was bored for several months.

So, here's the real question, how would you, as a little French man in America who somehow obtained the title of major general, handle your boredom? Correct! You would duel Lord Carlisle, the head of the British peace commission.

Or at least, you'd try. Lafayette challenged Carlisle, but Carlisle fucking ignored him. Because obviously.

So when that fell through, Lafayette decided to just. go home. Not permanently, but for a visit. I mean, he was only gone for like a shit ton of time, and had left behind his pregnant wife without a real explanation, and in that time his eldest daughter, Henriette, had DIED. So, it was about time to go home. And when he was contemplating this, he checked how much money he had left, and realized he was broke and was like yeah it's time to go home.

In addition to this, he also wanted to apologize to the king since he kinda fled the country against direct orders and nearly started a war with England. One of Lafayette's main goals in life was to fight under the French flag, and he couldn't really do that unless the king liked him. So, he got a letter of recommendation and the promise of a ceremonial sword from Benjamin Franklin, and headed home to France.

Back, back, back again (in France)

Everyone was SO HAPPY to see Lafayette in France, and I would be too. Lafayette went to Versailles and was like "heeyyy King Louis XVI, my favorite king of all time, I'm really sorry for fleeing the country despite direct orders not to and nearly starting a war with England, do you forgive me?" and King Louis XVI put him on house arrest. But, to be fair, that is a very mild punishment, considering what he did was somewhat akin to treason.

Also, fun fact for the frev/Marie Antoinette girlies who know about her relationship with Lafayette during the French Revolution, she actually intervened on his behalf, which allowed him to buy a command of a regiment of the King's Dragoons! Which is like a huge favor because that command cost him 80,000 livres, which in modern US dollars is what the scholars call a shit ton.

This new popularity in France allowed him to aid the American cause in France by corresponding with French and American dignitaries, advocating the wants and needs of one side to the other. He actually played a vital role in this area, and John Adams, who did absolutely fuck all, got jealous and started beef with him for no fucking reason.

Lafayette didn't forget about his military ambitions, and was apart of a plan to attack the English mainland with John Paul Jones. This didn't work out and Lafayette was greatly disappointed (again), but it would never have been supported by France, so idrk what they expected. Fun fact, this was one of the many ideas Benjamin Franklin and Lafayette came up with together, along with a kinda gruesome children's book.

In the meantime, Lafayette daydreamed about being sent back to America in charge of the French naval forces he helped to negotiate. As you expected, he was very disappointed when they were put under the command of Rochambeau, who was just overall more qualified for the job.

While he was in France, he engaged in some ~aristocratic adventures in the arts and sciences~, and that's not an innuendo, he almost joined Franz Mezmer's cult. This is, actually, the first of two times he almost JOINED A FUCKING CULT. The second time was an Amish cult. So. There's that.

(If necessary, I can employ my boyfriend to explain how Lafayette was exactly the kind of person to get roped into a cult.)

In America Again! (This time it's Serious)

Lafayette returned in a bleak season of the war in which many of the Continental officers (Washington included) were itching for a major engagement with the British, and planned a French-American attack at some large British occupied area, hopefully with a good port.

The ideal place seemed to be New York City, and Lafayette was fixated on that. He was hoping he could have a major command in the attack. And, you guessed it, was super disappointed when he was ordered to march to Virginia to join General Greene. He was present for most of the Virginia campaign, and his main target was the traitor, Benedict Arnold.

PLOT TWIST that major attack was never in New York, but would actually be at Cornwallis' station in Yorktown, Virginia. Lafayette commanded the major Continental infantry forces that kept Cornwallis pinned at Yorktown while the commands under Washington, Rochambeau, and Admiral de Grasse surrounded him in a violent siege.

The one catch-up was that the trenches they were digging couldn't fully surround the British reinforcements due to two redoubts, 9 and 10. Lafayette's American command (led by Colonel Alexander Hamilton with his own command and Colonel John Laurens with a division under Greene) partnered with a division under Rochambeau to attack the redoubts, which led the British to surrender.

One of my favorite little details about the Revolution is that, at the surrender, the British troops refused to look at the American soldiers, so Lafayette told his band to start blasting Yankee Doodle to get their attention. Absolute icon.

I'm gonna cut this one a little early since this is the end of Lafayette's involvement in the American Revolution, and the French Revolution will require WAAYYY more attention. See you in part 6, gay people

[beggars-opera]

It's been a hot second since I've seen a picture of a Victorian mustache cup on here so look at this one in all its glory

This is a sippy cup. You just invented a sippy cup for manly men who want to go to tea parties and not feel emasculated by drinking too fast and getting their perfectly coifed mustaches droopy I can't

[nordleuchten]

24 Days of La Fayette - Day 3

Have you ever wondered, why the National Guard is named the National Guard? If so, then I have a painting for you:

Lafayette and the National Guard, a National Guard Heritage Painting by Ken Riley, courtesy the National Guard Bureau (12/03/2023).

La Fayette’s Tour through America in 1824 and 1825 was the event of its time. People turned out by the thousands whenever La Fayette visited and even after over a year the people were still as enthusiastic as on the first day. It were not only civilians that lined the streets to greet La Fayette but also military personal. During La Fayette’s stay in New York, immediately prior to his departure for France, a company of militia men, the 11th New York Artillery, later the 7th regiment, lined the street for La Fayette. The unit had named themselves the National Guard in memory of La Fayette’s National Guard during the French Revolution. La Fayette was apparently so touched when seeing these men, that he halted his carriage and shook the hand of every single soldier. This moment is depicted in the painting.

I could sadly find no reference to this encounter in Auguste Levasseur’s book, but we do know that by 1903 the name National Guard had become so popular that it was adopted nationwide.

The painting was done by Kenneth Pauling Riley, in, I assume 2004. Riley could at that point already look back onto a long career. He had become a war artist in World War II and after the war, President John F. Kennedy purchased on of his portraits, The Whites in their Eyes about the Battle of Bunker Hill, for the White House. Riley died in 2015.

[fripperiesandfobs]

Bodice, 18th century

From IMATEX