Átkozott Élet...!

Your local fandom whore's tumblr. FEH/SoC/R&J/PMMM/RoTK/Amrev/Sparkly Hungarians in general. On AO3 @ TheOldWestern. My Ótr is in the top percentage of Ótrs.

[youroldwestern]

Ansari family + Texts From Last Night

(which includes Kiya, because to steal a phrase from the old dumbledorecest LJ, she’s almost like family in a twisted way)

The day TFLN found a permanent archive was the greatest day of my life and the worst day of all my fandom cohabitants’ lives…that is to say, rest under the cut.

[youroldwestern]

bro still has a complex about the luxite

[youroldwestern]

Princest/Kvariya doodles off the same ref

(in casual clothes because FUCK drawing all their regular outfits…also you might have seen Lutfi’s clothes before somewhere ;) )

ref below the cut

why yes I did deviate quite a lot, how did you know

[youroldwestern]

Thoughts on Kiya/Kvariya

I was bored on a plane ride and started thinking about my latest fic (edit: second-latest, where does the time go) (edit edit: third-latest, is this a record?) upon which I realized how strange it is that Kvare/Kiya is the only het ship I have that is Dominant male/submissive female (yes, even in Juliet/Tybalt, Tybalt is the sub to the thirteen year old, because cmon just look what a pathetic bitch boy he is around/about her.) Warning for SP Inanna bashing (I really laid into her more than I thought I would when making this post) so if you like her don’t read.

I started thinking about it more, and I think the reason I like it, and that I like Kiya, so much when they aren’t my type on the surface, is that…typically, a submissive female character is written as it being how they are, and Kiya is written more as how she chooses to be. Pulling SP Inanna as an example (because how could I not) the writing neuters her from her pre-SP self and forces her to play nice with everyone, even when they deserve harsher treatment (except with Lutfi, because fuck Lutfi I guess ToT) and even though she waves a sword around now she feels…passive. ‘Submissive’ might not sound like the right word for her, springing to mind as a sex thing, but she comes across as an ordinary anime girl GF to the Leader, and with that comes along the ordinary anime girl GF tropes, including submissiveness, and ordinary anime girl GF fans, which want her to be submissive (no, stabbing people with her little sword doesn’t count as “not submissive” the same way it doesn’t count as “strong character.”) To tie it all back, she’s passive with everyone, and even for Leader specifically, it feels like she’s written so that her personality as it already is (well, for her SP form, anyway) is the attractive point, without any conscious effort from her. It feels like her submissiveness is for others’ sake instead of her own, is what I’ve realized is my point. ^_^;

Kiya, on the other hand, comes across to me differently. Her submissiveness feels like a choice, something she consciously does for her own sake. Her goals aren’t the nebulous “peace and harmony” that it feels like half the cast desires—they’re vengeance and to keep Kvare and Safiyyah safe no matter the cost. Unlike SP Inanna and Leader’s goals being the exact same, furthering her passiveness towards him, Kiya, Kvare, and Safiyyah all have different goals that mix with each other. Safiyyah is different enough to not need explanation, but Kvare’s end goal is to establish a power bloc in Iria capable of threatening the throne, and Kiya’s goals really have nothing to do with that. Initially, she only desires vengeance, which Kvare offers her by training her as an assassin. Kvare earns her respect, as well as becomes the subject of her second goal, by both treating her as human as well as feeding this goal of hers (obviously his motives are completely selfish, because he’s Kvare, but that’s just the drama of it, no?) whereas Leader and SP Inanna might as well as have come out of the womb liking each other. Because she chooses to respect Kvare (and Safiyyah) it feels like her submission to them is also chosen, not simply thrust upon her by the writers to fulfill their desires. Which, yes, I manifest as a sex thing. Because why not.

I ragged on SP Inanna a lot in this post because she’s an example from this fandom and, let’s be honest, she’s an easy target, but if you’ve consumed absolutely any piece of media ever you can probably think of plenty of female characters that fit my definition of submissive-for-others’-sake. Hell, if you’re weebish enough, you can probably think of other submissive catgirl maids that you’d think I’d like as a Kiya fan, but I actually wouldn’t care about at all. Maybe this subtle difference is why Kiya isn’t very popular in the fandom (at least from what I’ve seen) despite one thinking that a submissive catgirl maid should be blood in the water for the surface dwellers here.

In a way, I suppose this kind of difference also mirrors how real-life submissives are seen in pop culture vs in actual kink spaces. I’m not as well-versed in this as I am in catgirl maids (big shocker) so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I feel like the wider world sees subs as always submissive in personality, and to everyone; a wallflower of sorts. Meanwhile, even 24/7 subs choose that lifestyle, are submissive to only the people that, again, they choose, and of course, can choose to stop any time, for any reason. Oh, if only fictional characters could choose to just quit if their writers started fucking up X) what a world that would be.

This was more of a ramble than an analysis, as my posts tend to be. There’s a reason I’m not an essayist despite being halfway decent at writing (*ahem* there’s also a reason I’ve been considering an ADHD diagnosis…>_>;;;) I…I just wanted to write meta like the cool kids, okay?! *sobs* Have mercy…

TL;DR: Kiya best girl. Hold Kiya. Cherish Kiya. Forfeit all mortal possessions to the Kiya. thank fuck she was free because I’m permabroke in this game…

[allthingswhumpyandangsty]

[youroldwestern]

Saw a couple of musicals recently

[youroldwestern]

Just a doodle of Teru!balt being Teru!balt :)

burnin’ down the house

(Pose and background obviously ref’d from Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan. And despite the designs being Takarazuka, the doll and bowl of fire come from RésJ. Song lyrics in body are from the Talking Heads, funnily enough being the second Talking Heads song I’ve used for Tybalt-related fanworks.)

pls excuse the actual artistic quality lol, I know everything is shot, I just need to get the image in my head out into the world even if I lack the skill to do it!

[ph1leevetomorrow]

I realized that I've never shared this story here, so now you guys are getting it

Last april I was in Paris for three days. We got to see the most important sights (or like, most of them, and we didn't go inside the Louvre) and it was AMAZING, I miss it already.

So, one day we're just strolling around a street that goes from the arc of triumph, when suddenly we come across a Paris Saint-Germaint (I have absolutely no idea if I spelled that correctly) store. Nothing crazy, right? So we go inside, the air there is absolutely THICK and I'm not even particularly interested, so me and my friends mom go outside. We sit/stand there for a while, waiting for my parents and my friend, when SUDDENLY I see a plaque. Of course, being the person that I am, I read it. AND GUESS FUCKING WHAT??

IT'S A PLAQUE ABOUT THOMAS JEFFERSON HAVING LIVED IN THAT BUILDING.

MIND YOU I was (luckily) already a fan of Hamilton, but I didn't exactly realize that TJ lived there, so I wasn't even bothered to think of it. Until I came across the building so randomly?? It was SO fun, and it made me really happy because HELL YEAH??

Funnily enough, TJ grew to be my favourite Hamilton character (He still is, but he isn't the only one now teehee)

Also, I do have a pic, but I don't think I can find it rn. I'll reblog it when I do!!

[youroldwestern]

Ooh ooh, OP! Did you see this statue?!

And also, for those who are interested, Franklin and Lafayatte+Washington:

All taken in 2018 (the before times...) The bird on Franklin's head is a real winner.

Did you ever find that pic? Inquiring minds want to know. I should ask my mom to send me all the pics from our recreation of Jefferson and Madison's honeymoon Northern Tour, I think tumblr would like them...

[ph1leevetomorrow]

Ohhh I fear I didn't see any of the statues 😭😭 and if I did, I probably rushed by 🥹 I'll definitely look for them the next time we're in Paris!! They look very cool :3

Oh and I kind of forgot to search for the pic... though I might be able to find it rq

(ALSO JEFFERSON AND MADISON'S HONEYMOON LMAO. Go find those pictures, the people are now yearning for them)

Aaand here's the pic! I was in such a daze and in a state of shock it was almost funny lmao

Obviously not a fan of the historical TJ, but it was still cool seeing such a 'reference' to one of your recent interests! (Or, at least it was fairly recent last April)

[youroldwestern]

Ah, there's the sign! I love that they included his university founding in it. Now they'd just have to strip off the "President" part and he'd be happy UvU

I've called it their honeymoon for like, all this decade I've been a fan lol. The best part of having a tumblr now is seeing people react to the bullshit I say that I'm inured to ahaha. It's 3 AM where I am so everyone but me is asleep, but when my mom wakes up I'll bug her for those pictures. (I have some myself, I think, but she took more.)

[bluemoon-catworld]

Now I’m about to traumatize you all lol

Did you guys know one of the kids Thomas Jefferson had with Sally Hemings was named “Madison Hemings”

Okay so—there’s a LOT going on with this.

Madison Hemings was the only one who left a testimony about what it was like living at Monticello and all that. He talks about how he was told that when he was born on January 19, 1805, Dolley Madison, wife of James Madison, was actually present at the birth.

And she asked Sally if she could name him—and Sally agreed. So Dolley named him “Madison” in honor of James Madison.

Also Dolley said she’d send an expensive gift… and then just never did

Here’s where things get kinda wild:

First: Dolley—and probably James too—knew what was going on between Sally and Jefferson. I can’t say since when exactly, but from Dolley’s behavior it honestly looks like they were… kinda okay with it?? xd

Second: years earlier, in 1802, James T. Callender had already exposed the rumor about Jefferson and Sally in newspapers. And EVEN after that, Jefferson still accepted the name “Madison Hemings.” No scandal, no drama. He let the kid keep the name, and it was officially recorded like that in the slave records.

