8In the duration of this essay, I will be deconstructing Hamilton: An American Musical, as well as disproving a multitude of misconceptions (as well as giving more insight to what Alexander actually did while he was part of Washington's staff) caused by both it and it's fandom, things such as relationships, personalities, historical events, racism, peoples' stance on the women's movement, etc. People seem to forget that these 'characters' were actual people, and that they need to treat them as such. But still, I do hope this will encourage someone to look more in-depth to this topic and do their own research, even if it's just to prove me wrong.
Eliza, what have they done to you? To put it bluntly, I hate the musical version of Eliza. She is so unsupportive and selfish and just- bad. Now, the real Eliza didn't act like this, she was an amazing person and can walk on me; but in the musical, people feel bad for her because she decided to wed an "unbelievable jerk", and then he cheated on her. But no one stops to consider the fact that Eliza told Hamilton to go with them upstate, when he is about to lose his job, meaning that they could lose their house. But no, let's forget the fact that they had multiple children at the time and Alexander losing his job would mean they would have no home, and just focus on the fact that Alexander didn't go upstate because he wanted to work.
Another thing about Eliza, in Non-stop, she repeatedly asks Hamilton, "Isn't this enough?" Telling him she wants to settle down; she isn't happy that her husband has gotten a job of his dreams, she isn't happy that her husband can come home everyday, she isn't happy that her husband's life is no longer in constant danger; no. She just wants to settle down, she doesn't want to support her husband's dreams and ambitions, which is messed up.
Angelica, please stop. In the musical, Lin keeps toying with the idea that Alexander and Angelica had a secret affair because he thought they were "soulmates". Well guess what, it would have been almost impossible to do that! When the two met, Angelica was already married to someone, and they barely saw each other as well, as Angelica was in London most of the time. There is also little evidence other than a few flirty letters from Angelica, that the two were having an affair.
Although the entire affair with Hamilton is in fact, bullshit, something else that is bullshit is the idea that she was an iconic femenist, which has no actual historical evidence backing up that fact. But there is also no evidence that she didn't support it, so I will stay off the topic as there is no evidence to support either claim. The reason people think she was a supporter of the women's movement is because of the verse, "and when I meet Thomas Jefferson? I'mma compel him to include women in the sequel!" along with the fact she dissed Alexander in Congradulations. There are several things wrong with those sentiments. Angelica never dissed Alexander for the affair, she supported him throughout the entire ordeal, and even if she did it would be somewhat hypocritical as if we are to believe Angelica had a thing with Alexander, she also would have been cheating on her husband, there is no winning.
Peggy? More like peggo away. Peggy had no reason to be in the musical; she has at most three lines, and they are all in one song. If your going to put Peggy in, at least develop her friendship with Alexander! Who, may I remind you, wanted to base a book he was writing off of her. She had no role in the musical, other than to become a meme. So it doesn't make sense when people say that the Schuyler Sisters all played an important role in the musical when the only one who actually did play an important role was Eliza. Peggy only had three lines and they were all in one song. Also, she wasn't the forgotten Schuyler sister, do you even know who the other two sisters are? They are Cornelia and Catherine, so I think they would be forgotten if no one knows that they existed.
Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier Marquis de Lafayette. Lafayette is commonly known as the favorite of the musical, for what reason? I don't know the reason why, as my favorite is Alexander so I can't exactly relate to those who favor the Marquis. But I can guess that it's because he is portrayed as an amazing person who did no wrong, maybe it could be the fact that he became a major general was he was 19 (but following that logic Alexander would've been the favorite as he led a battalion into battle a multitude of times when he was only 17), also the fact that Hamilton argued that they shouldn't help the French after promising Lafayette that they would.
Either way, Lafayette wasn't a good person by the fandoms standards, as he had multiple affairs yet no one says that he is a bad person because of that. Lafayette also helped defend the monarchy, that's why he was thrown in prison, in Austria. Because he and his wife fled there to escape arrest. Moving is daughter to the colonies to live with Alexander and Eliza, who treated her like their own whilst waiting for her parents to return.
People read and spoke Greek, wouldn't they know that in Greece it's Heracles and not Hercules? Hercules Mulligan is often portrayed as the loud, big, and softest one in the "Hamilsquad." Which I don't agree with in the slightest; also, I will be talking about the Hercules and Lafayette pairing in a bit. Hercules was a spy, that is now a "well-known" fact; but he wasn't actually in the army, the more you know. Now, the topic of "Mullette," doesn't make any historical sense. For one, Lafayette and Hercules never actually met, so that entire idea that they were in a relationship is entirely false; Hercules also had at least 10 years on Lafayette.
