#melle posts stuff

- A free Black woman. (almost certainly not supported by credible documentation.) There is overall no proof or evidence Hamilton sought out such a woman; however, the son of the unnamed Black woman is identified as William Hamilton━a very prominent African-American orator and abolitionist. Depending on his birth date of 1755/57, he would have been either 18 or 16 at the time of William's birth.

- Elizabeth Hamilton (née Schuyler). Of course, his wife! Hamilton and Eliza met in winter of 1780, corresponded by letter, became engaged and married that same year. Eliza weathered his political rise, scandal (the affair below), his death (1804) and lived on until 1854. The couple had eight children and were, by all accounts, an incredibly loving and successful relationship!

- Angelica Church (née Schuyler). (strongly suggested flirtation/affection, no firm proof of full affair.) Elizabeth’s older sister. She and Hamilton shared lively correspondence and intellectual chemistry. Angelica was already married with children by the time she and Hamilton met closely (making a formal affair unlikely), however historians such as Randall or Hendrickson speculate an affair between the pair, while John C. Miller claims Angelica held unrequited feelings for Hamilton. One (in)famous letter from Angelica to Eliza noted her affection for Hamilton: “for I love him very much and if you were as generous as the old Romans, you would lend him to me for a little while.”

- John Laurens. (strongly speculated male lover.) Hamilton and Laurens were close friends during the Revolutionary War. Letters between them show affectionate and intense language, and there is plenty of evidence to speculate about an affair—in fact, when you compare it to Hamilton and Angelica, the case for Laurens is arguably stronger. The correspondence between Hamilton and Laurens is far more intimate, emotionally charged, and sustained over time. Unlike the flirtatious but largely social and intellectual exchanges with Angelica, Hamilton and Laurens shared a much deeper, far more personal bond and Laurens’ death deeply disturbed Hamilton, who lost one of his closest confidants.

- Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette. (strongly speculated male lover.) Much like Laurens, Lafayette was Hamilton’s close friend during and after the Revolutionary War. The marquis writes to Hamilton in 1780: “my sentiment has increased to such a point, the world knows nothing about. To shew both from want and from scorn of expressions I shall only tell you.” Alexander, Gilbert and John were speculated to have been in a relationship.

- Maria Reynolds (née Lewis...slash-Clingman-slash-Mathew). Hamilton’s only confirmed extramarital affair. The affair began in 1791 when Hamilton, already married to Eliza, was approached by Maria in Philadelphia, who begged him for financial aid. James, Maria’s husband, soon caught wind of the affair and proceeded to blackmail Hamilton for a year, pressuring him into paying hush money to keep the scandal quiet. Hamilton later publicly admitted the affair in the infamous Reynolds Pamphlet (1797), a document meant to clear him of financial corruption but which scandalized the nation by exposing his moral failing.

- Aaron Burr Jr. (speculated crush with no substantial evidence.) While there is no evidence of a physical or romantic relationship between Hamilton and Burr, J. Michael Mahoney, in Schizophrenia: The Bearded Lady Disease, argues that Hamilton’s obsessive hatred may have stemmed from a “powerful, unconscious homosexual attraction” to Burr. According to this interpretation, Hamilton’s extreme paranoia, recurring illnesses, and ultimately his behavior at the infamous 1804 duel could be read symbolically as reflecting a deeply conflicted, passive submission to Burr—literally offering himself in a “helpless physical posture” at the duel. This interpretation is speculative, controversial, and unprovable.

Hamilton has been described as “flirtatious” in social settings, especially in his youth. Some sources note that early in his time in New York/Winter 1780, he may have enthused over one “Cornelia Lott.” A poem by his friend Webb referenced him being “madly in love with a new woman every week” before marrying Eliza, referencing Cornelia by her last name. No documented affair beyond Maria exists, but there are some significant pattern‑indicators: frequent socialising, letters of admiration, and a charismatic personality that attracted many women. Because of those patterns, it is reasonable (though unprovable) to speculate Hamilton may have had other romantic/flirtatious connections with women in his social circle for which no records survive.

If there’s one thing that’s been reliably fascinating me about Alexander Hamilton, it would be his looks. His appearance was remarked upon extensively by contemporaries, often in ways that suggest something beyond ordinary attractiveness. Even now, over two centuries later, Hamilton continues to be considered handsome in a way that seems almost anachronistic compared to many of his peers, whose visages read as “Founding Father rugged” rather than conventionally attractive by modern standards.

The usual narrative with “handsome” men of the past is that beauty standards shifted so dramatically that what was swoon-worthy in 1790 is often “eh” (or outright ugly) to modern eyes. Look at most of the portraits of Washington, Adams, even Jefferson. However important they were, modern audiences don’t usually go “wow, he’s attractive.” They look dated, powdered, wigged, stern.