Jefferson had total power to change the kid’s name if he was worried about appearances—but he didn’t.

Honestly? That’s like the biggest “🖕 I don’t care” move in history lol

Third: Madison Hemings later had a son… and named him James Madison Hemings 💀

Now here’s my own theory—and this is where it gets darker:

I think most of the children Jefferson had with Sally were planned.

Like—if you look at it, each baby was born roughly every 3 years. And that lines up pretty closely with how long a mother typically breastfeeds (around 2.5 years).

And it ALSO lines up with the years Jefferson would return to Monticello.

So yeah… it really looks like he intentionally wanted to have children with Sally on that schedule.

Which is… insanely disturbing when you think about it.

And this wasn’t even the first time Jefferson did something like this.

He kinda did the same thing with his wife, Martha Jefferson—just less regularly, more like every 1–2 years.

And remember: Jefferson watched almost all of his kids die (he had 6, and only one daughter made it to adulthood). Because of that, he often had to take care of Martha himself, and he also studied biology.

So it wouldn’t be surprising if he learned a lot about female anatomy and reproductive timing trying to keep her alive… until she eventually died during childbirth anyway.

So what he did with Sally almost feels like a twisted attempt to not repeat what happened with Martha.

Like—really think about this: this man was coordinating a woman’s biological timing with his own work schedule to have children every 3 years, supposedly to avoid harming her.

And he even had the same number of kids with Sally as he did with Martha… almost like he was afraid of going past that number.

I’m NOT saying Jefferson did anything right here. Not even close.

If anything, it feels like he wasn’t mentally okay—like he was chasing this idea of a “perfect family” at Sally’s expense.

And honestly? The Madisons suck too for not doing anything once they knew.

At that point, someone should’ve stepped in, because Jefferson had clearly gone way too far with this obsessive behavior.

Hope I traumatized y’all even more with this ☺️☺️

[youroldwestern]

Ooh ooh, I have more bizarre shit to add to this.

I did a huge long post on my Dreamwidth over a year ago about that "interesting" story about Dolley and the Hemingses. Let me quote here. The TL;DR? It's impossible. Rest (it is...quite long) under the cut.

For those of you who don't know, the established story of how Madison Hemings got his name is that Dolley, not having any children of her own with [James Madison], "requested the honor of his being named after her husband." (Wikipedia) Now, I can't fault people too too hard (...yes I can, but shush) for believing that story—it comes from Madison Hemings' pen itself. But...

...If you look at that story a little closer, it doesn't make sense, does it? Why on Earth would Dolley ask for a slave child, no matter how white, to be named after her husband?? Also, her sister Anne was pregnant with a child that would also be named after Madison, who was born 29 July 1805, the same year Hemings was born. I'm pretty sure they would have known she was pregnant by January (When Hemings was born) and decided on the name if she had a son; if she didn't have one, then they would likely assume she would eventually. Also, if Dolley asked Sally for such a thing, why on Earth would Sally say yes??? [Thought from 2026: I guess there's really no way a slave would have the right to say no. The verbiage "requested" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.]

But speculation is worth little in the study of history. I needed some cold hard facts. I dug into Madison's letters during the year of 1805 and found, as I had somewhat expected, that he (and of course, Dolley) had stayed in Washington the whole of that year, the lone exception being their trip to Philadelphia to treat Dolley's knee. In the end, he only made it back to Orange county, let alone Monticello, in August of 1806. Obviously, that was farrrr too late for Dolley to have any hand in naming Hemings.

[To be more precise on that "digging into," I checked JM's letters on Founders' Archives for all of January and even into February and a little for the months after that to allow for Hemings not being named immediately, not being knowledgable of the claim that Dolley had been present at the birth, which makes the story even more outright ridiculous. All of them are noted as being written at either "Washington" or "Department of State." Whenever JM and Dolley were apart from each other—most notably in that same year 1805 during the aforementioned Philadelphia trip—in October-November—of course during the British invasion in 1814, and a few occasions later on in life—they would write each other constantly (With JM's health, that kind of thing just makes sense, LOL.) However, there are no letters between the Madisons at any point in 1805 except for the October-November time she spent in Philadelphia, suggesting that they were together—in Washington—for all of 1805.

"But Western," you protest, "Founders Archives is still missing a good chunk of letters, even including ones the Founders received and wrote. Maybe they're just not there?" Good point! So I checked the Dolley Madison Digital Edition (funnily enough, what the first half of this quoted post was bitching about) and, although you can't read the letters without paying *grumble grumble* you can see who wrote whom and when. Copy-pasting:

DPM to Anna Payne Cutts, 8 September [1804]

DPM to Elizabeth (Eliza) Parke Custis Law, 17 October 1804

Aaron Burr to DPM, 24 November [1804]

goes to:

Anna Maria Murray Mason to DPM, [1805-1806]

Catherine Maria Frances Johnson Smith to DPM, [1805-1806]

Lucy Payne Washington Todd to Mary Winston Coles Payne, 1 March [1805]

Susan Wheeler Decatur to DPM, 25 April [1805]

...So, not only did Dolley not write her husband, but she didn't write any of her acquaintences, who I believe were all huddled in Washington (? I'm not a specialist on Dolley. Do correct me if I'm wrong. There are letters from Anna's husband Richard marked across the Northern US that mention her being with him, but by 1807 he seems to be back in Washington.) Well, if not all of them, surely most of them, and she didn't write a one during December-February, suggesting, once again, that Dolley was at Washington, not Monticello, before, during, and after Hemings' birth. I'll let past!me continue lecturing now.]

However, Jefferson had made the trip to Monticello in March of 1805 [Specifically, he had arrived by March 23rd]. Dolley obviously did not name Hemings and I really, really doubt that Sally felt like naming her kid after Madison. Thus, that leaves Jefferson to be the one to name Hemings after Madison. "But Western," you might say. "If Dolley wouldn't name Hemings after Madison, why would Jefferson?" Three arguments to that. One: Jefferson was of course the father, and had likely also named Eston and Beverly Hemings after two Randolphs he knew, so there is precedent for that. Second: Jefferson's grandchild, James Madison Randolph, whom he also named, was born in January 1806, just a year after Hemings. One could guess he was on some sort of spree. Third: Jefferson was fucking crazy. *is facetious* But really, his sense of morality was quite blue and orange, as TV tropes would put it. He lived and died by his own rules, which were pretty much "Would doing this please me? If yes, I'm doing it." Unlike Dolley, I could totally imagine him naming Hemings after Madison, because he's the exact sort of person who would do something like that. In fact, it was what I had first assumed before reading of the Dolley story, which sat wrong with me even then.

As for why Hemings stated that Dolley gave him his name? It was the custom of biographical, even autobiographical, accounts of that time to fluff things up. For an extreme example, see Jessie White Mario's biography of Garibaldi, which, though she was a contemporary and even knew him personally, is filled with exaggerations and flat-out lies. Whether Hemings did the same, or Sally herself misled him, (for obviously he could not be a primary witness of his own naming) we don't know.

That's the end (cutting out some of my own faffing) of my longpost. Something I didn't mention, or maybe didn't consider, at the very end is another explanation that Sally herself never spoke of it, but the other slaves spun up the legend as an amusing sort of folklore that Hemings took too seriously. I think all families, certainly all American families, have those sorts of family stories that have been "passed down for generations" that are nonsensical and obviously false if you even squint at it a little. My own family has one (the bored white people classic of "We're descended from Natives secretly!!!"). Why am I mentioning this? Well, obviously and unfortunately, there's a faction of people that would take any crack in Hemings' history to toss out the whole thing. I'm certainly not one of them, and I don't think that a 19th century autobiography being inaccurate is any big headliner. I just want to discredit forever the absurdly silly notion that Dolley had anything to with Madison Hemings' name. If I'm wrong on absolutely anything, do correct me. As I said, I wrote this over a year ago. My memory of it is fuzzy.

In any case, so sorry to derail your post so far, dear OP! I do want to comment on your theory, because although I had never considered it before, it lines up absolutely perfectly with my own image of Jefferson and his aforementioned blue-and-orange morality. One thing you didn't mention:

Sally Hemings was Martha's half-sister, and was said by contemporaries to look exactly like her.

A lot of historians (should I honor them with that title?) look at the Jefferson-Hemings business and, like with many other things Jefferson, throw up their hands and cry "Well, it's the American Sphinx, we'll never know why he does what he does!" So, let's leave it to tumblr users and put our two theories together:

What he did with Sally was like a twisted attempt to not repeat what happened with Martha, and was chasing this idea of a “perfect family” at Sally’s expense, specifically because to him, she was Martha again, she was the opportunity to have the perfect family with all his kids alive that he never had.

...God, that's so fucked up. Remember, when Jefferson died, they found a hidden locket with Martha's hair inside around his neck. 44 years after her death. Dude was completely broken after Martha's death and hid it, and, therapy not existing in the 18th-19th centuries, poor Sally was the one who ended up dealing with the consequences. This combined theory also explains why Sally's kids had the names they did, including Madison Hemings—Jefferson was playing along with his idea of a "normal" family, naming them after his friends and contemporaries the same way he named his grandchildren.