John, Jesus Christ- s t o p. In the Hamilton fandom, John Laurens has a reputation for being a precious person who was in love with turtles and had an abusive father. Well, none of those were remotely true. John Laurens was a very reckless person; he just threw caution to the wind and jumped into battles, often returning injured. Although I don't wish to get into the topic, some historians believe that John Laurens was in fact, suicidal. If you wish to read about it, here is an article on the topic.
Another common misconception is that he had a strange obsession with turtles. The thing about that, is that he didn't have an obsession with turtles. The only reason he drew them a few times is because his sister had asked him to draw one for her - as a commision - and so he did. He also drew some for a scientific journal as well. So although it seems as though all he drew was turtles, he did draw a variety of other animals, such as birds. There has also been a recent debate on a set of water-color paintings that some people believe that Laurens did, I will link the paintings below.
Samuel Seabury here, do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? For some reason, Samuel Seabury is viewed as a precious cinnamon roll who just wants to do good. But, no? Where did that idea come from? Seabury was well into his late 50's when Alexander posted his first rebuttal against him; so the entire song "Farmer Refuted," is just about a grown man getting torn down by a 19 year old child. It also doesn't make sense that the song takes place in 1776, when Samuel Seabury didn't give any of his speeches.
Washington, how high are you? Washington did in fact have a temper, it's one of the reasons Alexander quit the army. What happened was this; Washington's staff were at this gathering, and Washington asked Hamilton to meet him at the top of the staircase. So Hamilton agreed and made his way over, only to be stopped by Lafayette who wanted to tell him a story. Hamilton apologized and told Lafayette he had to go, but by then 5 minutes had already passed; so when he finally made it to the stairs, Washington was basically "Why were you late? Are you disrespecting me? Do I need to punish you?" and so Hamilton, the Bipolar child he is was like, "You know what? I'm done. I quit, see you late s." And then he left.
Although what I painted made it seem as though Washington just had a temper, he didn't. Like most other founding fathers, his morals were less-than ideal to have given modern standards. The first American President held 316 Black men, women and children in his 'custody,' in the years 1790-1797 he held nine of those people in boundage at the first 'White House.'
The background of the historic building: Construction began in 1767, led by the widow of William L. Masters, a man who had once been the mayor of Philadelphia as well as a well-known slave owner. In the year 1772, the widow gave the house to one of her daughters as a wedding gift (the daughter married William Penn's grandson). Switching over to the year 1777, enter George Washington and his troops. They used the house as a HQ after they were forced to retreat back to Valley Forge. A year later, before leaving the house, Washington assigned the traitor General Benedict Arnold to the house. Following a fire that significantly damaged the house, Robert Morris bought it; fixing it up from 1780-1790.
The nine enslaved - Austin, Christopher Sheels, Giles, Hercules, Joe, Moll, Oney Judge, Paris, and Richmond - they were all human. They had names, families, moral complexes, etc. No one deserves to have that done to them, even if their 'master' was the ninth leader of the colonies.
And although it was common for people to own slaves, that shouldn't excuse it. And I don't really think that it was common to use your slaves teeth as your dentures. Which is what Washington did; in 1784 he had the teeth of enslaved black adults transferred into his mouth. A few years after the event, a dentist had the presidents first set of dentures made from the teeth that "were yanked from the heads of his slaves."
Although I haven't cited them, books such as George Washington's Teeth: An Unconventional Guide to the Eighteenth Century, written by Dr. Robert Darnton goes further in-depth than I have. If you wish to read more or find that his claims ring false, try reading George Washington: An Imperfect God, His Slaves, And the Creation of America, which is written by historian Henry Wienceck.
"We entered some negroes' huts, for their habitations cannot be called houses. They are far more miserable than the poorest of the cottages of our peasants. The husband and his wife sleep on a miserable bed, the children on the floor. A very poor chimney, a little kitchen furniture amid this misery—a teakettle and cups. A boy about fifteen was lying on the floor with an attack of dreadful convulsions..." Said by Julian Niemcewicz, who stayed at Mt. Vernon for two weeks in 1798.
Burr, put the knife down- Aaron Burr is made to be a sympathetic character in the musical, I don't know why. He was just an awful person; I honestly can't cover everything he did, but I can try. He cheated on his second wife, he raped his slave, he pulled a knife on someone for bumping into him, he was psychotic, he married a young girl for money, cheated on her, and then divorced her, and he never regretted killing Alexander and frequently made jokes about it. The only time he was shown to regret it was on his deathbed, but that doesn't really tell us if he truly regretted it.
Although, whenever confronted with the history of this person, who was once alive and breathing as we once were, people often say 'it's just fiction' or 'it's just for fun!' I get it, I am currently writing a paper debunking every misconception the musical or it's fandom had caused, but you shouldn't disregard things as significant as that just because the 'character' you liked most was actually a psychotic guy who tried to start an empire in Texas. He was a real person, not someone Lin made up, maybe you should treat him like it.
Even though he died, doesn't mean his entire history of wrong-doings died with him.
Thomas Jefferson was a bad person with anxiety and you can fight me on that. Jefferson was a bad person. Sure, he did some good things for the Colonies, but that's really all he did. He also raped his slave, Sally Hemings. A 14 year old child. Meaning that he impregnated her, leading her to give birth to his son. Although people often say there is no proof that he raped Sally, there is evidence of the crime. In 1784 to 1789, Jefferson lived in France as he was the US Envoy and Minister to France. Whilst moving there, he took a few of those he enslaved, including James Hemings.
Two years after moving to France, Jefferson had requested that his daughter Polly was sent there as well, so that meant Polly would bring her enslaved chamber-maid, 14 year-old Sarah "Sally" Hemings - James' younger sister. The siblings were both off-spring of Jeffersons' father-in-law, John Wayles. This means that the two Hemings were half-siblings to Jeffersons' late wife Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson. So Thomas, after raping Sally a multitude of times impregnated her in Paris. Her first child had died after her return to America.
She had six other children of Thomas' in Monticello.
January of 2000, a report done by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundations' Research Team had managed to conclude that through DNA studies, both primary and secondary documents, as well as oral histories of Jefferson and Hemings descendants and nationally renowned scholars, that there is in fact, a "high probability that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings and that he most likely was the father of all six of Sally Hemings' children appearing in Jefferson's records."
As a result of Thomas' perverted lust for a black child, many during the time period were confused on why he promoted the "Back to Africa" movement. Most who truly knew him as a person knew that he didn't enjoy the idea of black people going back to their motherland, and gaining independence. The only reason he promoted it was to cover up Hemings' children, who were, as he called them- his "Shadow family."
Thomas' criminal lust after a child of color doesn't truly affect his character, as in 1776, the time period he wrote the Declaration of Independence, he held 175 black men, women, and children in his 'custody.' That number grew to 267 by 1822. Jefferson wasn't just a slave-holder racist, he was also a legislative racist (legislative - having the power to make laws). As it was pointed out by Joyce Oldham Appleby, Professor Emerita of History at UCLA and former President of the Organization of American Historians and the American Historical Association, as well as Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., former Professor of History at Harvard University and Professor Emeritus at CUNY Graduate Center. It is said that Jefferson had opposed the practice of slave-holders freeing their slaves as it would incite 'rebellion.' Though as pointed out by John E. Ferling, after Thomas had been elected to the Virginia House of Burgess in 1769, he had proposed a law to make it so free people of color were banned from entering and exiting the state, and banish children whose fathers were of African descent. He had also attempted to expel white women who had had children with black men.
Going through all this information, you would think that it couldn't get much worse than this. Apologies, but it does. As Jefferson was an international racist as well. In his cabinet position as Secretary of State in 1795, he gave 40,000 dollars as well as one thousand firearms to colonial French slaveholders in Haiti as an attempt to thwart Toussaint L'Ouverture's slave rebellion. Later on as president, lending the French 300,000 dollars "for relief of whites on the island," as he supported their plans to resume power.
Along with being an international, perverted, and legislative racist, Jefferson was also an ignorant racist. In his book written in 1785, labeled "Notes on the State of Virginia," he had written "the preference of the 'oran-outan' (i.e., an ape-like creature) for the Black women over those of… (its) own species." He then went on to say that blacks had "a very strong and disagreeable odor" and that they "are inferior to the whites..."
The mistake I made in this is the fact that I am only showing one side of this argument, I am not giving a chance for the other side to make their case, so I will let them. On March 4th, 2018 10:20 AM, a Guest commented on an article that exposed Thomas, they said "What is the point of accusing someone over 200 years ago of being a pedophile? We know that slavery existed, we also know that it was written out of law in 1863. Even with Sally being a slave, who is to say that she did not care for Thomas? Do we have Sally's diary or other written documentation as to how she truly felt about her circumstances? Why are you assuming the status of their relationship (when it is even a crime to assume someone's gender in present times lol)? What is the true purpose of this slanderous article, if only to poke at people who lived over 200 years ago, and to drag Sally and Thomas' descendants through the mud? I'd encourage you to live your life for *today* based on upon your own critical research. Would you want people in 2200 to look back on your life and call you a racist, ignorant, intelligently inferior snowflake - because that's exactly what they are going to do after reading your comments!"
Another guest commented on August 22nd, 2018 at 2:20 AM, "During that time it was common for 14 year olds to marry and have children. So knock off the pedophile bullshit. You assume that Sally and Thomas were not in love with one another, yet have no proof. Twisting bits and pieces of history to suit your pathetic needs. Truly the act of a Coward a.k.a. Coar. Perhaps you should do a bit more research about slavery in Africa and note that the first slave owner in the Americas was black. Perhaps you could also acknowledge the whites who died fighting against slavery during the Covil War and the many whites that marched and died during the civil rights movement. But no, none of that would suit your Racist needs."
Wow, okay, saying that we don't acknowledge the whites who died in the 'Covil War,' is not true. It is more likely that we acknowledge them more than we do the actual slaves who died during the time period, or the 100 year gap that took place after the war when organizations such as the KKK began. And yes, although it was common for 14 years olds to already be married and have children, it doesn't make it better. We have evolved from that time and have finally realized that kids shouldn't have sex with adults. So, my good sir, you are in fact: racist. Just like our good old friend Thomas.
"Who is to say that she did not care for Thomas?" She was a slave to his daughter, even if she did have some sort of positive feelings for him - which as you said we have no proof that she felt any feelings towards him, as we don't have her diary, but we do have excerpts from her son, Madison Hemings book, Life Among the Lowly. In which he said "He wished to bring my mother back to Virginia with him but she demurred. She was beginning to understand the French language well, and in France she was free, while if she returned to Virginia she would be re-enslaved. She refused to return with him."
But, as you said random commenter, we obviously don't know how she felt. But, one could assume that due to the fact that she refused to return with him, her feelings towards him were negative.
Now onto the other topic, "JefferMads." Why does this exist? Why do people think that Madison and Jefferson were romantically involved? Jefferson was probably one of the most homophobic people -as well as one of the worst ones- so it doesn't make any sense. Something that does make sense, is Hamilton and Laurens-
Madison really needs to take his medicine. He wasn't a cinnamon roll. Anyone who has gone weeks without bathing, fought in a war, gave birth to six or more children, or was just alive in the 18th century, is not a cinnamon roll. I will in fact fight you on that topic. Either way, Hamilton and Madison were in fact friends, and got along quite well before Hamilton became the secretary of the treasury. He was also constantly sick, how he survived until 85 I have no clue.
Timeline likes to Timelie. The timeline of Hamilton doesn't make any sense, the times characters are introduced doesn't make sense. Hercules would be the only one introduced in "Aaron Burr, Sir" while Lafayette and Laurens would be introduced in "Right Hand Man." With Burr, being introduced around "Non-Stop."
What was the best homosexual relationship in the American Revolution? Laurens and Hamilton, obviously. I don't know how to begin with this. For some reason, the fandom had this weird idea that the two were in a very toxic relationship, with Alexander cheating all the time and John was smol, turtle loving, and begging for affection. But, the thing is, why? They were never in anything close to a toxic relationship. And why do people always say John was starved of affection, usually it was Alexander who tried to get his attention; also, of course, Alexander would have to fight for attention! They were in the middle of a war, and a lot of the time they were away from each other. Not to mention, but John had a lot of internalized homophobia, meaning yes, he was gay; but in their time period being gay resulted in death, so he tried to deny it as much as possible.
