Slices of Alexander Hamilton History

Hamilton

Turn

Assassin’s Creed

Time princess

Liberty’s kids

Steel Rising

The Order 1886

George Washington (miniseries)

Miraculous (he is only mentioned but still)

Liberty!

Jefferson in Paris

Burn in hell you art stealing CUNT

And suck my dick!!!!!

I'm not a bully my cultish fans say I'm really "nice" and viciously attack anyone who criticizes me. Just so you know

admit your mean bully 1 i m nice 1

peeple love you an hate me

i return art ok

And if we check your blog with our secret side blogs, that's okay for us to do BUT IT'S NOT OKAY FOR YOU TO DO BITCH!!!!!!

And a bonus where Laurens does not die AU

Hamilton punched Jefferson within an hour of him stepping foot on The Liberty

In 2019, Michael E. Newton, who had been researching Hamiltons early life for about a decade and posting his findings to his blog, published his latest book, Discovering Hamilton, in which he spends the first whole chapter discussing this debate. In doing his research, he uncovered never-before-seen documents relating to accounts by family members, court records (including one in which Hamilton had to give testimony for Nicholas Cruger and was asked under oath his age), and records from the mercantile firm Hamilton worked at—which together with the other documents we know of, point to either a 1754 or 1755 year of birth, but lean more towards the former.

Upon the launch of his book, Newton did a thorough presentation in partnership with the Alexander Hamilton Awareness Society in which he talked about all of these documents and his conclusions which you can watch here.

You can also read the full chapter of his book which delves into much more detail than I have the time to cover at the moment.

Another reminder is that "appreciation societies" like AHAS do not require any accreditation or qualifications to speak at their events.

Hamilton's aunt testified that in April 1759, she knew her sister had two children two years ago, a child of about five and a child of about three. And it entailed her guessing how old he appeared, which isn't concrete in any sense. She also gives his birth year as early as 1753, which then questions if she was remembering the correct child here. As that seems to match up adequately with what we believe is James Jr.'s birth year. Newton contends that these two children could only be James Jr. and AH, but there is also the possibility that they are not Rachel and James Sr.'s only children. There are instances where it is implied Hamilton had more siblings than just James Jr., like Levian's claim Rachel had “numerous children”, or even Hamilton claiming the same much later. Which implies more than just two, which very likely could have taken place during this “two years ago” - “about three” gap. Especially since names aren't even given to these children she saw. It has be speculated Rachel lost at least three babies, it wasn't unusual to use a deceased child's moniker (Little Phil, for example), and since Alexander is James Sr.'s father's name, any or all of the second sons would have likely been called Alexander as well. And if so, Hamilton easily could have simply borrowed the birth date of an elder deceased brother to get a job when he needed it, then resumed his true one when he didn't need to any longer.

This also stands against Hamilton's court affidavit from the 1771 case involving his boss, Nicholas Cruger. Where when he was asked to state his age, he answered that he was seventeen. That would put his birth year in 1754, which isn't proven anywhere outside of this claim he made. But again, what stops this from being another instance where he lies about his age? We know that Hamilton has now given two different birthdates for himself, January 11th, 1757, and some dates between August 6th, 1753, and August 5th, 1754. But which is the truth? The context of just why Hamilton deceived others regarding his age when he came to America to appear younger is persuasive, but it can be easily swapped around with slightly different reasoning that can be made about Hamilton lying to appear older and trying to be taken seriously and employed. Perhaps he returned to the truth when he arrived in America, for it no longer proved necessary when he was only a student. Regardless, I would not take Hamilton's mere words on the subject as concrete.

In his first book, Newton demonstrated how untrustworthy the probate record was for determining Hamilton's precise year of birth. The probate record has flaws that call its veracity into question. For neither Hamilton nor James Jr. was seemingly present at the event, so their uncle - whom they barely knew - signed it in place of the cousin. And the record states that the children were born after Rachel's divorce from Lavine, which is impossible because that occurred in 1759. Then there are evident annoyances with record keeping in the West Indies, such as Rachel's incorrect burial document. The record indicates Hamilton was born in 1755 unless he lied about the month and day as well as the year, in which case it can be argued that he was born in 1754. But what is the sense in him altering the month and day? For more mental gymnastics to maintain?

In my opinion, it's still 1757. Hamilton maintained contact with plenty of folks in the West Indies, like Mitchell and Stevens, and not once was he seemingly corrected on it. So either they didn’t care about it or just didn’t consider it important enough to overhaul. But I find those both doubtful in consideration of the continuous and slanderous accusations hurled at Hamilton, especially regarding things like his background and heritage. It efficiently could have been utilized by John Adams or would have been quite effortless for the Schuyler family to find out about. And I find it hard to believe we've gone this long, and only now is Hamilton's true birthdate coming into question. Especially when again, it could have easily been discovered by political enemies of AH's, like Adams who was on an anti-Hamilton rampage after his death. And with such easy access, why would Hamilton put his credibility on the line? He would have hated to have been caught, so what was the motive for keeping up this facade for years if it were easy to debunk? With that, I find it more plausible that Hamilton lied a few times, purposefully presenting himself as older knowing that not many in the West Indies had the incentive to correct it, unlike the claim the lie began when he arrived at the Colonies because would have been easily refutable. And who's to say Hamilton was even certain of his own birth year.

Awww thanks anon, your very sweet ♥︎!

It seems my time has come to answer the century old question; 'just how old was Alexander Hamilton really?' I'm honoured to say the very least :).