Sigh, how many fucked up things in history have happened because batshit white men didn't have access to therapy? You mention, OP, someone stepping in, but...who's to say nobody tried? Jefferson was...notoriously set in his own ways. Of course, it's also possible that nobody did try, realizing that they did not want to be involved in whatever was going on. In a way, Jefferson treated his own mental illness, and everyone treated his relationship with Sally, the same way slavery itself was—close your eyes, put your head in the sand, and wait for someone else to deal with it. And obviously, that never works.

Sorry for re-traumatizing everyone again, haha ^_^;;

[bluemoon-catworld]

AAAAHHH thank you so much for your info and research. Honestly, yeah, I did think at first that Jefferson was the one who intentionally named Madison Hemings like that, but I didn’t want to fully believe it. I know there are doubts about Madison Hemings’ testimony, but the story about Dolley sounded way less crazy than Jefferson making such a wild decision just because he felt like it.

Either way, thanks for correcting me — around here we really value the truth, and my ego isn’t big enough to pretend I’m always right. I welcome contributions, especially if they bring me closer to more unhinged people who obsessively research this stuff (that definitely includes me too lol).

Honestly, I’ve been wanting to do a massive deep dive on this topic. It’s not the first time I’ve written a long essay or even a whole series of essays based on research, but I’m kinda overwhelmed right now. I still need to finish a series on Jefferson and Hamilton.

Anyway, I really want to dig deeper into Jefferson’s psychological profile, because I feel like his trauma goes way further back — like to when his father died, and his relationship with his mother. I think that might be where he developed this idea of women as a kind of emotional refuge, probably because he didn’t really have that from his mother, plus he grew up surrounded by his sisters.

I also want to explore his relationships with women more — his trauma with Martha, his obsession with Maria Cosway, and his “relationship” with Sally Hemings.

I know about the similarities between Martha and Sally and their blood connection, but also Thomas and his wife Martha Wayles Skelton were related too — they were third cousins (which was pretty normal among Virginia elites). I’d also like to talk about that whole context — how families worked back then, and maybe touch a bit on the Randolphs too.

If you want, we can share info in private and be friends :D

Now that you mention family stories, even though I’m from Latin America, I’ve got one too lol. Supposedly, my mom’s side of the family settled here because a Spanish guy ended up moving over here for whatever reason. He was white with reddish hair and ended up falling in love with a Black woman from a place called Esmeraldas in my country, and they had kids. The guy basically left his whole life behind for her.

I don’t know how true the story is, and no, I don’t look anything like them—that must’ve been a long ass time ago. I’m just a light-skinned NPC with black hair, nothing to do with that lol, but yeah, just sharing a random fact about me 😆

[youroldwestern]

Oh, I wasn't really correcting, just adding on. Every source that talks about Hemings' name mentions the Dolley story, and it does make sense if you don't think too hard about it, so I'm not surprised it's so popular. I'm the only person I've ever known who thinks otherwise, haha.

I admire your ability to make these long metas about history, they're very engaging! Any time I want to talk about something I usually just make a shitpost about it ahahahaha, that or write fic, writing meta has never been a talent of mine since I was a middle schooler writing my first essays U_U

That future essay sounds like it'll be incredible when you get to it...do you know that story about kid!Jefferson's dad leaving him in the woods and telling him to hunt his dinner? I tell it as a silly story but when you think about seriously it's pretty fucked up. And he really did love his sisters, especially Jane, who died so young (as a prelude to half of Jefferson's other loved ones? T_T) I can't wait for it. (Oh God, the Randolphs...what a trainwreck they were @_@)

Yeah, let's be friends!!! :DDD Feel free to DM me (Like I said in another post of yours, I'm not good with social media, I don't even know where the DM button is on this damn site ahaha. Plus I'm shy ^w^;;;;)

That story is so cute haha. The thing about those old stories is that it's hard to disbelieve in them; as we both know, people of the past were on some wild shit back then hahaha.

[bluemoon-catworld]

"The Weight of My Own Self"

A portrait of a young man, haunted by uncertainties about the future , unaware that the shadows he fears have always been part of him

[ph1leevetomorrow]

I realized that I've never shared this story here, so now you guys are getting it

Last april I was in Paris for three days. We got to see the most important sights (or like, most of them, and we didn't go inside the Louvre) and it was AMAZING, I miss it already.

So, one day we're just strolling around a street that goes from the arc of triumph, when suddenly we come across a Paris Saint-Germaint (I have absolutely no idea if I spelled that correctly) store. Nothing crazy, right? So we go inside, the air there is absolutely THICK and I'm not even particularly interested, so me and my friends mom go outside. We sit/stand there for a while, waiting for my parents and my friend, when SUDDENLY I see a plaque. Of course, being the person that I am, I read it. AND GUESS FUCKING WHAT??

IT'S A PLAQUE ABOUT THOMAS JEFFERSON HAVING LIVED IN THAT BUILDING.

MIND YOU I was (luckily) already a fan of Hamilton, but I didn't exactly realize that TJ lived there, so I wasn't even bothered to think of it. Until I came across the building so randomly?? It was SO fun, and it made me really happy because HELL YEAH??

Funnily enough, TJ grew to be my favourite Hamilton character (He still is, but he isn't the only one now teehee)

Also, I do have a pic, but I don't think I can find it rn. I'll reblog it when I do!!

[youroldwestern]

Ooh ooh, OP! Did you see this statue?!

And also, for those who are interested, Franklin and Lafayatte+Washington:

All taken in 2018 (the before times...) The bird on Franklin's head is a real winner.

Did you ever find that pic? Inquiring minds want to know. I should ask my mom to send me all the pics from our recreation of Jefferson and Madison's honeymoon Northern Tour, I think tumblr would like them...

[bluemoon-catworld]

So…

Do you recognize this portrait?

Of course it’s Thomas Jefferson. But do you know where this portrait actually comes from?

This portrait of Jefferson was made in 1786, when he had to travel to London and was received there by John Adams, who wanted to give him a portrait as a gift.

Well… “give” is a bit generous, because he basically had Jefferson sit down and pose for the painter Mather Brown.

A few things worth pointing out:

- In the painting, Jefferson is dressed according to London etiquette (that’s why he’s wearing the wig).

-When this portrait was made, Jefferson was 42 years old (He turned 43 by the end of his visit.). I’m not sure if the painter exaggerated a bit or if Jefferson really looked like that, but in the portrait he actually looks pretty young.

-Adams loved the portrait so much that he had a copy made for himself, and Jefferson, not wanting to fall behind, also decided to give Adams a portrait in return.

-This is just my personal observation, but Jefferson hated posing for portraits, and it’s funny because in this one he looks like he’s sitting there slightly hunched over.

During Jefferson’s visit to London, he and Adams went out together several times and basically did some sightseeing. I don’t know if you’d like me to talk about that too, but they definitely spent money on a lot of random nonsense.

[youroldwestern]

>I’m not sure if the painter exaggerated a bit or if Jefferson really looked like that, but in the portrait he actually looks pretty young.

Well, according to William Short, at least, the "picture by Brown of Mr. Adams is an excellent likeness," but..."that of Mr. Jefferson[...]has no feature like him." TToTT The wig and British fashion probably did not help matters in this regard, lmao.

That said, Jefferson still looks relatively fresh-faced in Stuart's "Medallion portrait" of Jefferson (the profile) which was the favorite of his friends and family, so maybe that's the one thing that's accurate? Hopefully the rosacea-like rouging is not...

The people want to know about the London visit, OP. I only know the old story of those dumb fucks cutting off a chunk of Shakespeare's chair, lol.

[bluemoon-catworld]

Now I’m about to traumatize you all lol

Did you guys know one of the kids Thomas Jefferson had with Sally Hemings was named “Madison Hemings”

Okay so—there’s a LOT going on with this.

Madison Hemings was the only one who left a testimony about what it was like living at Monticello and all that. He talks about how he was told that when he was born on January 19, 1805, Dolley Madison, wife of James Madison, was actually present at the birth.

And she asked Sally if she could name him—and Sally agreed. So Dolley named him “Madison” in honor of James Madison.

Also Dolley said she’d send an expensive gift… and then just never did

Here’s where things get kinda wild:

First: Dolley—and probably James too—knew what was going on between Sally and Jefferson. I can’t say since when exactly, but from Dolley’s behavior it honestly looks like they were… kinda okay with it?? xd

Second: years earlier, in 1802, James T. Callender had already exposed the rumor about Jefferson and Sally in newspapers. And EVEN after that, Jefferson still accepted the name “Madison Hemings.” No scandal, no drama. He let the kid keep the name, and it was officially recorded like that in the slave records.

Jefferson had total power to change the kid’s name if he was worried about appearances—but he didn’t.

Honestly? That’s like the biggest “🖕 I don’t care” move in history lol

Third: Madison Hemings later had a son… and named him James Madison Hemings 💀

Now here’s my own theory—and this is where it gets darker:

I think most of the children Jefferson had with Sally were planned.

Like—if you look at it, each baby was born roughly every 3 years. And that lines up pretty closely with how long a mother typically breastfeeds (around 2.5 years).

And it ALSO lines up with the years Jefferson would return to Monticello.

So yeah… it really looks like he intentionally wanted to have children with Sally on that schedule.

Which is… insanely disturbing when you think about it.

And this wasn’t even the first time Jefferson did something like this.