He also had a wife he hid from Alexander, he didn't love her, he married her out of pity because he got her pregnant while he was drunk after his boyfriends (Francis) broke up with him. Then, Alexander found out he had a wife, but they were states away, so he wrote John (or Jack, as Hammy called him) a letter talking about getting himself wife, confronting John about his own wife and child, and being mad in general. Which was a reasonable response. A section from the letter would be "I anticipate by sympathy the pleasure you must feel from the sweet converse of your dearer self in the inclosed letters. I hope they may be recent. They were brought out of New York by General Thompson delivered to him there by a Mrs. Moore not long from England, soi-disante parente de Madame votre épouse. She speaks of a daughter of yours, well when she left England, perhaps ⟨– – –⟩." The original words were scratched out. Furthermore, in the letter of April, 1779 (the most well-known of the bunch), Alexander said "Cold in my professions, warm in ⟨my⟩ friendships, I wish, my Dear Laurens, it m⟨ight⟩ be in my power, by action rather than words, ⟨to⟩ convince you that I love you. I shall only tell you that 'till you bade us Adieu, I hardly knew the value you had taught my heart to set upon you. Indeed, my friend, it was not well done. You know the opinion I entertain of mankind, and how much it is my desire to preserve myself free from particular attachments, and to keep my happiness independent on the caprice of others. You sh⟨ould⟩ not have taken advantage of my sensibility to ste⟨al⟩ into my affections without my consent. But as you have done it and as we are generally indulgent to those we love, I shall not scruple to pardon the fraud you have committed, on condition that for my sake, if not for your own, you will always continue to merit the partiality, which you have so artfully instilled into ⟨me⟩."
Although you could argue that it's just how people talked, then why did Alexander go on to say "And Now my Dear as we are upon the subject of wife, I empower and command you to get me one in Carolina. Such a wife as I want will, I know, be difficult to be found, but if you succeed, it will be the stronger proof of your zeal and dexterity. Take her description—She must be young, handsome (I lay most stress upon a good shape) sensible (a little learning will do), well bred (but she must have an aversion to the word ton) chaste and tender (I am an enthusiast in my notions of fidelity and fondness) of some good nature, a great deal of generosity (she must neither love money nor scolding, for I dislike equally a termagent and an œconomist). In politics, I am indifferent what side she may be of; I think I have arguments that will easily convert her to mine. As to religion a moderate stock will satisfy me. She must believe in god and hate a saint. But as to fortune, the larger stock of that the better. You know my temper and circumstances and will therefore pay special attention to this article in the treaty. Though I run no risk of going to Purgatory for my avarice; yet as money is an essential ingredient to happiness in this world—as I have not much of my own and as I am very little calculated to get more either by my address or industry; it must needs be, that my wife, if I get one, bring at least a sufficiency to administer to her own extravagancies. NB You will be pleased to recollect in your negotiations that I have no invincible antipathy to the maidenly beauties & that I am willing to take the trouble of them upon myself. If you should not readily meet with a lady that you think answers my description you can only advertise in the public papers and doub[t]less you will hear of many competitors for most of the qualifications required, who will be glad to become candidates for such a prize as I am. To excite their emulation, it will be necessary for you to give an account of the lover—his size, make, quality of mind and body, achievements, expectations, fortune, &c. In drawing my picture, you will no doubt be civil to your friend; mind you do justice to the length of my nose and don't forget, that I ⟨– – – – –⟩." The last few words were scratched out by John Church Hamilton, though it is said that the words read, "that I have spared you no pictures of." As the word 'nose' refers to, y'know, his dick. And if you argue that it's just how people talked back then I will stab you, because if it was how people talked, then why did JCH feel the need to scratch the words out.
And although Laurens didn't write back with as much frequency as Hamilton did, at least that's what most think as the majority of his letters were burned (most likely by Alexander, as John's letters would have been in his possession at the time). He still wrote back, in the July of 1782, John wrote to his younger counterpart "I am indebted to you, my dear Hamilton, for two letters; the first from Albany, as masterly a piece of cynicism as ever was penned, the other from Philadelphia, dated the 2d March; in both, you mention a design of retiring, which makes me exceedingly unhappy. I would not wish to have you for a moment withdrawn from the public service; at the same time, my friendship for you, and knowlege of your value to the United States, make me most ardently desire, that you should fill only the first offices of the Republic. I was flattered with an account of your being elected a delegate from N. York, and am much mortified not to hear it confirmed by yourself. I must confess to you, that, at the present state of the War, I shd. prefer your going into Congress, and from thence, becoming a Minister plenipotentiary for peace, to your remaining in the Army, where the dull System of seniority and the Tableau would prevent you from having the important commands to which you are entitled; but at any rate I wd. not have you renounce your rank in the Army, unless you entered the career above-mentioned. Your private affairs cannot require such immediate and close attention; you speak like a pater familias surrounded with a numerous progeny."
