#melle posts stuff

[oddyseye]

Comprehensive list of Alexander Hamilton’s lovers (both speculated & confirmed).

- A free Black woman. (almost certainly not supported by credible documentation.) There is overall no proof or evidence Hamilton sought out such a woman; however, the son of the unnamed Black woman is identified as William Hamilton━a very prominent African-American orator and abolitionist. Depending on his birth date of 1755/57, he would have been either 18 or 16 at the time of William's birth.

- Elizabeth Hamilton (née Schuyler). Of course, his wife! Hamilton and Eliza met in winter of 1780, corresponded by letter, became engaged and married that same year. Eliza weathered his political rise, scandal (the affair below), his death (1804) and lived on until 1854. The couple had eight children and were, by all accounts, an incredibly loving and successful relationship!

- Angelica Church (née Schuyler). (strongly suggested flirtation/affection, no firm proof of full affair.) Elizabeth’s older sister. She and Hamilton shared lively correspondence and intellectual chemistry. Angelica was already married with children by the time she and Hamilton met closely (making a formal affair unlikely), however historians such as Randall or Hendrickson speculate an affair between the pair, while John C. Miller claims Angelica held unrequited feelings for Hamilton. One (in)famous letter from Angelica to Eliza noted her affection for Hamilton: “for I love him very much and if you were as generous as the old Romans, you would lend him to me for a little while.”

- John Laurens. (strongly speculated male lover.) Hamilton and Laurens were close friends during the Revolutionary War. Letters between them show affectionate and intense language, and there is plenty of evidence to speculate about an affair—in fact, when you compare it to Hamilton and Angelica, the case for Laurens is arguably stronger. The correspondence between Hamilton and Laurens is far more intimate, emotionally charged, and sustained over time. Unlike the flirtatious but largely social and intellectual exchanges with Angelica, Hamilton and Laurens shared a much deeper, far more personal bond and Laurens’ death deeply disturbed Hamilton, who lost one of his closest confidants.

- Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette. (strongly speculated male lover.) Much like Laurens, Lafayette was Hamilton’s close friend during and after the Revolutionary War. The marquis writes to Hamilton in 1780: “my sentiment has increased to such a point, the world knows nothing about. To shew both from want and from scorn of expressions I shall only tell you.” Alexander, Gilbert and John were speculated to have been in a relationship.

- Maria Reynolds (née Lewis...slash-Clingman-slash-Mathew). Hamilton’s only confirmed extramarital affair. The affair began in 1791 when Hamilton, already married to Eliza, was approached by Maria in Philadelphia, who begged him for financial aid. James, Maria’s husband, soon caught wind of the affair and proceeded to blackmail Hamilton for a year, pressuring him into paying hush money to keep the scandal quiet. Hamilton later publicly admitted the affair in the infamous Reynolds Pamphlet (1797), a document meant to clear him of financial corruption but which scandalized the nation by exposing his moral failing.

- Aaron Burr Jr. (speculated crush with no substantial evidence.) While there is no evidence of a physical or romantic relationship between Hamilton and Burr, J. Michael Mahoney, in Schizophrenia: The Bearded Lady Disease, argues that Hamilton’s obsessive hatred may have stemmed from a “powerful, unconscious homosexual attraction” to Burr. According to this interpretation, Hamilton’s extreme paranoia, recurring illnesses, and ultimately his behavior at the infamous 1804 duel could be read symbolically as reflecting a deeply conflicted, passive submission to Burr—literally offering himself in a “helpless physical posture” at the duel. This interpretation is speculative, controversial, and unprovable.

Hamilton has been described as “flirtatious” in social settings, especially in his youth. Some sources note that early in his time in New York/Winter 1780, he may have enthused over one “Cornelia Lott.” A poem by his friend Webb referenced him being “madly in love with a new woman every week” before marrying Eliza, referencing Cornelia by her last name. No documented affair beyond Maria exists, but there are some significant pattern‑indicators: frequent socialising, letters of admiration, and a charismatic personality that attracted many women. Because of those patterns, it is reasonable (though unprovable) to speculate Hamilton may have had other romantic/flirtatious connections with women in his social circle for which no records survive.