He kinda did the same thing with his wife, Martha Jefferson—just less regularly, more like every 1–2 years.

And remember: Jefferson watched almost all of his kids die (he had 6, and only one daughter made it to adulthood). Because of that, he often had to take care of Martha himself, and he also studied biology.

So it wouldn’t be surprising if he learned a lot about female anatomy and reproductive timing trying to keep her alive… until she eventually died during childbirth anyway.

So what he did with Sally almost feels like a twisted attempt to not repeat what happened with Martha.

Like—really think about this: this man was coordinating a woman’s biological timing with his own work schedule to have children every 3 years, supposedly to avoid harming her.

And he even had the same number of kids with Sally as he did with Martha… almost like he was afraid of going past that number.

I’m NOT saying Jefferson did anything right here. Not even close.

If anything, it feels like he wasn’t mentally okay—like he was chasing this idea of a “perfect family” at Sally’s expense.

And honestly? The Madisons suck too for not doing anything once they knew.

At that point, someone should’ve stepped in, because Jefferson had clearly gone way too far with this obsessive behavior.

Hope I traumatized y’all even more with this ☺️☺️

[youroldwestern]

Ooh ooh, I have more bizarre shit to add to this.

I did a huge long post on my Dreamwidth over a year ago about that "interesting" story about Dolley and the Hemingses. Let me quote here. The TL;DR? It's impossible. Rest (it is...quite long) under the cut.

For those of you who don't know, the established story of how Madison Hemings got his name is that Dolley, not having any children of her own with [James Madison], "requested the honor of his being named after her husband." (Wikipedia) Now, I can't fault people too too hard (...yes I can, but shush) for believing that story—it comes from Madison Hemings' pen itself. But...

...If you look at that story a little closer, it doesn't make sense, does it? Why on Earth would Dolley ask for a slave child, no matter how white, to be named after her husband?? Also, her sister Anne was pregnant with a child that would also be named after Madison, who was born 29 July 1805, the same year Hemings was born. I'm pretty sure they would have known she was pregnant by January (When Hemings was born) and decided on the name if she had a son; if she didn't have one, then they would likely assume she would eventually. Also, if Dolley asked Sally for such a thing, why on Earth would Sally say yes??? [Thought from 2026: I guess there's really no way a slave would have the right to say no. The verbiage "requested" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.]

But speculation is worth little in the study of history. I needed some cold hard facts. I dug into Madison's letters during the year of 1805 and found, as I had somewhat expected, that he (and of course, Dolley) had stayed in Washington the whole of that year, the lone exception being their trip to Philadelphia to treat Dolley's knee. In the end, he only made it back to Orange county, let alone Monticello, in August of 1806. Obviously, that was farrrr too late for Dolley to have any hand in naming Hemings.

[To be more precise on that "digging into," I checked JM's letters on Founders' Archives for all of January and even into February and a little for the months after that to allow for Hemings not being named immediately, not being knowledgable of the claim that Dolley had been present at the birth, which makes the story even more outright ridiculous. All of them are noted as being written at either "Washington" or "Department of State." Whenever JM and Dolley were apart from each other—most notably in that same year 1805 during the aforementioned Philadelphia trip—in October-November—of course during the British invasion in 1814, and a few occasions later on in life—they would write each other constantly (With JM's health, that kind of thing just makes sense, LOL.) However, there are no letters between the Madisons at any point in 1805 except for the October-November time she spent in Philadelphia, suggesting that they were together—in Washington—for all of 1805.

"But Western," you protest, "Founders Archives is still missing a good chunk of letters, even including ones the Founders received and wrote. Maybe they're just not there?" Good point! So I checked the Dolley Madison Digital Edition (funnily enough, what the first half of this quoted post was bitching about) and, although you can't read the letters without paying *grumble grumble* you can see who wrote whom and when. Copy-pasting:

DPM to Anna Payne Cutts, 8 September [1804]

DPM to Elizabeth (Eliza) Parke Custis Law, 17 October 1804

Aaron Burr to DPM, 24 November [1804]

goes to:

Anna Maria Murray Mason to DPM, [1805-1806]

Catherine Maria Frances Johnson Smith to DPM, [1805-1806]

Lucy Payne Washington Todd to Mary Winston Coles Payne, 1 March [1805]

Susan Wheeler Decatur to DPM, 25 April [1805]

...So, not only did Dolley not write her husband, but she didn't write any of her acquaintences, who I believe were all huddled in Washington (? I'm not a specialist on Dolley. Do correct me if I'm wrong. There are letters from Anna's husband Richard marked across the Northern US that mention her being with him, but by 1807 he seems to be back in Washington.) Well, if not all of them, surely most of them, and she didn't write a one during December-February, suggesting, once again, that Dolley was at Washington, not Monticello, before, during, and after Hemings' birth. I'll let past!me continue lecturing now.]

However, Jefferson had made the trip to Monticello in March of 1805 [Specifically, he had arrived by March 23rd]. Dolley obviously did not name Hemings and I really, really doubt that Sally felt like naming her kid after Madison. Thus, that leaves Jefferson to be the one to name Hemings after Madison. "But Western," you might say. "If Dolley wouldn't name Hemings after Madison, why would Jefferson?" Three arguments to that. One: Jefferson was of course the father, and had likely also named Eston and Beverly Hemings after two Randolphs he knew, so there is precedent for that. Second: Jefferson's grandchild, James Madison Randolph, whom he also named, was born in January 1806, just a year after Hemings. One could guess he was on some sort of spree. Third: Jefferson was fucking crazy. *is facetious* But really, his sense of morality was quite blue and orange, as TV tropes would put it. He lived and died by his own rules, which were pretty much "Would doing this please me? If yes, I'm doing it." Unlike Dolley, I could totally imagine him naming Hemings after Madison, because he's the exact sort of person who would do something like that. In fact, it was what I had first assumed before reading of the Dolley story, which sat wrong with me even then.

As for why Hemings stated that Dolley gave him his name? It was the custom of biographical, even autobiographical, accounts of that time to fluff things up. For an extreme example, see Jessie White Mario's biography of Garibaldi, which, though she was a contemporary and even knew him personally, is filled with exaggerations and flat-out lies. Whether Hemings did the same, or Sally herself misled him, (for obviously he could not be a primary witness of his own naming) we don't know.

That's the end (cutting out some of my own faffing) of my longpost. Something I didn't mention, or maybe didn't consider, at the very end is another explanation that Sally herself never spoke of it, but the other slaves spun up the legend as an amusing sort of folklore that Hemings took too seriously. I think all families, certainly all American families, have those sorts of family stories that have been "passed down for generations" that are nonsensical and obviously false if you even squint at it a little. My own family has one (the bored white people classic of "We're descended from Natives secretly!!!"). Why am I mentioning this? Well, obviously and unfortunately, there's a faction of people that would take any crack in Hemings' history to toss out the whole thing. I'm certainly not one of them, and I don't think that a 19th century autobiography being inaccurate is any big headliner. I just want to discredit forever the absurdly silly notion that Dolley had anything to with Madison Hemings' name. If I'm wrong on absolutely anything, do correct me. As I said, I wrote this over a year ago. My memory of it is fuzzy.

In any case, so sorry to derail your post so far, dear OP! I do want to comment on your theory, because although I had never considered it before, it lines up absolutely perfectly with my own image of Jefferson and his aforementioned blue-and-orange morality. One thing you didn't mention:

Sally Hemings was Martha's half-sister, and was said by contemporaries to look exactly like her.

A lot of historians (should I honor them with that title?) look at the Jefferson-Hemings business and, like with many other things Jefferson, throw up their hands and cry "Well, it's the American Sphinx, we'll never know why he does what he does!" So, let's leave it to tumblr users and put our two theories together:

What he did with Sally was like a twisted attempt to not repeat what happened with Martha, and was chasing this idea of a “perfect family” at Sally’s expense, specifically because to him, she was Martha again, she was the opportunity to have the perfect family with all his kids alive that he never had.

...God, that's so fucked up. Remember, when Jefferson died, they found a hidden locket with Martha's hair inside around his neck. 44 years after her death. Dude was completely broken after Martha's death and hid it, and, therapy not existing in the 18th-19th centuries, poor Sally was the one who ended up dealing with the consequences. This combined theory also explains why Sally's kids had the names they did, including Madison Hemings—Jefferson was playing along with his idea of a "normal" family, naming them after his friends and contemporaries the same way he named his grandchildren.

Sigh, how many fucked up things in history have happened because batshit white men didn't have access to therapy? You mention, OP, someone stepping in, but...who's to say nobody tried? Jefferson was...notoriously set in his own ways. Of course, it's also possible that nobody did try, realizing that they did not want to be involved in whatever was going on. In a way, Jefferson treated his own mental illness, and everyone treated his relationship with Sally, the same way slavery itself was—close your eyes, put your head in the sand, and wait for someone else to deal with it. And obviously, that never works.

Sorry for re-traumatizing everyone again, haha ^_^;;

[bluemoon-catworld]

𝘗𝘙𝘌𝘝𝘐𝘖𝘜𝘚𝘓𝘠… 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘢:

▣ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇꜱꜱᴇɴᴛɪᴀʟꜱ:

The Federalist Papers were published under the pseudonym Publius.

Right before he died, Hamilton basically said: “I wrote 63 of them”… and in that number he scooped up essays that later turned out to be Madison’s. (Twelve of them, to be exact.)