The letter previously shown was written and sent before John's death. So on August 15, 1782, Alexander wrote back, "I received with great Pleasure, My Dear Laurens, the letter which you wrote me in last. Your wishes in one respect are gratified; this state has pretty unanimously delegated me to Congress. My time of service commences in November. It is not probable it will result in what you mention. I hope it is too late. We have great reason to flatter ourselves peace on our own terms is upon the carpet. The making it is in good hands. It is said your father is exchanged for Cornwallis and gone to Paris to meet the other commissioners and that Grenville on the part of England has made a second trip there, in the last instance, vested with Plenipotentiary powers. I fear there may be obstacles but I hope they may be surmounted. Peace made, My Dear friend, a new scene opens. The object then will be to make our independence a blessing. To do this we must secure our union on solid foundations; an herculean task and to effect which mountains of prejudice must be levelled! It requires all the virtue and all the abilities of the Country. Quit your sword my friend, put on the toga, come to Congress. We know each others sentiments, our views are the same: we have fought side by side to make America free, let us hand in hand struggle to make her happy. Remember me to General Greene with all the warmth of a sincere attachment.6 Yrs for ever A Hamilton"
Also, people don't think they were in a relationship because it was illegal, what? Murder is illegal and people still do it so that isn't a good defense. People also argue that the letters between Alexander and John, which were written by them, are not reliable resources. Humanity angers me.
"In short, Laurens, I am disgusted with everything in this world but yourself."
- Alexander Hamilton
Y'know, Hamilton and Lafayette could have had a thing as well. Although there isn't as much evidence as Hamilton and Laurens, one could piece enough together to make a convincing argument. Which could be countered with someone else saying they had a brotherly bond. I'm going to argue that they were a thing as well. On November 3, 1782, Alexander Rights to Gilbert, saying "Since we parted My Dear Marquis at York Town I have received three letters from you one written on your way to Boston, two from France. I acknowlege that I have written to you only once,1 but the reason has been that I have been taught dayly to expect your return. This I should not have done from my own calculations; for I saw no prospect but of an inactive campaign, and you had much better be intriguing for your hobby horse at Paris than loitering away your time here. Yet they seemed to be convinced at Head Quarters that you were certainly coming out; and by your letters it appears to have been your own expectation. I imagine you have relinquished it by this time."
Whilst Laurens didn't write to Hamilton as much as he wrote to Laurens, Lafayette wrote to the founder quite frequently. On October 7, 1779, Gilbert wrote "What is the matter with my dear hamilton And By what chance do I live in fruitless expectation of Some lines from him? does it begin to be the way in your, or rather in our Country to take European Airs, and forget friends as soon as they have turn'd theyr heels—indeed, My Good friend, I Cant help being Some what angry Against you, which shakes into My heart a Ridicu⟨lous⟩ fighting between love and anger and as the first will never go off, you must behave better with me that Anger might be more decently dismissed. Many Ships, paiquets, are Arriv'd in france—letters have spread every where, and not a word from Any friend any fellow soldier of mine in all the Army—not even from my dear and Respected General, from the family, from that iddle fellow Colonel hamilton—is it not too Much, my dear Sir, for a friendly heart who would give any thing to join soon those whom he so much beloved in America and whose affection he had the happiness to obtain." Once again, this could be described as a brotherly bond, but we shall never know the context of these words, will we?
