What do you think of the theory that Hamilton's bio dad was actually Thomas Stevens (father of Edward Stevens, Hamilton's childhood best friend)?
I don't believe in it, but I think it's hilarious as shit lol. James was such a deadbeat that some people don't even think he's the dad
Hilarious is understating it. It is, however, also one of those things that makes perfect sense in terms of human gossip and entirely fails in terms of hard evidence, like most good historical gossip. And it survives because it is the kind of thing that Ron Chernow, in his 2004 biography, actually felt compelled to record, because apparently even if it’s baseless, someone once suggested it with such confidence that it demanded a footnote.
This rumor is old, like genuinely 19th-century gossip-old. Timothy Pickering, who knew Alexander in adulthood, allegedly commented on the uncanny resemblance between Hamilton and Ned Stevens. Pickering was apparently so struck he assumed there had to be a family connection beyond mere friendship, remarking that on first glance he thought they “must be brothers.” Then Henry Cabot Lodge prints it in 1882, taking oral history seriously enough to record the story in his biography. He repeats the rumor almost in passing, suggesting that it was “generally understood” at the time that Hamilton might have been the illegitimate child of a gentleman named Stevens. So we’re starting with early-19th-century gossip, which is simultaneously unreliable and absolutely delightful.
So the rumor existed contemporaneously, passed down, and then became codified in early historical accounts. Chernow, naturally, loves this kind of ambiguity—quotes Pickering, discusses the story, but is very careful to say, in effect, “interesting, maybe, but no proof, none, nada.” And of course modern scholars either shrug or ignore it because, like most gossip, it is structurally incapable of being proven.
Now, why does this theory even exist beyond “people liked gossiping about orphans and merchants in the Caribbean”?
Circumstantial, of course. Alexander and Edward were close, shockingly close. They grew up together, shared education, shared interests, were constantly in one another’s lives. Pickering saw them as startlingly alike. People apparently commented on it repeatedly. And then there’s the Stevens household factor—Thomas Stevens took Alexander in after Rachel Faucette died, but not his older half-brother James. Stevens became, in effect, a guardian or adoptive father, which, while not unusual in 18th-century Caribbean society, seems suspiciously attentive if you are in the business of looking for scandal. Add in that James Hamilton Sr. was already proving himself unreliable, absent, legally complicated, and morally questionable, and suddenly the rumor has legs.
Arguments against the theory are, of course, simple and boring, which is probably why people prefer to dwell on the Stevens hypothesis. There’s literally no evidence. No letters, no confessions, no portraits of Edward Stevens to check the alleged resemblance. James Hamilton Sr. consistently treated Alexander as his son, formally and publicly. Rachel Faucette was living on St. Kitts at the time, Stevens was on another island entirely, and there’s no documented meeting between them. So the theory survives purely on resemblance, convenient proximity after Rachel’s death, and maybe the human need to attribute genius to scandal.
But let’s not pretend this isn’t hilarious. The theory answers questions that nobody asked explicitly but that biographers like Chernow can’t resist entertaining: why Alexander was so close to Edward, why he had this odd, urgent drive that James apparently could not inspire, why James had zero involvement after Rachel dies. Stevens being the father is a tidy explanation for otherwise messy human behavior.
It’s also completely unprovable. Which is the sweet spot.
In short, it is funny. And it has survived centuries, in Pickering’s notes, Lodge’s biography, Chernow’s footnotes, and every fan discussion where people collectively nod if they also lack a healthy father figure and want Mr. Stevens for one. It is scandal, biography, and absurdist history all rolled into one.
Anyway. The Stevens theory will never be proven, but it is, undeniably, one of the best “what-if”s in Hamilton studies.