Later, Madison handed over his list, which—years afterward—was confirmed as the accurate one:

Hamilton 51, Jay 5, Madison 29.

▣ ʜᴏᴡ ɪᴛ ᴀʟʟ ꜱᴛᴀʀᴛᴇᴅ:

The political chaos after presenting the Constitution in 1787 pushed Hamilton to organize a written defense. He recruited Jay and Madison. They improvised like crazy—no fixed plan, constant rush, editing on the fly, and responding to Anti-Federalist attacks as they popped up.

Publications and chaos:

• They came out in different newspapers, with messy edits, errors, shuffled numbering, and renumbering that Hamilton himself supervised.

• Then came the first book edition (McLean, 1788), which was basically patched together.

• Later, the Hopkins Edition (1802), with corrections approved by Hamilton and some extra material added in.

▣ ᴛʜᴇ ᴋᴇʏ ʙɪᴛꜱ ʏᴏᴜ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴛᴏ ʀᴇᴍᴇᴍʙᴇʀ (ᴛʜᴇ “ʀᴇᴅ ᴘᴀʀᴛꜱ”):

• Hamilton ended up with almost full control of the project when Jay got sick and Madison had to head back to Virginia.

• Madison wrote the big structural essays: the separation of powers ones (47–51) and the Senate essays (62–63).

• The 1802 Hopkins Edition was heavily revised, and Hamilton approved most of the corrections—even though he didn’t write all of them himself.

• Hamilton refused to officially reveal who wrote which essay in that edition, so the final author list only came out after his death.

• Hamilton was knee-deep in every step of the editorial and printing process—as if the Federalist project were his personal creation.

~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ✒ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Federalist Papers: Facts, Difficulties, and Authorship Fights -

Part two : The Hamilton case (Benson list, Madison list, Jefferson list, and the statements)

~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ✒ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Now… back to the original case.

═══════ ⚔️𝙵𝙴𝙳𝙴𝚁𝙰𝙻𝙸𝚂𝚃 𝙲𝙾𝙽𝙵𝙻𝙸𝙲𝚃⚔️ ═══════

❖ 𝐕𝐈𝐈. 𝐋𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐞.

One day before the duel with Burr (1804) , Alexander Hamilton showed up at the office of Egbert Benson, a lawyer and judge who was also a friend of his—presumably to write his will. But Benson had traveled to Massachusetts with Rufus King (another friend of Hamilton’s). When Hamilton arrived, he found Benson’s nephew, Robert Benson Jr., and the office clerk there. They told him Benson wasn’t around and wouldn’t be back for days. According to the witnesses, this news made Hamilton visibly nervous. He paced around the room for several minutes.

He chatted a bit with Robert (and possibly some of the younger people around), walked up to a bookshelf, grabbed a book, flipped through it, and slipped a very small piece of paper inside (less than a quarter-page). Then he put the book back and left without another word.

The next day, July 11, Hamilton received the mortal wound in the duel with Burr. A few days later, when Benson returned, his nephew told him about Hamilton’s strange visit. Benson immediately checked the bookshelf and found the note Hamilton had left. He attached it to his personal copy of The Federalist and made a safer backup copy.

Eventually, he’d hand the original list to the New York Society Library, along with proof that it was in Hamilton’s handwriting… but the list was stolen in 1818.

It was also published three years after Hamilton’s death in The Port Folio, a Philadelphia weekly, and used in editions like the 1810 one (edited by William Coleman).

Right now, Hamilton’s original list is basically lost to time. What survives are Benson’s copies—and John C. Hamilton’s testimony.

▣ ᴀɴᴅ ʜᴀᴍɪʟᴛᴏɴ’ꜱ ᴠᴇʀꜱɪᴏɴ ʀᴇᴀᴅꜱ:

↪┌──────────────────────────────┐

“Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 54, by J.

“Nos. 10, 14, 37 to 48 inclusive, M.

“Nos. 18, 19, 20, M. & H. jointly.

“All the others by H.”

└────────────────────────────────┘

✧ 𝙎𝙄𝘿𝙀 𝙉𝙊𝙏𝙀 𝙁𝙍𝙊𝙈 𝙔𝙊𝙐𝙍 𝙐𝙉𝙋𝘼𝙄𝘿 𝘿𝙀𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙏𝙄𝙑𝙀 ✧

╰─➤⟨Okay give me a second to scream—Hamilton had some nerve hahaha.⟩

~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~

This is where the legendary breakdown comes from: Hamilton wrote 63, Jay wrote 5, and Madison only 14—literally yoinking 12 essays from Madison. Iconic behavior, your honor.

Originally, the disputed essays were 18 in total (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64).

But over time that number went down, since 18–20 were considered collaborations (mostly Madison’s work).

Then 17 and 21 turned out to be Hamilton’s and 64 turned out to be Jay’s., so the list shrank to 12 in the end (thankfully haha).

The essays Hamilton took from Madison were 49–58, 62, and 63.

═══════ ⚔️𝙵𝙴𝙳𝙴𝚁𝙰𝙻𝙸𝚂𝚃 𝙲𝙾𝙽𝙵𝙻𝙸𝙲𝚃⚔️ ═══════

❖ 𝐕𝐈𝐈𝐈. 𝐌𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐋𝐢𝐬𝐭:

The first “official” Madison list was published by Jacob Gideon Jr., an editor in Washington D.C. who wanted to make his own edition of The Federalist. To do that, he contacted Madison directly.

Their first interaction was on January 19, 1818, asking Madison to clarify things since Hamilton’s list had caused quite a stir.

Madison replied on January 28, 1818, in a very characteristic way, revealing a bunch of valuable details:

↳ ⚖️ Evidence File No.2 - 1818:

┃ James Madison to Jacob Gideon Jr., 28 January 1818

————–————————📜————–————————

“Sir

I have read your letter of the 19th and in consequence of the request it makes, I send you a copy of the 1st. Edition of the “Federalist,” with the names of the writers prefixed to their respective numbers.1 Not being on the spot, when it was in the press, the errors noted in mine were not then corrected. You will be so good as to return the 2 vols. when convenient to you.

The 2d. Edition of the Work comprized a pamphlet ascribed to one of its Authors.2 The pamphlet had no connection with the plan to which the others were parties, and contains a comment on an important point in the Constitution, which was disapproved by one of them who published an answer to it.

I take the liberty of suggesting that as comparative views frequently occur in the work, of the original “Articles of Confederation” and The Constitution by which it was superseded it might be convenient to the reader, to have the former as well as the latter prefixed to the Commentary on both.”

————–————————📜————–————————

Along with his letter, he also sent a copy of the first edition of The Federalist—the two-volume set from 1799 (based on the original 1788 McLean edition). Inside it, he had added:

A note saying he had made a personal list of the Federalist essay authors long before Hamilton’s claims—possibly back when the essays were published in 1788. He even wrote: “had a considerable time ago, at the request of particular friends, given the same advantage to their copies.”(20 Aug. 1818, Madison, Writings [Hunt ed.], VIII, 411 n.)

He prefixed initials (H, M, J) to each essay number.

He added a marginal note in No. 18 explaining his collaboration with Hamilton (Nos. 18–20): Hamilton started the topic, but left it to Madison because Madison had more material, and the final essays were written by Madison.

Madison claimed 29 essays total: Nos. 10, 14, 18–20, 37–58, 62, and 63.

He explained he hadn’t corrected errors in his copy because he wasn’t present during printing.

He suggested including the Articles of Confederation alongside the Constitution for easier comparison. He also mentioned the second edition from 1802, which included an unrelated pamphlet (“Pacificus” by Hamilton, answered by Madison as “Helvidius”).

He also corrected an error in Hamilton’s list: Hamilton had attributed No. 54 to Jay (and No. 64 as well), but the truth is Jay only wrote No. 64. No. 54 belongs to Madison.

▣ ᴍᴀᴅɪꜱᴏɴ’ꜱ ʟɪꜱᴛ ʟᴏᴏᴋꜱ ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴛʜɪꜱ:

↪┌──────────────────────────────┐

Jay (5): 2–5, 64

Madison (29) including collaborations: 10, 14, 18–20, 37–58, 62–63

Hamilton (51) including collaborations: 1, 6–36, 59–61, 65–85

Madison and Hamilton (3): Nos. 18–20

└────────────────────────────────┘

✧ 𝙎𝙄𝘿𝙀 𝙉𝙊𝙏𝙀 𝙁𝙍𝙊𝙈 𝙔𝙊𝙐𝙍 𝙐𝙉𝙋𝘼𝙄𝘿 𝘿𝙀𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙏𝙄𝙑𝙀 ✧

╰─➤⟨Though honestly, Madison often pushed back on giving Hamilton too much credit here—Hamilton only helped with some brief draft ideas, while Madison basically had to write the whole thing himself lmao.⟩

~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~

✧ ɢɪᴅᴇᴏɴ ᴜꜱᴇᴅ ᴛʜᴇ ɪɴꜰᴏ ᴍᴀᴅɪꜱᴏɴ ꜱᴇɴᴛ ʜɪᴍ ᴛᴏ ᴘᴜʙʟɪꜱʜ ʜɪꜱ ɢɪᴅᴇᴏɴ ᴇᴅɪᴛɪᴏɴ ✧:

↳

The Federalist (Gideon ed.) | Online Library of Liberty

The Federalist, by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, constitutes a text central to the American political tradition. Publishe

Even so, there’s no solid evidence of a much older author list than the one from 1816. (Most likely, earlier “lists” were casual comments in letters, private notes, or things shared only in tiny circles.) The 1816 one appears written inside a copy of The Works of Alexander Hamilton, vols. 2 and 3 (the 1810 edition) that belonged to Richard Rush (son of Dr. Benjamin Rush).