Alexander Hamilton’s affections, desires, and speculations are incredibly interesting to me. From the confirmed (sorry, Maria) to the plausible (Laurens, Lafayette) to the purely theoretical (Burr...and maybe literally everyone else he ever met at a party), Hamilton’s love life was certainly as dramatic and intense as his politics.

[oddyseye]

The Extraordinary Beauty of Alexander Hamilton — an imperfect analysis (/ref).

If there’s one thing that’s been reliably fascinating me about Alexander Hamilton, it would be his looks. His appearance was remarked upon extensively by contemporaries, often in ways that suggest something beyond ordinary attractiveness. Even now, over two centuries later, Hamilton continues to be considered handsome in a way that seems almost anachronistic compared to many of his peers, whose visages read as “Founding Father rugged” rather than conventionally attractive by modern standards.

The usual narrative with “handsome” men of the past is that beauty standards shifted so dramatically that what was swoon-worthy in 1790 is often “eh” (or outright ugly) to modern eyes. Look at most of the portraits of Washington, Adams, even Jefferson. However important they were, modern audiences don’t usually go “wow, he’s attractive.” They look dated, powdered, wigged, stern.

So how come Hamilton dodges that uncanny valley?

The earliest sources on Hamilton’s appearance emphasize features aligned with very classical ideals of symmetry and proportion. An eyewitness in 1795 described Hamilton as “under middle size, thin in person, but remarkably erect and dignified,” noting an “exceedingly fair” complexion and an “almost feminine rosiness” of cheek, concluding that he had an “uncommonly handsome face.” Another early biographer observed that Hamilton inherited his fair hair (typically, if now always, described as red) and blue eyes from his Scottish father, rather than his French mother. His blue eyes were, by some, even described as a beautiful violet. Hamilton himself referenced his prominent nose humorously in correspondence, acknowledging the feature that would later become iconic in portraits and sculptures.

Portraiture and sculpture of the period further reinforced these accounts. Giuseppe Ceracchi’s 1794 marble bust, in particular, depicts Hamilton in the style of a neoclassical Roman statesman, with a straight Roman nose, a strong jawline, and a slight, controlled smile. John Trumbull’s 1804/05 painting, based on this bust, became the canonical representation of Hamilton, subsequently influencing the redesign of the $10 bill.

Contemporary observers generally concurred with this representation, and as Henry Cabot Lodge later summarized, Hamilton “was evidently very attractive, and must have possessed a great charm of manners.”

Even John Adams, who hated him, couldn’t resist making it about appearance. He mocked Hamilton as a “coxcomb,” effeminate, vain about his looks and style. You can feel the envy dripping through the insult, and he is essentially saying: “he is too pretty, and too proud of being pretty.” It’s a criticism that only works if his beauty was so obvious you couldn’t ignore it. Even in mockery, the implication is that Hamilton’s looks commanded attention, drew envy, and could not be dismissed too easily.

Why does Hamilton’s beauty appear so “unnatural,” then?

To put it plainly: the racial and ethnic makeup of colonial New York.

Hamilton was a first-generation immigrant from the Caribbean, with a Scottish father and French Huguenot mother. His features may have combined traits uncommon among the mostly Anglo-Protestant elite of New York City, creating an exoticized effect. Combined with his fair skin and aristocratic coloring, this may have produced a kind of visual tension: familiar yet strikingly different, making his attractiveness appear heightened.

I do believe Hamilton’s beauty was “unnatural” in two senses, the second being the behavioral component. Hamilton’s carriage, his upright, almost militaristic bearing, and the precision of his style must have amplified what would otherwise be ordinary attractive features. Vanity was an insult often hurled at him by contemporaries like Adams, but that “vanity” was inseparable from the way he held himself. The body, in Hamilton’s case, enhanced the face. His beauty was therefore partly genetic, partly performative, and that mix made it “unnatural” in its persistence and in its intensity.

There’s also the dimension of charisma and perception. Hamilton was widely described as charming, persuasive, and magnetic in both manner and speech. That sort of behavioral charisma interacts with physical features to create an overall impression of handsomeness. In other words, part of why he’s still considered attractive today may be due to the stories we’ve inherited about him. The anecdotes of his affection toward Laurens, the careful observation of his posture and gestures, and the almost obsessive attention given to his busts all contribute to a halo effect.