These people are dead, but it hasn't stopped others from stealing things that validate their existence. 60 years ago, an employee from the Massachusetts archives stole a letter from Hamilton to Lafayette, which has been recovered as of recently. It was given to an auction house with a worth of about 25,000. The owners contacted the FBI when they learned of the letters historic value. In the letter, Alexander writes to Marquis on July 21, 1780 "My Dear Marquis We have just received advice from New York through different channels that the enemy are making an embarkation with which they menace the French fleet and army. Fifty transports are said to have gone up the Sound to take in troops and proceed directly to Rhode Island. The General is absent and may not return before evening. Though this may be only a demonstration yet as it may be serious, I think it best to forward it without waiting the Generals return. We have different accounts from New York of an action in the West Indies in which the English lost several ships. I am inclined to credit them. I am My Dear Marquis with the truest affection Yr. Most Obedt A Hamilton Aide De Camp"
The Gay Trio was kinda gay tbh. The Gay Trio was a name given to Laurens, Hamilton, and Lafayette by JCH. Although the term gay wasn't use to describe homosexuality until the 1900's, people like to tease the fact that the three of them could of been in a relationship together. And I full heartedly support that decision. Although Hamilton could have seen Lafayette as a younger brother, we wouldn't truly know as the only form of communication we have documented in the present day, are letters, between Hamilton and Lafayette. So we only have two parts of the trio, so why do people think they were all in a relationship? Well, the three quickly attached to each other, and were said to sit out at night under the stars, and talk about what they would do when the war ended. In fact, Alexander told Laurens in one of his letters to "Quit your sword my friend, put on the toga, come to Congress." Meaning that he wanted John to join him in New York. But John never received the letter, as he died before it got to him. As previously mentioned, there are no recorded letters from Laurens to Lafayette, but Hamilton mentioned Laurens countless times in his letter to the Marquis on October 15, 1781
Whathomosexual realtionship doesn't make sense in the time period? Charles Lee and Samuel Seabury. Where did this ship even come from? Did someone see these two and go, "aaww cute uwu cinnamon rolls that would obviously love each other so much and have no connection in the musical uwu owo perfect pairing." Seriously, this ship makes no sense! They were both grown-ass men in the revolution, they were both insanely Christian -might I add that most Christians thought the gays were sent straight from hell itself- and in the musical they never even talked. So why, praytell, do people feel the need to ship them?
Schuylkill River may or may not have been traumatic for Hammy. During the years 1777 and 1778, Alexander was deployed on various amounts of missions, one of them being on the Schuylkill River. - known as the river of revolutions - Washington sent Alexander on a mission to destroy flour mills on the shore of the river, to prevent them from falling into British custody. So Alexander, leading eight other men (one of them being Captain Henry Lee), was about to burn the small mill at Valley Forge.
But, this is Alexanders' life, so it didn't go exactly as planned. Two sentries fired off warning shots from their posts, the regulars were there. The British force had largely outnumbered Alexanders' men, chasing after Captain Lee who took flight across the millrace. The dragoons ceased their chase with the captain, and chose to chase after the red-head.
Whilst Alexander attempted to escape across the river on his horse, the cavalry men on the opposing side continued firing. Injuring one man, killing another, and shooting Alexanders' horse out from under him. He had no choice but to swim the river, writing to John Hancock that the British had the potential to be in Philadelphia come morning.
When he returned to Washington's headquarters, he found that he had been pronounced dead by Captain Lee, he must have scared so many people when he was walking through camp, right?
Alexander Hamilton, wasn't a bad person. Just st0P LYING TO Y0URsELF- Alexander, you poor red-headed child. But, before I begin, I do want to touch on the subject of his age. There is an on-going debate about how old he was, as one source says he was born in 1755 and countless others saying he was born in 1757. Personally, I am more in favor of his 1757 birth date, as it would make more sense. His family members all used that for his birth year, yet historians think that he was born in 55'. This is due to the fact that a document on in Nevis said that he was born in 1755. Which, although it is a government paper, is most likely faulty as they managed to get births and names wrong on countless other documents.
Going back to the original topic, people always seem to diss' Alexander because he cheated on his wife. But the thing is, he came clean way before the Reynolds Pamphlet was published, and yes. I will get to that. But do you know who else cheated on their wives? John Laurens, Lafayette, Aaron Burr, Benjamin Franklin, but do people rant about how bad of people they were? No. And that is because the musical loves to paint Alexander in a negative light. During the war? An annoying twat who doesn't wanna take no for an answer, with his family? An absent dick of a father, which doesn't even make sense when looking at the childhood he had. Meaning, that he also had an absent father as well as a multitude of other issues, making it so he had multiple issues stemming from that, (possibly) like depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, abandonment issues; so why would he do that to his kids? In fact, to further prove my point that the idea of him being an absent father is wrong, he was always there for his kids. He helped with their education, which was something that only the women did in that era, he played piano with them, he taught them French; and after the death of Philip, his eldest daughter had a psychotic break, so he did everything he could to make her feel better (i.e talking to her about Philip, buying her pets, and just being there.)