That copy contained corrections made by James Madison himself. He wrote the initials of the real authors next to their essays—and crossed out Hamilton’s initials wherever he disagreed with him. (Subtle? Not at all. Madison said “let it be known.”)

He also added a note in No. 18 explaining why Hamilton shouldn’t get any co-author credit for Nos. 18–20. A note by Rush on the flyleaf says Madison did all this “at least as early as 1816.” (It’s basically a duplicate of what Madison later sent to Gideon.)

═══════════════ 📜 ═══════════════

𝙉𝙤𝙬 𝙄’𝙢 𝙜𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚:

The full list of the Federalist essays is in volumes 2 and 3, which I linked above:

↳🔗 File Attachment 🔗 → The Works of Alexander Hamilton.

┃Vol.2

┃Vol.3

And these are their indexes

———————— ▰ 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙘 𝙉𝙤𝙩𝙚 ▰ ————————

———————— ▰ 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙘 𝙉𝙤𝙩𝙚 ▰ ————————

Madison had to organize not one book but two. And the index doesn’t tell you who wrote what—only the essay numbers. The names show up inside the actual pages.

———— ▰ 𝙎𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙚 𝙍𝙚𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 (𝙐𝙣𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡) ▰————

———— ▰ 𝙎𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙚 𝙍𝙚𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 (𝙐𝙣𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡) ▰ ————

So he literally had to flip through the books, find each essay Hamilton claimed, turn to the exact page, and cross out Hamilton’s name.

And if that still doesn’t hit you, let me recreate what that means. Considering that Nos. 49–58, 62, and 63 are Madison’s, the index would look like this:

———— ▰ 𝙎𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙚 𝙍𝙚𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 (𝙐𝙣𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡) ▰ ————

———— ▰ 𝙎𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙚 𝙍𝙚𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 (𝙐𝙣𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡) ▰ ————

We also know Madison was gathering material even from private correspondence. While he was writing for The Federalist, he was also exchanging letters with Thomas Jefferson (who was in France), trading ideas and opinions on several topics.

And in case you didn’t catch it—right there in the previous image, the essay literally references Notes on the State of Virginia, a book from 1781–1785. And guess who wrote that book? Thomas Jefferson.

The image you mentioned is from Essay 48, about the “separation of powers,” discussing a “protective device”—exactly the kind of stuff Jefferson talked about in his arguments.

𝐍𝐨𝐰 𝐥𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐠𝐨 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐇𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐭𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐦𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭:

│“Nos. 10, 14, 37 to 48 inclusive, M.”│

He claims Madison only wrote up to No. 48, and that everything after that is his.

But Essay 49 literally continues the same topic as Essay 48. So… how would Hamilton continue a topic from an essay he didn’t write? Why stop at 48 if the theme rolls right into 49?

Plus, Madison already had access to drafts. Jefferson had told him about the project as early as May 11, 1785:

On May 11, he informed Madison that he’d finished printing 200 private copies and planned to distribute them selectively (mostly in Paris).

↳ ⚖️ Evidence File No.3 - 1785:

┃ Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 11 May 1785

————–————————📜————–————————

"They yesterday finished printing my notes. I had 200 copies printed, but do not put them out of my own hands, except two or three copies here, and two which I shall send to America, to yourself and Colo. Monroe, if they can be ready this evening as promised. In this case you will receive one by Monsr. Doradour. I beg you to peruse it carefully because I ask your advice on it and ask nobody’s else. I wish to put it into the hands of the young men at the college, as well on account of the political as physical parts. But there are sentiments on some subjects which I apprehend might be displeasing to the country perhaps to the assembly or to some who lead it."

————–————————📜————–————————

I couldn’t find the exact date Madison received his copy, but Jefferson did send him one through Doradour (a trusted courier). He sent all sorts of things to Madison through that guy.

In the letter of September 1, Jefferson anxiously asks Madison what he thought of the book (basically guessing the package must have arrived by then). He also says he’d already given away a bunch of copies across Europe.

↳ ⚖️ Evidence File No.4 - 1785:

┃Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1 September 1785

————–————————📜————–————————

"I am anxious to hear from you on the subject of my Notes on Virginia. I have been obliged to give so many of them here that I fear their getting published."

————–————————📜————–————————

On November 15, the notes are mentioned again—Madison confirms he got the copy and analyzed it with friends who critiqued it with him.

↳ ⚖️ Evidence File No.5 - 1785:

┃James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 15 November 1785

————–————————📜————–————————

"I acknowledged from Philada. your favor of the 11 of May. On my return to Orange I found the copy of your notes brought along with it by Mr. Doradour. I have looked them over carefully myself and consulted several judicious friends in confidence. We are all sensible that the freedom1 of your strictures on some particular measures and opinions will displease their respective abettors. But we equally concur in thinking that this consideration ought not to be weighed against the utility of your plan."

————–————————📜————–————————

✧ 𝙎𝙄𝘿𝙀 𝙉𝙊𝙏𝙀 𝙁𝙍𝙊𝙈 𝙔𝙊𝙐𝙍 𝙐𝙉𝙋𝘼𝙄𝘿 𝘿𝙀𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙏𝙄𝙑𝙀 ✧

╰─➤⟨I attached the letters. Just a warning—Jefferson drifts off constantly in his own writing, talking about stuff totally unrelated. He’s such a silly guy hahaha.  And yes, I had to research this part myself because even though several sources claimed Madison got the book in August 1786, I couldn’t find the actual record. So I followed the trail on my own. If I missed something, sorry!⟩

~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~

Anyway—Madison’s copy was a private edition.

The public version of Notes didn’t come out until early August 1787 in LONDON. It wasn’t published in America (Philadelphia) until January 23, 1788.

Hamilton did own a copy of the Notes published January 23, 1788.

I couldn’t find a solid statement for the exact date he got it, so I’ll just say early January.

And Essay 49?

It was published February 5, 1788 in New York.

One of the most undeniable pieces of evidence that Hamilton did read Jefferson’s Notes comes from the critiques in The Examination, which Hamilton wrote under the pseudonym “Lucius Crassus.”

In this collection of mini-essays, Hamilton drags several of Jefferson’s actions as president. And in two of them, he cites Notes on the State of Virginia directly and accurately, because—plot twist—Hamilton actually agreed with some of the arguments Jefferson made there.

And then he calls Jefferson a hypocrite for not thinking the same way anymore.

✧ 𝙎𝙄𝘿𝙀 𝙉𝙊𝙏𝙀 𝙁𝙍𝙊𝙈 𝙔𝙊𝙐𝙍 𝙐𝙉𝙋𝘼𝙄𝘿 𝘿𝙀𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙏𝙄𝙑𝙀 ✧

╰─➤⟨Not entirely fair, since Notes is like… 50% Jefferson's real thoughts and 50% Virginia propaganda + “please admire us, Europe” energy. It’s more speculative than doctrinal.⟩

~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~

𝐈𝐧 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐰, 𝐇𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐪𝐮𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧:

↳🔗 File Attachment 🔗 → The Examination Number VII (7 January 1802)

(Quick summary: Hamilton being spectacularly xenophobic, yelling at Jefferson for not being xenophobic anymore especially about reducing the citizenship requirement to 5 years. )

↳🔗 File Attachment 🔗 → The Examination Number XVI (19 March 1802)

(Quick summary: Jefferson wanted to abolish the new federal courts created by the Federalists, and maybe fire the judges appointed by Adams. Hamilton scolds him, saying Jefferson used to support a strong federal judiciary. Hamilton was delusional for believing Jefferson would ever support that lol.)

But that’s not even the point.

These essays are from 1802, so they don’t prove Hamilton owned an earlier 1788 copy of Notes. He could’ve gotten a later edition (. I can’t confirm because a lot of the material the sources cite might come from physical archives, manuscripts, and references that aren’t digitized. Most of this comes from Edward Gaylord Bourne’s essay ( 1901), and he used a ton of archival references that simply aren’t online.

So I can’t confirm or deny anything absolutely—I can only give context and nuance.

But let’s assume Hamilton did have the 1788 edition.

For him to write Federalist 49 and 51 using information from Notes, he would’ve had to:

buy the book, wait for delivery, read it deeply, absorb the arguments, and then speedrun writing foundational political philosophy like it was nothing.

Unless Hamilton could read minds… or was secretly snooping through Madison and Jefferson’s correspondence lol.

If we factor in all this, we can assume Hamilton remembered Notes very well. His critiques in The Examination—VII and XVI—either came from rereading the book or mentally bookmarking passages he cared about.

So if Hamilton had the book…

And he read it…

And he cited it multiple times, accurately…

Then he wasn’t exactly suffering from memory loss.

And on top of that, during the same year he wrote these critiques, Hamilton was working on the Hopkins Edition of The Federalist in 1802. So he had the essays fresh in his mind—he was literally revising them.

So if he was continually interacting with Notes and with The Federalist essays…

How does he magically “forget” where Madison got his arguments for Nos. 48–51?

How does he mysteriously misattribute those exact essays?

Unless… it wasn’t a mistake. Unless it was deliberate. Intentional.

A choice.