So, most historians and biographers of Hamilton and the founding fathers in general say Alexander Hamilton was born on the 11th of January, 1755, on the island of Nevis in the Caribbean. This means he would've been 13 when his mother died, 17 when he arrived in America, 22 when he joined Washington's staff as an Aide-de-Camp, 34 when he became Secretary of the Treasury, and 49 when he died. The most popular believer in this theory is Ron Chernow, the man who wrote the most famous biography of Alexander Hamilton (though some of the 'facts' and takes in that biography are questionable, it's still a good read; however, I would recommend reading people on this platform's critiques of it after reading it just so you know you've gotten your facts right). The main piece of evidence we have supporting this theory is a transcript from a Nevisian probate court case about his mother's belongings not long after she died, stating Hamilton's age at 13. We know that this probate court transaction happened on February 19, 1768, and if Hamilton was 13 in 1768, then he would have to have been born in 1755.

“—where on the 19th of this month Madam Rachael Lewine died, and whose effects were forthwith sealed up, in order now to take an inventory of them for subsequent distribution among the decedent’s surviving children, who are 3 sons, namely, Peter Lewine, born in the marriage of the decedent with John Michael Lewine who, later, is said for valid reasons to have obtained from the highest authorities a divorce from her (according to what the probate court has been able to ascertain), also 2 other sons, namely, James Hamilton and Alexander Hamilton, the one 15 and the other 13 years old, who are the same illegitimate children sc. born after the decedent’s separation from the aforesaid Lewine."

(thanks again, Founders.org)

The other piece of evidence used to support this theory is two poems that were published in the Royal Danish American Gazette, the same publication that later published Hamilton's Hurricane Letter. These two poems were printed one on top of the other, and they present very different ideas about romance. Poem number one is cute and romantic, whereas poem number 2 is lustful and darker.

(you can read the poems here if you want to)

When these poems were published on the 6th of April, 1771 they were prefaced with this message addressed to the printer of the gazette:

I am a youth about seventeen, and consequently such an attempt as this must be presumptuous; but if, upon perusal, you think the following piece worthy of a place in your paper, by inserting it you’ll much oblige Your obedient servant,

A.H.

People take this as irrefutable evidence that Hamilton was born in 1755 because of the same initials. We know Hamilton really liked writing and printing a poem in this same gazette in 1772, and if Hamilton was born in 1755, then he would've been 16 when this was published, and that's 'about 17'.

But how do 1755 Hamilton believers explain how, upon arriving in America, he always stated his birth year as 1757, not 1755? Well, they say that he lied about his birth year to help him get into college. In the 18th century, a lot of kids went to college at the age of 15, or sometimes even younger, and with the 1755 theory, Hamilton would've been 17 when he arrived in America, and he would've finished prep school at 19, making him much older than the other college boys. With an age like that, getting into college would've been very difficult, so it's believed he lied that he was born in 1757, so when he applied to colleges, they saw him as a 17-year-old, far more acceptable than a 19-year-old. Also, they believe Hamilton kept going with this lie and never admitted that he was born in 1755 because to lie about one's age wasn't exactly honourable, and had the democratic-republicans found out about it, then they would've brutally mocked him for it. So even on Hamilton's gravestone, his birth year is 1757 because of his continued lie.

However, this is not the theory I believe to be true. I'm a 1757 Hamilton believer and here's why:

1. The Nevisian court wasn't great; in that same probate court case, Hamilton's stepfather's name is spelt in two different ways: 'Lewine' and 'Lavien'. They also didn't ask Hamilton or his brother for their ages; they asked one of the Lewines, Hamilton's stepfamily, whom he likely barely knew or didn't know of at all. Since they didn't know Hamilton or his brother well, they were probably just guessing their ages based on appearance.

2. We don't know for sure that those poems were written by Hamilton. A.H. is a pretty common initial, and even if they were written by Hamilton, it makes sense that he'd lie about being older because a printer would likely care less about something written by a young, unprofessional 14-year-old than he would about something written by an older, employable 17-year-old. I myself don't believe the poems are written by Hamilton at all, given how much Hugh Knox had to coax him into submitting the Hurricane Letter. We know Hamilton was very shy about publishing his work because of this message that prefaced the Hurricane letter when it was published in 1772:

'The following letter was written the week after the late Hurricane, by a Youth of this Island, to his Father; the copy of it fell by accident into the hands of a gentleman, who, being pleased with it himself, shewed it to others to whom it gave equal satisfaction, and who all agreed that it might not prove unentertaining to the Publick. The Author’s modesty in long refusing to submit it to Publick view, is the reason of its making its appearance so late as it now does.'

The hurricane hit Nevis on the 31st of August 1772. Because it says Hamilton wrote the letter a week later, he must've written it in the first week of September. It was published in the gazette on October 3 of the same year. This means the gentleman mentioned here (Hugh Knox) had to try and coax him to publish the hurricane letter for a full month. No part of the Hurricane letter is explicit or NSFW (at least I didn't interpret any part of it like that), and he published it completely anonymously, with no initials and no age other than being described as a 'youth'. If he wrote that explicit poem with his initials and rough age a year earlier, then his hesitance to publish something inexplicit without anything that could identify him a year later makes no sense.

3. Hamilton never states his year of birth as 1755 outside of the poem, and even then, like I described earlier, there's a chance that wasn't even written by him. At every other point in his life, he's said he was born in 1757. I trust his own word about himself over the Lewine's.

4. Most of the people Hamilton was close to in Nevis later moved to America, and had he been lying about his age, surely at least one of them would've heard of this and pointed it out or at least expressed their confusion at it, but none of them ever did.