Some modern historians have attempted more sensational interpretations. For example, J. Michael Mahoney suggested that Hamilton’s duel behavior with Aaron Burr contained a “passive, feminine homosexual undertone,” as he was supposedly unconsciously attracted to Aaron Burr, submitting to him by death. Shipping culture put aside, these psychoanalytic readings are, to me, a misfire, because they misread the historical context of male intimacy, dueling culture, and political rivalry. But what these readings inadvertently underline is that Hamilton’s appearance and demeanor were out of the ordinary enough to invite projection. If his attractiveness and his intensity can provoke such extreme speculation about sexuality or psychological makeup, that only reinforces the idea that he was visually and socially exceptional.

If you want to understand how Hamilton’s presence lingered even after his death, you have to look no further than the aforementioned Ceracchi’s 1794 marble bust.

This single artifact became, for many contemporaries, the most immediate and striking representation of Hamilton, and it was through this likeness that the posthumous fascination with his appearance reached its peak. Following his death in 1804, this object became almost magical in the eyes of those who had known him, or even those who had only known of him through reputation.

Elizabeth Hamilton, his widow, repeatedly paused before it in her home, “leaning on her cane, gazing and gazing, as if she could never be satisfied.” Even Thomas Jefferson displayed a Ceracchi bust of Hamilton opposite one of himself in his entrance hall, commenting on how visitors’ eyes “settled with a deeper interest” on the two figures. Jefferson and Hamilton were political rivals, yet Jefferson recognized that the bust’s effect on viewers was compelling enough to merit deliberate placement.

Aaron Burr’s interactions with the bust are perhaps the most revealing of all. Decades after the duel that ended Hamilton’s life, Burr toured the Boston Athenaeum with Wendell Phillips in 1836. Upon encountering the Ceracchi bust, Burr paused thoughtfully and remarked, “A remarkable man—a very remarkable man.” On other occasions, he traced the creases of Hamilton’s face on painted or sculpted likenesses and wryly commented, “There was the poetry.” Burr’s fascination may have been partly personal, partly aesthetic: he could neither fully admire nor dismiss the form of a man who had been both his political adversary and the central figure in the most intimate drama of his adult life.

The obsession with the bust likely comes from the way Ceracchi’s neoclassical aesthetic made Hamilton heroic, but also how it made him emotionally accessible. The slight smile, the poise of the head and the defined features were elements that viewers could project upon. People could see in the bust the Hamilton they remembered, the Hamilton they wanted to remember, or the Hamilton they imagined should exist.

Although this is already a commonly known fact, I do nonetheless still wish to mention: the $10 bill, featuring the face of Hamilton, is unique in that it is the only denomination in circulation in which the portrait faces to the left!

The fact that Hamilton continues to captivate modern imagination speaks to an almost unnatural persistence of allure. While other founders’ appearances have softened, aged, or lost their charm in public memory, Hamilton’s remains vibrant and aesthetically compelling in modern perception.

𓏵  .  TAGS ｡ :

For the A. Ham Analysis: @wutheringheightssys. @old-peggy. Mention of Alexander and Aaron Burr: @ashishere0w0. General mention: @strangepetscomicbooksbat.

[oddyseye]

"renheng isn't canon!" renheng:

[oddyseye]

“the musical is propaganda!!” “it paints this saintly, sanitized image of hamilton!!”

ok. ok. deep breath. i raise you, that maybe—just maybe—it’s fine that one modern piece of media doesn’t treat him like the devil incarnate.

like. every other portrayal since 1804 has been, “alexander hamilton was an arrogant proto-fascist who personally invented capitalism and probably kicked a puppy on the way to duel feminist icon aaron burr.” almost every biography, every dramatization, every half-baked documentary has already dragged him through the mud, called him an elitist, a warmonger, a narcissist, a tyrant in a cravat. so forgive me if i don’t burst into outrage when one (1) musical dares to show him as ambitious, flawed, human, or god forbid, maybe even sympathetic??

the balance has been wildly in favor of “hamilton bad” for two hundred years, y’all will survive this one instance of him not being the devil incarnate.