⚖️━━━━━━━━━•◈•━━━•◈•━━━━━━━━━⚖️

❖ 𝐈𝐗. 𝐉𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐋𝐢𝐬𝐭:

And remember how I said Madison shared the list with some of his close friends? Well, he also shared it with Jefferson (sometime between 1810–1818), using the 1788 edition of The Federalist. Jefferson copied the list into his own books, writing down the authors next to each essay. The Library of Congress (LOC) has a digital scan of that exact book, so here’s volume one and two.

↳🔗 File Attachment 🔗 →The Federalist 1788 edition

┃The Federalist. vol. 1 (with Jefferson’s notes)

┃The Federalist. vol. 2 (with Jefferson’s notes)

———————— ▰ 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙘 𝙉𝙤𝙩𝙚 ▰ ————————

———————— ▰ 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙘 𝙉𝙤𝙩𝙚 ▰ ————————

And the fact that this is a 1788 edition actually fits perfectly, because Jefferson wrote a letter around that same time talking about the book:

↳ ⚖️ Evidence File No.6 -1788 :

┃ Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Nov. 18, 1788

————–————————📜————–————————

“Mr. Carrington was so kind as to send me the 2d. vol. of the Amer. Phil. transactions, the federalist, and some other interesting pamphlets; and I am to thank you for another copy of the federalist and the report of the instrns. to the ministers for negotiating peace. The latter unluckily omitted exactly the passage I wanted, which was what related to the navigation of the Missisipi.1 With respect to the Federalist, the three authors had been named to me. I read it with care, pleasure & improvement, and was satisfied there was nothing in it by one of those hands, & not a great deal by a second. It does the highest honor to the third, as being, in my opinion, the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written. In some parts it is discoverable that the author means only to say what may be best said in defence of opinions in which he did not concur.”

————–————————📜————–————————

Now, you might think Jefferson only knew who wrote what because Madison told him… but NO, NO, NO. The guy figured it out on his own, apparently because the three idiots—Jay, Hamilton, and Madison—were terrible at keeping secrets.

⚖️━━━━━━━━━•◈•━━━•◈•━━━━━━━━━⚖️

❖ 𝐗. 𝐌𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐲:

His main thoughts about the lists show up in letters—for example, the one he wrote to Robert Walsh Jr., March 2, 1819:

 ↳ ⚖️ Evidence File No.7 - 1819 :

┃ James Madison to Robert Walsh Jr., 2 March 1819

————–————————📜————–————————

“As you intend to notice the variance between my statement and that of Mr. Hamilton relating to certain nos. in the Federalist, I take the liberty of remarking, that independent of any internal evidences that may be discernible, the inaccuracy of Mr. H’s memory is illustrated by the circumstance, that his memorandum ascribes, not only to Mr. Jay, a paper No. 54. not written by him; but to himself a paper No. 64 written by Mr. Jay. This appears by the statement (presumed to be authentic) in the life of Mr. Jay by Delaplaine.5 If I have any interest in proving the fallibility of Mr. H’s memory, or the error of his statement however occasioned, it is not that the authorship in question is of itself a point deserving the solicitude of either of the parties; but because I had at the request of a confidential friend or two, communicated a list of the nos. in that publication with the names of the writers annexed, at a time & under circumstances depriving me of a plea for so great a mistake, in a slip of the memory or attention. Be pleased to accept my esteem & friendly respects”

————–————————📜————–————————

Many historians use this to argue that Madison was being neutral and admitting Hamilton simply made a “memory mistake.”

But honestly? It doesn’t really sound neutral to me… it sounds more like polite irritation wrapped in gentlemanly language.

And that vibe shows up in other letters too.

 ↳ ⚖️ Evidence File No.8 - 1831 :

┃ James Madison to James K. Paulding, 1 April 1831

————–————————📜————–————————

“I will on this occasion take the liberty to correct a statement of Mr. Hamilton which contradicts mine on the same subject; and which, as mine could not be ascribed to a lapse of memory, might otherwise impeach my veracity. I allude to the discrepancy between the memorandum given by Mr. H to Mr. Benson, distributing the Nos. of the "Federalist," to the respective writers, and the distribution communicated by me at an early day to a particular friend, and finally to Mr. Gideon for his Edition of the work at Washington a few years ago.

The reality of errors in the statement of Mr. H. appears from an internal evidence in some of the papers. Take for an example, No. 49. which contains a Eulogy on Mr. Jefferson, marking more of the warm feelings of personal friendship in the writer, than at any time, belonged to Mr. H. But there is proof of another sort in reference to No. 64. ascribed in the Memorandum to Mr. H. That it was written by Mr. Jay is shewn by a passage in his Life by Delaplaine, obviously, derived directly or indirectly from Mr. Jay himself. There is a like proof that No. 54. ascribed to Mr. Jay was not written by him.

Nor is it difficult to account for errors in the memorandum, if recurrence be had to the moment at which a promise of such a one was fulfilled; to the lumping manner in which it was made out; and to the period of time, not less than [ ] years between the date of the "Federalist," and that of the memorandum. And as a proof of the fallibility to which the memory of Mr. H. was occasionally subject, a case may be referred to so decisive as to dispense with every other. In the year Mr. H. in a letter answering an enquiry of Col. Pickering concerning the plan of government, he had espoused in the Convention of 1787, states that at the close of the Convention he put into my hands a draft of a Constitution, and that in the draft he had proposed a President "for three years" [see letter in Niles’ Register the year not recollected]. Now the fact is that in that draft, the original of which I ascertained some years ago to be among his papers, the tenure of office for the President is not—three years, but=during good behaviour. The error is the more remarkable as the letter apologizes, according to my recollection, for its not being a prompt one, and as it is so much at variance with the known cast of Mr. H’s political tenets, that it must have astonished his political and most of all his intimate friends. I should do injustice nevertheless to myself, as well as to Mr. H. if I did not express my perfect confidence that the mistatement was involuntary & that he was incapable of any that was not so.”

————–————————📜————–————————

In this letter you can see the same arguments as before, plus a new one supposedly backing up Hamilton’s “bad memory.” Madison describes a conversation Hamilton had with Timothy Pickering, where Hamilton claimed he had proposed, in his draft of the Constitution, a president with a three-year term under “good behavior.” Which is false. He never said that. What he proposed was a lifetime president under good behavior. (These letters were published after Hamilton’s death.)

Madison also chalks this up to faulty memory, but the truth is… it’s not that simple. It kind of feels like Madison is hinting at something between the lines. So let’s revisit the letters and Hamilton’s behavior, treating them as evidence.

 ↳ ⚖️ Evidence File No.9 - 1803 :

┃Timothy Pickering to Alexander Hamilton, April 5, 1803:

————–————————📜————–————————

“Dear Sir, The assertion of the Jacobins, that you are an aristocrat & a Monarchist, is not new: But at a late meeting of the sect in this town, one of their leaders declared “That General Hamilton proposed (&, it was understood, advocated) in the general Convention, That the President of the United States, and the Senators, should be chosen for life: That this was intended as an introduction to Monarchy: And that the Federalists of this county (Essex) had adopted General Hamilton’s plan.”2 Your friends here (who are the real friends of their country) are very desirous of knowing the fact. If you did not make and advocate that proposition, it will be useful to have it known, & the Jacobin lie contradicted. If the proposition was offered in the Convention, your friends will know to what motives to ascribe it; and that, whatever form of Government you may have suggested for consideration, the public welfare, and the permanent liberty of your country, were not less the objects of pursuit with you, than with the other members of the Convention. Your answer will gratify me and your numerous friends here. Such use only shall be made of it as you shall prescribe. And as I shall be absent [for about]3 four weeks from this time, have the goodness to direct your letter to me, under cover to my nephew Samuel Putnam Esqr. of Salem.4

 I am, as ever, truly & respectfully yours”

————–————————📜————–————————

As you can tell, Pickering is practically begging Hamilton to say something—anything—about whether he really supported a government with a lifetime president. He’s telling him that his enemies are calling him a monarchist, slapping the “Jacobin” label on the Republicans, and stirring up trouble. And Pickering basically says, “Look, man, it doesn’t even MATTER what you actually said—we’re gonna defend you anyway. Just give us some argument so we know how to move forward as a group.”

And Hamilton hands it to them on a silver platter.

 ↳ ⚖️ Evidence File No.10 - 1803 :

┃Alexander Hamilton to Timothy Pickering, September 16, 1803

————–————————📜————–————————

“The highest toned propositions, which I made in the Convention, were for a President, Senate and Judges during good behaviour—a house of representatives for three years.3 Though I would have enlarged the Legislative power of the General Government, yet I never contemplated the abolition of the State Governments; but on the contrary, they were, in some particulars, constituent parts of my plan.

This plan was in my conception comformable with the strict theory of a Government purely republican; the essential criteria of which are that the principal organs of the Executive and Legislative departments be elected by the people and hold their offices by a responsible and temporary or defeasible tenure.

A vote was taken on the proposition respecting the Executive. Five states were in favour of it; among those Virginia;4 and though from the manner of voting, by delegations, individuals were not distinguished, it was morally certain, from the known situation of the Virginia members (six in number, two of them Mason and Randolph5 possessing popular doctrines) that Madison6 must have concurred in the vote of Virginia. Thus, if I sinned against Republicanism, Mr. Madison was not less guilty.

I may truly then say, that I never proposed either a President, or Senate for life, and that I neither recommended nor meditated the annihilation of the State Governments.”