So how come Hamilton dodges that uncanny valley?

ok. ok. deep breath. i raise you, that maybe—just maybe—it’s fine that one modern piece of media doesn’t treat him like the devil incarnate.

like. every other portrayal since 1804 has been, “alexander hamilton was an arrogant proto-fascist who personally invented capitalism and probably kicked a puppy on the way to duel feminist icon aaron burr.” almost every biography, every dramatization, every half-baked documentary has already dragged him through the mud, called him an elitist, a warmonger, a narcissist, a tyrant in a cravat. so forgive me if i don’t burst into outrage when one (1) musical dares to show him as ambitious, flawed, human, or god forbid, maybe even sympathetic??

she said (and i swear i remember this perfectly) that according to hamilton’s letter to gouverneur morris during the election of 1800, hamilton literally admits that he and burr always got along well. like. fine. civil. not these mortal enemies some people make them out to be. and burr himself didn’t seem to resent hamilton right after the election either. not really until years after the petty insult, even, which makes the whole “seething rivalry” timeline weird.

and THEN there’s the levi weeks case. these men defended someone together. they were literally on the same legal team not long before the duel. burr worked with hamilton after all that supposed animosity. and my teacher was like, “you can’t tell me they hated each other if they could still share a client without strangling each other in the courtroom.” which, fair.

so her theory was that hamilton asked burr to kill him. the duel being the only real way to die because he did not want to end his own life due to his religious beliefs (plus his religious beliefs also left zero space for tolerating duels after his son died so???). and hamilton, being hamilton, arranged it. he made sure there were letters, witnesses, a paper trail, everything set up to make it all look legit, and he made up a reason to be called to a duel in the first place. she said they waited until alexander jr. was eighteen and could “be the man of the house.” like hamilton literally waited until his eldest surviving son was old enough to take care of the family, then made sure burr would be the one to finish what hamilton couldn’t bring himself to do.

and yeah. she also said burr was prone to depression generally in his life, so the whole “burr was happy after killing him” narrative falls apart instantly. the idea that he was thrilled about it is just historical mythmaking.

Yes, the guy whose face is literally on your ten-dollar bill was born today!

Alexander Hamilton is one of those people in history who basically came out of nowhere and became a national icon, but the universe apparently didn’t give us a clean birth certificate. When it comes to the year of his birth, we get what is the historical version of “lol good luck.” There is, unfortunately, no baptismal record, and no diary that says “Today I turned 12, huzzah!” His mother’s complicated marital history and colonial bureaucracy didn’t exactly help. Later admirers and biographers guessed, argued, and...voila. Two birth years entered the public consciousness, and now we fight about it like it’s a modern Twitter war.

Anyway, historians have long debated 1755 vs. 1757, so which is it?

Evidence pointing to 1755:

St. Croix hurricane letter, 1772. Hamilton wrote an impressively detailed account of the hurricane that hit St. Croix in August 1772. The letter itself was printed in The Royal Danish American Gazette on October 3, 1772. Contemporaries later described the author as a “17-year-old clerk” on St. Croix. If Hamilton was born in January 1755, that lines up—he would have just turned 17. If he was born in 1757, he’d be 15.

St. Croix legal records, 1767. There’s a mortgage document from Christiansted dated August 10, 1767, which Hamilton signed as a witness alongside other merchants. If he were born in 1755, he would be 12, which is young but possible for a precocious clerk. If he were born in 1757, he would have been...10 years old. Witnessing contracts at ten? That’s some prodigy-level audacity even by Hamilton standards.

Evidence pointing to 1757:

Letter to Edward Stevens, November 11, 1769 In a Hamilton autograph letter, he writes ambitious, life-risking, “I will not let anything stop me from rising in the world” energy stuff. Many contemporaneous archivists note that Hamilton was described as a 12-year-old clerk at this time. Born in January 1757? Bingo. Born in 1755, he’d be 14.

King’s College admission, 1774 Hamilton formally matriculated at King’s College (New York) in 1774. If he was born in 1757, he would have been 17, a perfectly normal age for a college sophomore or private student stepping up. Born 1755? 19, slightly older than average, though still acceptable. Records don’t list age, but the timing subtly favors 1757 if we care about “normal” college chronology.

There is no particularly conclusive evidence of either, thanks to family drama, island chaos, and maybe a dash of Hamilton wanting to be flexible with his age for future political reasons. After he died, people just...guessed. Biographers argued, memorials argued, historians argue...It’s the gift that keeps on giving.