[oddyseye]

is this like. a good time to mention that my old history teacher fully believed Hamilton asked Burr to kill him. like on purpose.

she said (and i swear i remember this perfectly) that according to hamilton’s letter to gouverneur morris during the election of 1800, hamilton literally admits that he and burr always got along well. like. fine. civil. not these mortal enemies some people make them out to be. and burr himself didn’t seem to resent hamilton right after the election either. not really until years after the petty insult, even, which makes the whole “seething rivalry” timeline weird.

and THEN there’s the levi weeks case. these men defended someone together. they were literally on the same legal team not long before the duel. burr worked with hamilton after all that supposed animosity. and my teacher was like, “you can’t tell me they hated each other if they could still share a client without strangling each other in the courtroom.” which, fair.

so her theory was that hamilton asked burr to kill him. the duel being the only real way to die because he did not want to end his own life due to his religious beliefs (plus his religious beliefs also left zero space for tolerating duels after his son died so???). and hamilton, being hamilton, arranged it. he made sure there were letters, witnesses, a paper trail, everything set up to make it all look legit, and he made up a reason to be called to a duel in the first place. she said they waited until alexander jr. was eighteen and could “be the man of the house.” like hamilton literally waited until his eldest surviving son was old enough to take care of the family, then made sure burr would be the one to finish what hamilton couldn’t bring himself to do.

and yeah. she also said burr was prone to depression generally in his life, so the whole “burr was happy after killing him” narrative falls apart instantly. the idea that he was thrilled about it is just historical mythmaking.

anyway, do I drop this theory in casual conversation or is that a “you ruin dinner parties” kind of topic 😭

[oddyseye]

🎉 Today is Alexander Hamilton’s birthday, y’all: January 11th 🎉

Yes, the guy whose face is literally on your ten-dollar bill was born today!

Alexander Hamilton is one of those people in history who basically came out of nowhere and became a national icon, but the universe apparently didn’t give us a clean birth certificate. When it comes to the year of his birth, we get what is the historical version of “lol good luck.” There is, unfortunately, no baptismal record, and no diary that says “Today I turned 12, huzzah!” His mother’s complicated marital history and colonial bureaucracy didn’t exactly help. Later admirers and biographers guessed, argued, and...voila. Two birth years entered the public consciousness, and now we fight about it like it’s a modern Twitter war.

Anyway, historians have long debated 1755 vs. 1757, so which is it?

Evidence pointing to 1755:

St. Croix hurricane letter, 1772. Hamilton wrote an impressively detailed account of the hurricane that hit St. Croix in August 1772. The letter itself was printed in The Royal Danish American Gazette on October 3, 1772. Contemporaries later described the author as a “17-year-old clerk” on St. Croix. If Hamilton was born in January 1755, that lines up—he would have just turned 17. If he was born in 1757, he’d be 15.

St. Croix legal records, 1767. There’s a mortgage document from Christiansted dated August 10, 1767, which Hamilton signed as a witness alongside other merchants. If he were born in 1755, he would be 12, which is young but possible for a precocious clerk. If he were born in 1757, he would have been...10 years old. Witnessing contracts at ten? That’s some prodigy-level audacity even by Hamilton standards.

Evidence pointing to 1757:

Letter to Edward Stevens, November 11, 1769 In a Hamilton autograph letter, he writes ambitious, life-risking, “I will not let anything stop me from rising in the world” energy stuff. Many contemporaneous archivists note that Hamilton was described as a 12-year-old clerk at this time. Born in January 1757? Bingo. Born in 1755, he’d be 14.

King’s College admission, 1774 Hamilton formally matriculated at King’s College (New York) in 1774. If he was born in 1757, he would have been 17, a perfectly normal age for a college sophomore or private student stepping up. Born 1755? 19, slightly older than average, though still acceptable. Records don’t list age, but the timing subtly favors 1757 if we care about “normal” college chronology.

There is no particularly conclusive evidence of either, thanks to family drama, island chaos, and maybe a dash of Hamilton wanting to be flexible with his age for future political reasons. After he died, people just...guessed. Biographers argued, memorials argued, historians argue...It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

Anyway. Happy birthday, Alexander! You may be gone, but the internet still debates whether you are 269 or 271 today!

[oddyseye]

Only information we have about Philip and AJ Hamilton btw.

I'm so not bitter about this. Not at all.

[oddyseye]

Aaron Burr was a deeply repressed homosexual. Like. No man clears out entire brothels to prove his masculinity, spends decades obsessing over a friend who insulted him once, and then shoots said friend dead at dawn without having at least three intrusive thoughts he’s never unpacked. In this essay I will—