————–————————📜————–————————

I genuinely don’t know how to express everything this letter makes me feel. Hamilton basically washes his hands and twists what he wrote in his own draft. He never proposed a president serving for three years—that was the lower house (the “assembly”), which didn’t have much power.

Meanwhile the President, Senators, Judges, AND the Supreme Court were supposed to be lifetime positions under “good behavior.”

And in his original draft, he didn’t even use the word “President.” He used “Governor” for the executive, and barely referred to him as “President.”

And on top of that, he drags other people in (including Madison) instead of taking responsibility for anything. It feels like just another excuse dressed up as an explanation.

𝐇𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐭𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧:

↳🔗 File Attachment 🔗 → Constitutional Convention. Plan of Government, [18 June 1787]

┃Link 1

┃Link 2 (Pdf)

————–———————— 📄 ————–————————

“The Assembly to consist of persons elected by the People to serve for three years. The Senate to consist of persons elected to serve during good behaviour.”

“The Supreme Executive authority of the United States to be vested in a governor to be elected to serve during good behaviour. His election to be made by Electors chosen by electors chosen by the people in the election districts aforesaid. ….”

“ All impeachments to be tried by a Court to consist of the Judges of the Supreme Court [and] Chief or Senior Judge of the superior Court of law of each state–provided that such judge hold his place during good behaviour and have a permanent salary. After removal from office either of the foregoing characters (The Governor) may be prosecuted in the ordinary course of law for any crime committed while in office. All laws of the particular states contrary to the constitution or laws of the United States to be utterly void. And the better to prevent such laws being passed the Governor or President of each state shall be appointed by the general government and shall have a negative upon the laws about to be passed in the state of which he is governor or President.”

————–———————— 📄 ————–————————

It’s pretty obvious this wasn’t a “memory slip” on Hamilton’s part. It was just a way to soften what he had actually written in his constitutional draft when talking to his Federalist buddies—using Timothy Pickering as the messenger (who, by the way, was a devoted Hamilton follower and a senator at the time).

And you might ask, “But why couldn’t it just be a mistake?” Because this was one of Hamilton’s most deeply rooted ideas. He even argued with people over the notion of a lifetime president, and it’s literally one of the reasons he was called a monarchist. Pickering’s own letter mentions this. It’s not exactly something Hamilton would “forget,” especially when everyone keeps bringing it up.

And if you noticed, Pickering never confronted Hamilton. He just asked for an explanation and for arguments to defend themselves against the Democratic–Republicans—and assured him the whole Hamilton faction would adapt to whatever version Hamilton gave. Hamilton knew none of them were going to question him or check the details. The man twisted reality with a straight face and zero shame.

So now Madison’s comments about this letter sound more like he was quietly urging the public to notice Hamilton’s behavior, not excusing it as “faulty memory.”

Madison couldn’t outright say Hamilton was lying—not about the authorship list, not about this. At that time, truth, honor, and reputation were everything. Calling a fellow Founding Father a liar, especially one who had already died, would have been political suicide. It would have stained not just Hamilton’s memory but the Founders themselves.

Madison had to defend the truth diplomatically.

And he spent the last years of his life trying to get people to believe him. These statements came when he was around 80 years old. I can only imagine the frustration of an old man being called a liar, even with all the evidence in his hands… and people still refusing to listen.

Everything got worse years later when John Church Hamilton (Alexander Hamilton’s son) pushed his father’s version of the authorship list even harder around 1850. It took years—decades—before people finally started considering the possibility that Hamilton was the one who got it wrong.

⚖️━━━━━━━━━•◈•━━━•◈•━━━━━━━━━⚖️

✦ 𝚃𝚞𝚛𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝙿𝚊𝚐𝚎 ← 𝙱𝚊𝚌𝚔 𝚝𝚘 𝙿𝚊𝚛𝚝 𝙸 ✦

𝙿𝚊𝚛𝚝 𝙸𝙸𝙸 𝚂𝚘𝚘𝚗… 𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚢 𝚜𝚘𝚘𝚗.

Aside from that, just so you know, this is going to be a three-part series. The third will come later, after I fix a few things in the conclusions.

This isn’t an academic essay, and it shouldn’t be treated like one. I’m not going to respond to hate comments over a silly theory. Please try to be kind and don’t take my word as “the absolute truth,” nor assume that I’m trying to claim that. This research also has nothing to do with my political views, so please don’t try to label me just because I’m not taking Hamilton’s side.

Be kind, and if you have something to add, I’ll be happy to hear it. But please don’t throw personal attacks at me or dismiss my thoughts without any real argument. That only creates a toxic environment for the people enjoying the blog — and for me. You’ll leave a pretty bad impression if you can’t choose your words carefully.⟩

《 🇧 🇮 🇧 🇱 🇮 🇴 🇬 🇷 🇦 🇵 🇭 🇾 》

—◈— 𝘗𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘋𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 — 𝘍𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘖𝘯𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 —◈—

Hamilton, Alexander. “Introductory Note: The Federalist.” Founders Online.National Archives.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0151-0001.

Madison, James. Madison’s Authorship of The Federalist, 22 November 1787–1 March 1788. Founders Online. National Archives. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0177.

Madison, James. “Jacob Gideon Jr., 28 January 1818” Founders Online.National Archives.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-01-02-0190.

Jefferson, Thomas. “ To James Madison, 11 May 1785” Founders Online.National Archives.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-08-02-0094.

Jefferson, Thomas. “ To James Madison, 1 September 1785.” Founders Online. National Archives.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0187.

Madison, James. “ To Thomas Jefferson, 15 November 1785.” Founders Online. National Archives.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-09-02-0029.

Hamilton, Alexander. “The Examination, Number VII (7 January 1802).” Founders Online. National Archives. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0280.

Hamilton, Alexander. “The Examination, Number XVI (19 March 1802).” Founders Online. National Archives. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0305.

Jefferson, Thomas “ To James Madison, 18 November 1788” Founders Online. National Archives.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-11-02-0257.

Madison, James. “ To Robert Walsh Jr., 2 March 1819.” Founders Online. National Archives.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-01-02-0378.

Madison, James. “To James K. Paulding, 1 April 1831” Founders Online.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-2317.

Pickering, Timothy. “ To Alexander Hamilton, 5 April 1803.” Founders Online. National Archives.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0080.

Hamilton, Alexander. “ To Timothy Pickering, 16 September 1803.” Founders Online. National Archives.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0114.

Hamilton, Alexander. “Constitutional Convention: Plan of Government (18 June 1787).” Founders Online. National Archives. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0099.

—◈— 𝘈𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘴 —◈—

Bourne, Edward Gaylord. [1901]. “The Authorship of The Federalist.” In Essays in Historical Criticism. Wikisource. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays_in_Historical_Criticism/The_Authorship_of_The_Federalist.

Maggs, Gregory E. 2007. [A Concise Guide to the Federalist Papers as a Source of the Original Meaning of the United States Constitution]. Boston University Law Review. George Washington University Law School. March 9. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1821&context=faculty_publications.

—◈— 𝘌𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 & 𝘊𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 —◈—

Hamilton, Alexander; Jay, John; Madison, James. 1788. The Federalist. Volume 1. New York: Printed and sold by J. and A. M'Lean. Library of Congress (digital copy). https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2014jeff21562v1/?sp=15.

Hamilton, Alexander; Jay, John; Madison, James. 1788. The Federalist. Volume 2. New York: Printed and sold by J. and A. M'Lean. Library of Congress (digital copy). https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2014jeff21562v2/?sp=11&st=image&r=-0.869,-0.153,2.739,1.075,0.

Hamilton, Alexander. The Works of Alexander Hamilton: comprising his most important official reports; an improved edition of the Federalist, on the new Constitution, written in 1788; and Pacificus, on the proclamation of neutrality, written in 1793. Vol. 2. HathiTrust Digital Library. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000010594421.

Hamilton, Alexander. The Works of Alexander Hamilton: comprising his most important official reports; an improved edition of the Federalist, on the new Constitution, written in 1788; and Pacificus, on the proclamation of neutrality, written in 1793. Vol. 3. HathiTrust Digital Library. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433081736708.

“The Federalist (Gideon ed.).” Liberty Fund / Online Library of Liberty. Edited volume page. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/jay-the-federalist-gideon-ed.

Lodge, Henry Cabot. 1886. Hamilton & the Federalist. Introduction. Liberty Fund (Online Library of Liberty). May 21. https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/hamilton-the-federalist.

—◈— 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘓𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 & 𝘊𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 —◈—

Library of Congress. “Complete list of The Federalist Papers with publication dates.” Library of Congress guides. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text.

CSAC (Center for the Study of the American Constitution). “Hamilton Plan” (PDF). University of Wisconsin / CSAC archive. https://archive.csac.history.wisc.edu/1._Hamilton_Plan.pdf.

Jefferson, Thomas. 1781–1785. Notes on the State of Virginia. Library of Congress (digital copy). https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/gdc/lhbcb/04902/04902.pdf.

[youroldwestern]

Just realized most of amrev fandom probably hasn’t seen this gem

From “Jefferson in His Own Time” by Kevin Hayes. imo a better purchase to understand Jefferson than any biography, but that’s a rant for another day…

[c-skye07]

Posting this for the 2 Kőszívű fans out there 🤞

[youroldwestern]

dumb Tycutio texting memes

every day I come closer to unironically shipping them