Homing in on the fact that he had mental illnesses, why do people think he had them? Well, when asked to talk about Alexander, his friends more often than not, brought up the fact that his mood could change within seconds, like when he quit the army for example. And there was evidence that he was depressed, in one of his letters he wrote, "I hate the war, I hate Congress, and I hate myself." And the like in various letters. Now, the Reynolds Pamphlet. People always say that he had no reason to publish it, but that's not true. James Monroe, as well as two other men, thought that he was embezzling funds and threatened to tell the press. So, as to not get arrested, he came clean to them about the affair - which he already told Eliza about. But, Monroe had started to leak the information about the affair, so to keep the amount of damage done to his reputation to a minimum, he released the Reynolds Pamphlet. I won't defend the affair, because it was a choice Alexander made himself, but there are other factors that did affect his mental state. He had gone days without sleeping trying to make a convincing argument, meaning he wasn't in the best state of mind, he missed his wife and was reported to be going into a depression. But that doesn't excuse the fact that the affair went on for months, one could reason that he stayed because Maria said she would kill herself if he left, but that can't be confirmed, so it isn't that reliable.
Also, people seem to think that the country was shaken in the aftermath of the affair, but it really wasn't. It was forgotten in a number of months, as most other founding fathers had affairs as well, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. In fact, after his death, New York was grieving. Stores closed, people wore black armbands, both French and British ships fired off canons in tribute to him, he was known as a hero. Not a cheating, manipulative, awful person. And I don't understand why the fandom thinks he was like that. The fandom talks about how he would have never forgiven Burr, because he is "spiteful," but he did. He forgave him on his deathbed. He was an amazing person, of course- he made a lot of mistakes, but that is expected. He is only human, and humans tend to make a lot of mistakes.
Listen, I'm not saying that you shouldn't like the musical, what I'm trying to say is don't take it's words for the truth. History had to be deformed to make it an intriguing story, but the fact that people take everything in it for the hard truth, it's not okay, if you want to actually inform people of those who helped create our nation, research it yourself. You can't just live your entire life waiting for people to hand everything to you, go out and make a legacy, make it so you have a reason to be remembered.
National, Archives. "Founders Online: From Alexander Hamilton to Lieutenant Colonel John Laurens, [A ..." National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, 1779, .gov/documents/Hamilton/01-02-02-0100.
National, Archives. "Founders Online: To Alexander Hamilton from Lieutenant Colonel John Laurens, [J ..." National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, 1782, .gov/documents/Hamilton/01-03-02-0044.
National, Archives. "Founders Online: From Alexander Hamilton to Marquis De Lafayette, [3 November 1 ..." National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, 1782, .gov/documents/Hamilton/01-03-02-0102.
Vera, Amir. "After More than 70 Years, a Stolen Alexander Hamilton Letter May Soon Return Home to Massachusetts." CNN, Cable News Network, 18 May 2019, . .
National, Archives. "Founders Online: To Alexander Hamilton from Marquis De Lafayette, 7 October 1779." National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, 1779, .gov/documents/Hamilton/01-27-02-0001-0002.
Coard, Michael. "Coard: President Thomas Jefferson: A Pedophile Rapist." The Philadelphia Tribune, 3 Mar. 2018, commentary/coard-president-thomas-jefferson-a-pedophile-rapist/article_ .
T. Jeffersons', Monticello. "The Life of Sally Hemmings." The Life of Sally Hemings, 2020, sallyhemings/.
John, Laurens. "John-Laurens." Of Him Who Promises Much, Much Will Be Expected., 21 Mar. 2014, post/80210017120/these-are-opaque-watercolors-from-the-ethelind.
Turtle, Drawings. "'John Laurens Turtle Sketches' Poster by Aleksandra Cîrstea." Redbubble, 2020, people/vulpeer/works/23188879-john-laurens-turtle-sketches?p=poster.
Coard, Michael. "Coard: George Washington's Teeth Not from Wood but Slaves." The Philadelphia Tribune, 24 Feb. 2018, commentary/coard-george-washington-s-teeth-not-from-wood-but-slaves/article_ .
Coard, Michael. "Coard: Philly Homage for 9 Enslaved by George Washington." The Philadelphia Tribune, 16 Dec. 2019, commentary/michaelcoard/coard-philly-homage-for-enslaved-by-george-washington/article_ .
