Discovering Hamilton

I had written two posts a couple of years ago, 1755 or 1757 and the follow-up, based in part on Newton’s Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years. After publication of that book, Newton did an amazing/astounding/exhausting job looking for additional original texts from the West Indies that mentioned AH and his family. Among his most exciting discoveries were the Rachel Faucette Lavien court case documents, which finally provide us with contemporaneous descriptions of the charges of adultery and the parties involved (only the 1759 documents were known previously). Newton also discovered Rachel’s sister, Jemima Gurley, and found that she provided testimony about the two illegitimate children Rachel had by 1759.  But the stunner was court testimony in 1771 from AH himself stating his age as 17: on August 5, 1771, “witness answered that he was 17 years old.”

So we can confirm that AH gave at least two birthdates for himself: Jan 11, 1757 (held to consistently after 1772), and sometime between August 6, 1753 and August 5, 1754. For which is he telling the truth? Well, if he’s lying about a 1757 birthdate, as Newton also points out, a lot of people that AH maintained contact with from the West Indies either didn’t care about it or just didn’t consider it important enough to correct. Considering the public accusations hurled at AH (including that this information should have been known to an enemy, James Monroe, as well as family like Philip Schuyler), I’d consider it unlikely. Would it really have taken 100 years for us to find a document where someone questions AH’s birthdate, if all those people knew the 1757 birthdate he was giving them was false? With that, I lean towards AH lying in the court case - deliberately presenting himself as older than he was, and knowing that neither his employer nor family had an incentive to correct it (his uncle had provided the older birth date in 1768). My hunch is a hypothesis I previously rejected - that AH and his family presented him as older than he was for job opportunities. 

The complication for this is Jemima Gurley’s testimony: in April 1759 she testifies that two years ago, she knew her sister to have two children - a child of about five, and a child of about three. Newton argues why these two children HAVE TO BE James Jr. and Alexander, but I’m unconvinced. His arguments seem to rest on the possibilities “two years ago” and “about three” have. Does two years ago mean 1.5 to 2.5 years ago? What if it’s closer to 3 years ago?  Is “about three” actually 2 (as it usually meant), or could it be closer to 4? It suddenly seems I’m having to put a lot of weight on someone giving testimony that’s not exact (why didn’t she know we’d have an intense debate about her nephew’s birthdate).  

I’ve always been struck by AH’s statement about his parents in the letter to W. Jackson/McHenry, “My mother afterwards went to St Kitts, became acquainted with my father and a marriage between them ensued, followed by many years cohabitation and several children” [my emphasis]. I also have a hunch that some of the Hamiltons’ very deliberate family planning was in response to both of their experiences with the deaths of siblings (Catharine von Rensselaer Schuyler had a number of stillborn children or children who died shortly after birth).  Could there have been an Alexander born 1754 (the one his aunt knew) who died before the birth of an Alexander born 1757? (Jemima doesn’t provide the names of the children, by the way.) Could this have added to Rachel’s family’s confusion about the age of an AH born 1757? I don’t really have any clue.  All I know is that I’m not settled on the matter in the way Newton seems to be, and it’s actually raised more questions than it’s answered.  

Wow, thanks! And an interesting question! Little Eliza did have a health scare as an infant. When Hamilton went up to Albany on legal business in January 1800, he wrote to Eliza that he was “very anxious to hear of the health of my little Betsey.” (26 January 1800). By January 30, however, Eliza had written to him to relieve his fears for his two month old daughter. He replied:

You will easily imagine, My Dear Eliza, how much I have been relieved by the Post of today.1 My darling infant is then recovered.2 Happy news and very contrary to my apprehensions! Let us unite in thanks to that kind being who has thus far protected our little family and ourselves and let us endeavour as far as in us lies to merit a continuance of his favour.

While I’m sure Eliza had some sleepless nights taking care of her daughter, I haven’t seen anything that indicated she suffered more than usual in her pregnancy or after giving birth.

A yellow fever outbreak in New York did send much of the Hamilton family up to Albany in September 1799, when Eliza was about seven months pregnant. The Hamilton children went to Albany by sloop separately from their parents, accompanied by a maid, according to a letter from Philip Schuyler to Hamilton dated 13 September 1799. Eliza, it seems, intended to travel to Albany by coach instead. Hamilton wrote to James McHenry on September 10, 1799, “I am on the point of setting out to accompany Mrs. Hamilton a part of her way on a visit to her father; with the expectation of being back in five days.” That Hamilton didn’t intend to accompany her the entire way indicates he wasn’t overly concerned about her health at that time.

The letters communicating Hamilton’s concerns for little Eliza in January 1800 also lack any indication that Eliza was struggling with any health issues. In expressing concern for their daughter, Hamilton didn’t add any request for an update about her health, which he almost unfailing did when he left her feeling poorly.

Eliza’s health did suffer quite a bit during her last pregnancy, however, which may be what you were thinking of. While on his way to Albany on business in October 1801, Hamilton wrote anxiously to Eliza: “you know that I should be anxious to hear of your health. If the succeeding post does not rectify the omission of the former I shall be dissatisfied and pained.” Losing Philip in the midst of her last pregnancy couldn’t have helped matters, either. On 28 March 1802, Philip Schuyler wrote to Hamilton:

In a letter from Mrs. Church1 of tuesday last she mentions that my dear Eliza had been very much indisposed, but was better. as no mention is made of the disorder with which she has been afflicted, we apprehend that she has miscarryed,2 we are extremely anxious for further Accounts and pray they may be such as shall do away our apprehensions.

Hamilton stayed close by Eliza’s side throughout her pregnancy and after little Phil’s birth. Even four month’s after giving birth, in October 1802, Hamilton was still anxious about Eliza’s precarious health. He wrote to her from Albany on 25 October 1802: