Today, January 11th, marks Alexander Hamilton’s 256th (0r 258th) birthday!
I find it amazing to think about where Hamilton came from and what he accomplished. Hamilton was born in Nevis, 1,3000 miles from New York and worlds away. He was born out of wedlock at a time where illegitimacy was considered a moral failing, and was shunned by other children because of his status. Hamilton’s father James became bankrupt and abandoned the family. Hamilton’s mother died of yellow fever in 1768, and the Hamilton brothers were taken in by a cousin, Peter Lytton, who committed suicide 17 months later. Hamilton had all the odds stacked against him, but with a combination of brilliance and luck, he not only made his way to America, he helped make America.
“There are strong minds in every walk of life that will rise superior to the disadvantages of situation, and will command the tribute due to their merit, not only from the classes to which they particularly belong, but from the society in general. The door ought to be equally open to all…”
If you happen to be in either Nevis or New York, check out the birthday events that the AHA Society has organized. The events include a blessing at Trinity Church, a simultaneous cake cutting in New York and Nevis, and events at Hamilton Grange and the Museum of American Finance. Looks like a great program.
Happy New Year from It’s Hamiltime! Apologies for the long posting hiatus- work and the holidays have been pretty busy! Thanks so much for reading this blog since I started it. I have some big plans for 2013, including upcoming posts on Hamilton and the fiscal cliff, more installments in the race and slavery series, and more!
As we go into 2013, I was thinking about what I want to accomplish in the new year, and it brought to mind Hamilton’s headstone at Trinity Church–
The PATRIOT of incorruptible INTEGRITY
The SOLDIER of approved VALOR
The STATESMAN of consummate WISDOM
Whose TALENTS and VIRTUES will be admired
Long after this MARBLE shall have mouldered into
DUST
The end of 1777 was both an exciting and dark time for Hamilton. As Washington’s aide, Hamilton was exposed to the darker side of the Continental Congress. He also experienced the struggle of American soldiers and foreign allies against a bitter winter with limited supplies. Hamilton found this period, when the American victory was far from certain and when factions within Congress and the Continental Army were turning against General Washington, to be extremely frustrating. However, the lessons he learned in this time shaped his political philosophy and his distrust of some of the institutions of the pre-Constitution government.
In November 1777, a month before the planned moved to the Valley Forge encampment, Washington sent Hamilton on a sensitive diplomatic mission to General Horatio Gates. Washington wanted Hamilton to borrow a “sizable body of troops” for an attack upon British forces in New York or Philadelphia. Washington trusted Hamilton’s discretion and gave his young aide a tremendous amount of power. Washington gave a letter to Hamilton to show Gates, which laid out “the absolute necessity that there is for [Gates] detaching a very considerable part of the army at present under [Gates’s] command.” However, Gates had no intention of cooperating with Washington. Prior to Hamilton’s arrival, Gates had won a series of important battles, culminating in the September and October 1777 battles at Saratoga in which he defeated British General John Burgoyne. As Gates grew more famous, Washington suffered a series of defeats and struggled to hold major cities. Gates was entrenched as the hero of the Eastern States while Washington was being criticized for his inability to protect the North.
Nineteenth Century historian John William Wallace sets this scene:
“In short, it could not be reasonably doubted that Gates, who of necessity, was sufficiently acquainted with the great need which Washington had of reinforcements, meant to retard as much as possible the possession by him of such knowledge concerning operations as the North as would authorize a second demand by him for reinforcements for the benefit of Fort Mifflin. The matter could no longer be trifled with, and on the 30th of October 1777…Washington…send the man whose wonderful ability he early discovered and ever confided in–Alexander Hamilton, then at the age of twenty years–direct to the new-made hero of the North, with instructions, obviously of a very strong kind, and which Hamilton omitted to carry out in their full extent only from a conviction of the power and malignity of the cabal–to forward an immediate reinforcement from the northern army.”
In a letter to Washington upon his arrival in Albany, Hamilton described his first encounter with Gate:
“I arrived here yesterday, at noon, and waited upon General Gates immediately, on the business of my mission ; but was sorry to find his ideas did not correspond with yours for drawing off the number of troops you directed. I used every argument in my power to convince him of the propriety of the measure ; but he was inflexible in the opinion, that two brigades, at least, of Continental troops should remain in and near this place.
….
…all I could effect, was to have one brigade despatched, in addition to those already marched. I found myself infinitely embarrassed, and was at a loss how to act. I felt the importance of strengthening you as much as possible ; but, on the other hand, I found insuperable inconveniences in acting diametrically opposite to the opinion of a gentleman, whose successes have raised him into the highest importance.”
Given Gates’s hero status in the East, Hamilton felt that any attempt he made to strong-arm Gates on Washington’s behalf would result in an embarrassment for Washington because it would not be enforced. In fact, such an attempt could further weaken Washington’s position as commander-in-chief.
Imagine Hamilton’s frustration! Gates’s refusal to supply Washington with troops at a critical moment was characterized by Wallace as a major cause in the fall of Fort Mifflin the same month.
Wallace stated:
“No reinforcements ever came in time to be of value in saving Fort Mifflin- it fell on the night of the 15th of November….The delay in the arrival of certain of the troops was owing to the imbecility of General Putnam; but there is no ground to suppose that it was his purpose to cause the fall of the fort. Had Gates wished to aid Washington there would have been little trouble in the case. But if Washington could drive Howe from Philadelphia and reduce him to where General Burgoyne was, what became of the immeasurable superiority of Gates what of the sublime wisdom which characterized Conway and his fellow-conspirators in their estimate of Washington? They all had, therefore, a specific problem to prove, and that Fort Mifflin should fall was a necessary thing to get their Q.E.D. IT did fall, as Gates intended that it should.”
After Hamilton returned from his meeting with Gates, he fell violently ill and had to take bedrest for a few weeks before he joined Washington at Valley Forge for the rest of the winter. Hamilton’s experience trying to push Congress to provide supplies for the hungry, weary, and cold soldiers stationed there shaped his frustration with Congress and his view that an energetic central government, rather than a confederacy of states was required to maintain stability. (More on this soon!)
I think of Hamilton’s struggle with Gates as a “Valley Forge” moment, a moment of adversity and embarrassment, that ultimately made him more attuned to the political machinations around him and ultimately contributed to his political beliefs.
Changing the rules of the filibuster has again come front and center, with various prominent Democratic senators calling for a change in the Senate procedural rules to make it more difficult for Senators to invoke the filibuster. Of course, the filibuster as we know it today, was not part of the structure of the early constitutional government. However, some of Hamilton’s work seems to anticipate the current use of the filibuster as a purely partisan tool to increase gridlock. In Federalist No. 22, Hamilton addressed what he saw as a fundamental problem of the government under the Articles of Confederation- that smaller states had the ability to block legislation.
But this is not all: what at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. Congress, from the nonattendance of a few States, have been frequently in the situation of a Polish diet, where a single veto has been sufficient to put a stop to all their movements. A sixtieth part of the Union, which is about the proportion of Delaware and Rhode Island, has several times been able to oppose an entire bar to its operations. This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.
It is not difficult to discover, that a principle of this kind gives greater scope to foreign corruption, as well as to domestic faction, than that which permits the sense of the majority to decide; though the contrary of this has been presumed. The mistake has proceeded from not attending with due care to the mischiefs that may be occasioned by obstructing the progress of government at certain critical seasons. When the concurrence of a large number is required by the Constitution to the doing of any national act, we are apt to rest satisfied that all is safe, because nothing improper will be likely to be done, but we forget how much good may be prevented, and how much ill may be produced, by the power of hindering the doing what may be necessary, and of keeping affairs in the same unfavorable posture in which they may happen to stand at particular periods.
Hamilton was a dedicated supporter of protecting minority rights, even when his causes were deeply unpopular, as with his protection of Tories after the Revolution. However, he understood that a system that essentially gave a small fraction of the population the ability to block important decisions was unsustainable. Abuse of the filibuster by either party to gridlock government reduces our system to “a state of inaction” that Hamilton warned was unsustainable.
And, if you needed more reasons to dislike the filibuster…Aaron Burr laid the foundations for it before it became part of Senate strategy in the 1830s and 1840s.
For further reading on Hamilton and the filibuster, check out Hendrik Hertzberg’s 2011 piece in the New Yorker.
While Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr’s 1804 duel is notorious in history and pop culture, a lesser-known deadly duel occurred three years earlier between Hamilton’s oldest son, Philip, and George Eacker, a critic of Hamilton and supporter of Burr.
Hamilton took great pride in his son’s academic achievements. He wrote to him regularly while Philip was studying at boarding school, and created a rigorous set of rules to govern Philip’s study schedule. In 1797, when Philip was a young teenager, he contracted a deadly illness and Hamilton reportedly “administered every dose of medicine” to his son during his recovery.
The close relationship between father and son may have contributed to Philip’s eagerness to defend his father’s name. Eacker, a 27-year-old lawyer, had made a speech in July accusing Alexander Hamilton of being willing to overthrow Thomas Jefferson’s presidency by force. In the speech, Eacker accused Hamilton of misusing his position as Inspector General during the Adams administration to intimidate his political enemies. On November 20, 19-year-old Philip and his friend Richard Price confronted Eacker about the speech when the three men were at a social event. After Eacker insulted them, the boys challenged Eacker to a duel. Dueling was already illegal in New York, so the men planned to meet in New Jersey. Eacker and Richard Price took the field first at Weehawken, on November 22. They exchanged shots, but no one was injured; according to convention, honor was satisfied. The next day, Philip faced Eacker and fell to a ball from Eacker’s smoothbore dueling pistol. He died the next day. The death caused a massive strain on the Hamilton family and led to the nervous breakdown of Hamilton’s daughter Angelica.
Robert Troup observed about Hamilton after Philip’s death in a December 5, 1801 letter to Rufus King:
Never did I see a man so completely overwhelmed with grief as Hamilton had been. The scene I was present at, when Mrs. Hamilton came to see her son on his deathbed (he died about a mile out of the city) and when she met her husband and son in one room, beggars all description! Young Hamilton was very promising in genius and acquirements, and Hamilton formed high expectations of his future greatness!”
Alexander Hamilton was killed three years later, on the same dueling grounds in Weehawken and with the same dueling pistols.
Professor Mark Osler, ProPublica, and Think Progress have all commented on the marked lack of presidential pardons in the current administration. According to the Justice Department statistics, President Obama has pardoned 22 individuals and denied 1,019 applications.
ProPublica states:
Obama “has given pardons to roughly 1 of every 50 individuals whose applications were processed by the Justice Department. At this point in his presidency, Ronald Reagan [3] had pardoned 1 of every 3 such applicants. George H.W. Bush had pardoned 1 in 16. Bill Clinton had pardoned 1 in 8. George W. Bush had pardoned 1 in 33.”
When Alexander Hamilton advocated for the presidential pardon power in Federalist No. 74, he stated:
Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind. On the other hand, as men generally derive confidence from their numbers, they might often encourage each other in an act of obduracy, and might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency. On these accounts, one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men.
Hamilton envisioned the presidential pardon power as a means to offset the necessary harshness of the criminal justice system, a system that has in many ways been harsher today than in the Founding period given the spread of rigorous federal sentencing laws and “three-strikes” statutes in many states. Today, people can spend years in prison for minor drug offenses, even life in prison for marijuana possession in some states. These circumstances seem to provide an ideal time to follow Hamilton’s advice of taking the presidential pardon power seriously as a way to balance some of the ” too sanguinary and cruel” consequences of our justice system.
Instead, the opposite trend is taking place. Perhaps the perception of the presidential pardon as an instrument of political favor after President Clinton’s pardon of Mark Rich has prompted an overabundance of caution in exercising the power. In fact, the only presidential pardons of 2012 actually went to Cobbler and Gobbler, the Thanksgiving turkeys pardoned in the annual White House ceremony.
Michael Austin has written an interesting story for History News Network on the presidential election of 1800. Austin draws parallels between the current state of partisan politics and the bitter rivalries that emerged during the presidential contest between incumbent John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.
During that election, Hamilton and other high Federalists painted Jefferson and the Republicans as morally depraved atheists and fiery anti-government radicals who planned to set up guillotines on the banks of the Potomac and fill the new capital with blood. Republicans, on the other hand, portrayed Federalists as crypto-monarchists and usurpers of the Constitution. They pointed to the recent Alien and Sedition Acts as proof that Federalists would roll back the Bill of Rights at every available opportunity until they could declare Hamilton president-for-life and, from there, King of America.
And it got worse. Both Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians savaged the incumbent president, John Adams, a moderate Federalist who never quite managed to make either side happy. Hamiltonians worked as hard to throw the election to the other Federalist candidate, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, as Republicans did to elect their hero Jefferson.
The unintended circulation of the Letter from Alexander Hamilton, Concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq. President of the United States was considered a major factor in Adams’s defeat. If you haven’t read the letter before- I highly recommend it- full text available from Open Library.
In the letter, Hamilton begins with this premise: “Not denying to Mr. Adams patriotism and integrity, and even talents of a certain kind, I should be deficient in candour, were I to conceal the conviction, that he does not possess the talents adapted to the administration of government, and that there are great and intrinsic defects in his character, which unfit him for the office of chief magistrate.”
He describes Adams’s miliary plans during the Revolution and how these plans would have contributed to the defeat of the Continental Army. For example, Adams “was represented to be of the number of those” who favored shorter troop enlistment rather than Washington’s policy of having soldiers enlist for the term of the war. Hamilton also criticized Adams for ignoring the advice of his cabinet. He accused Adams of rash decisionmaking, particularly when related to the quasi-war with France and drew a comparison between Adams and “the modest and sage Washington,” who “consulted much, pondered much, resolved slowly, resolved surely.” Hamilton showcased instances of Adams’s uncertainty and found him to be “so much at variance with himself, as well as with sound policy, that we are driven to seek a solution for it in some system of concession to his political enemies.” The purpose of Hamilton’s letter was to draw support from within the Federalist Party towards Charles Pinckney, a Southern Federalist. However, after Adams won the Federalist nomination, the letter was circulated throughout the country by the Jeffersonians. Hamilton’s reasoned and damning attack on Adams played a part in the contentious election. Although Hamilton could have adopted the party line and backed Adams, he took the opposite course, understanding that he would lose the support of half his party in future races. For better and for worse, Hamilton was a man of convictions and of impulse.
Mock Politics produced a humorous set of Jefferson v. Adams attack ads:
In an interesting post-script to the election, Hamilton eventually persuaded fellow Federalists to choose Jefferson over Aaron Burr. Smithsonian Magazine has a great piece explaining the deadlock- because of the system in place, Congress had to decide between Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr. Many Federalists saw Jefferson as the ultimate enemy and were pushing for a Burr presidency. Hamilton stated:
Mr. Jefferson, though too revolutionary in his notions, is yet a lover of liberty and will be desirous of something like orderly Government.–Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself-Thinks of nothing but his own aggrandizement–and will be content with nothing short of permanent power in his own hands.–No compact, that he should make with any passion in his breast except Ambition, could be relied upon by himself.–How then should we be able to rely upon our agreement with him? Mr. Jefferson I suspect will not dare much. Mr. Burr will Dare every thing in the sanguine hope of affecting every thing.
Exactly 201 years ago, on November 16, 1801, the first issue of the New York Post was published. The newspaper was created by Hamilton and some his close political supporters at a time of almost total defeat for Federalists in the national political scene. Jefferson had been inaugurated as president in March of 1801, and his party had control of both the House and the Senate. Hamilton had alienated John Adams with the unintended widespread publication of his confidential 1800 pamphlet “The Public Conduct and Character of John Adams.” Additionally, Adams and Hamilton had taken opposite positions on the decision of whether to elect Thomas Jefferson or Aaron Burr as president, which fell to the House of Representatives. Believing Aaron Burr to be an unprincipled threat to American society, and believing that Jefferson had at least some sense of personal honor, Hamilton ignored his long-term political disagreements with Jefferson and threw his support behind him. This decision isolated Hamilton even more from the new Federalist Party.
In April, Hamilton returned to New York and turned his attention to his law practice and to building up his relationships in New York. As part of this effort, Hamilton convinced some of his close supporters that they lacked an adequate newspaper to express their political beliefs. Hamilton selected William Coleman, a noted journalist and Federalist (who had briefly gone into an unprofitable legal partnership with Aaron Burr) to be the editor of the new publication. Coleman had worked with Hamilton before, and edited a version of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton circulated a “founders’ list” and raised the money for the first publication of the paper. The first issue of the paper, most likely created as a collaboration between Hamilton and Coleman, carried this statement: “The design of this paper is to diffuse among the people correct information on all interesting subjects, to inculcate just principles in religion, morals, and politics; and to cultivate a taste for sound literature.” After Hamilton’s death, Coleman published A collection of the facts and documents, relative to the death of Major General Alexander Hamilton.
I came across this Youtube video, “Everybody Hates Hamilton.” The video is culled from clips of the HBO miniseries John Adams. Although it is only based on one TV show (based on David McCullough’s biography of Adams), the theme of Hamilton as a scapegoat is echoed. It boggles my mind that Hamilton, who came to New York as a penniless illegitimate teenager from the West Indies and became a champion of a new republic and the architect of its economy has been caricatured by so many people as a staunch monarchist and a ruthless and unprincipled politician.
In The American Commonwealth, Viscount James Bryce said Hamilton’s “countrymen seem to have never, either in his lifetime or afterwards, duly recognized his splendid gifts.” Hamilton’s political enemies brought up the circumstances of his birth, cast doubt on his relationship with President Washington, and generally blamed him for having a vision that they couldn’t comprehend. Adams called him the “bastard brat of a Scottish peddler.” Jefferson wrote to Washington:
I will not suffer my retirement to be clouded by the slanders of a man whose history, from the moment at which history can stoop to notice him, is a tissue of machinations against the liberty of the country which has not only received him and given him bread, but heaped its honors on his head.
In many ways, this legacy continues today. Historians regularly characterize Hamilton as a Machiavellian statesman. One author has even gone so far as to say that “Hamilton’s Curse” must be repudiated in order for America to be truly free.
Why?
I contend that Hamilton’s steadfast commitment to his principles is at the root of his unpopularity. Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton did not bow to the winds of popularity at the slightest inclination. Instead, he faced the consequences of making unpopular decisions when he believed them to be morally or economically necessary.
Here are some examples:
Protecting the Tories
As a college student in New York, Hamilton became convinced of the Revolutionary cause and threw himself into it with all his physical and mental energy. However, when an angry mob of patriots stood at the door of Myles Cooper, the president of King’s College, Hamilton held off the mob for hours in order to prevent Cooper from being attacked. After the Revolution was won, a popular movement began to strip any Loyalists of their property and prevent them from becoming full citizens in the new republic. Hamilton firmly opposed this movement and insisted that even Loyalists have the opportunity to be citizens in the new nation.
Hamilton, the most brilliant American statesman who ever lived, possessing the loftiest and keenest intellect of his time, was of course easily the foremost champion in the ranks of the New York Federalists; second to him came Jay…Both of them watched with uneasy alarm the rapid drift toward anarchy; and both put forth all their efforts to stem the tide…In particular they abhorred the vindictive laws directed against the persons and property of Tories; and they had the manliness to come forward as the defenders of the helpless and excessively unpopular Loyalists. They put a stop to the wrongs which were being inflicted on these men, and finally succeeded in having them restored to legal equality with other citizens, standing up with generous fearlessness against the clamor of the mob.
Economic Policies
Almost all of Hamilton’s economic policies, from establishing a National Bank to assuming the debts of the states to imposing an excise tax on whiskey, were politically unpopular but proved to be lifesaving for the new nation. Hamilton took on every uphill battle and, sometimes by sheer force of will, pushed those around him into accepting his plans. For example, Hamilton insisted that the government pay all of its war debts, including debts to speculators. During the Revolution, the Continental Congress sold war bonds to many supporters, including soldiers. However, over the long course of the war, many of the original owners of the bonds often sold them to speculators. After the War, there was a popular movement to disregard the debt altogether. Hamilton firmly believed that honoring this debt was essential to the financial progress of the nation. He eventually convinced resistant Southern congressmen to back him by agreeing to move the nation’s capital to the South.
Throughout his life, Hamilton was willing to make politically unpopular choices when he believed them to be necessary, or morally right. Hamilton is the ultimate historical underdog, and even as he rose to prominence in America, he never allowed the quest for popularity to overcome his moral convictions. Humans have a tendency to take the easy route, to “get along” with everyone whenever possible, and to generally follow the status quo and take the path of least resistance. As we all know, being part of the crow, or better yet, being the most popular person in the crowd can be a heady feeling. On the other hand, facing down a mob or being the only voice advocating your beliefs is always a struggle. Somehow, Hamilton maintained his public principles, even when they had unpleasant consequences. Hamilton’s life presents us all with a challenge: can we truly stand for what we believe in, no matter what the consequences?
The above sources lay out the sensational details of the affair: Hamilton became involved with Maria Reynolds in 1791, when she came to his home in Philadelphia and claimed that she was destitute and had been abandoned and abused by her husband. Hamilton and Reynolds became involved immediately. Maria’s husband, James Reynolds knew about the affair (and may have even pushed Maria to seduce Hamilton) and sought money from Hamilton. James Reynolds was arrested for financial crimes and accused Hamilton of entering into monetary relationships with Reynolds for personal gain and abusing his position. Reynolds accused Hamilton of being deeply concerned in speculation and frequently advancing money to Reynolds for these purposes. The information came into the hands of Congressman Frederick A. Muhlenberg, who shared it with Senator James Monroe and Congressman Abraham Venable. These three men confronted Hamilton in December 1792, and Hamilton immediately disclosed the affair and showed them letters from Reynolds in order to clear himself of the corruption charges. The exchange concluded with the understanding that the three men would keep silent about the details of the affair. The three men also gave a copy of the initial documents with information from Reynolds that was discredited by Hamilton to John Beckley, clerk of the House of Representatives. In 1793, Reynolds divorced her husband and Aaron Burr served as her divorce lawyer. In 1795, Hamilton resigned as Treasury Secretary, where he had been making only $3,500 a year, and resumed private practice in New York, making around $11,000 a year. In 1797, Beckley was fired as Clerk of the House and he turned over his copy of the documents to infamous Republican journalist James T. Callender. Callender, without making any further investigation about truth of the claims, immediately published Beckley’s documents. Scandal erupted and corruption accusations swirled. Hamilton believed that his political enemy Monroe, who Washington had just recalled from his position as ambassador to France, was behind the documents being released. The two men came to the brink of a duel, and Aaron Burr, Monroe’s would-be second, helped negotiate between the two parties and averted the duel. In August 1797, Hamilton published a pamphlet with all of his correspondence with Reynolds, deciding that admitting to a sordid affair would be better than the stain of the public corruption allegations.
When the pamphlet was published, Hamilton’s allies were shocked:
When the work appeared, Hamilton’s friends were appalled. “What shall we say …” Webster wrote, “of a man who has borne some of the highest civil and military employments, who could deliberately … publish a history of his private intrigues, degrade himself in the estimation of all good men, and scandalize a family, to clear himself of charges which no man believed. …” General Henry Knox wrote to General David Cobb, “Myself and most of his other friends conceive this confession humiliating in the extreme, and such a text as will serve his enemies.”
While the details of the affair are indeed scandalous, the most revealing and important part of the story is Hamilton’s response to it. His decision is a perfect example of what makes him such an interesting and complex historical figure. Hamilton was flawed and succeptible to temptation in his personal life, but he was doggedly honest in his professional life. He ignored the personal consequences of admitting to the affair and made a full confession, something that few political figures of any period would do. To Hamilton, even the unsubstantiated stirrings of corruption were unacceptable.
Unlike David Petraeus and the countless other politicians involved in modern sex scandals, Hamilton did not make a public revelation out of necessity, but out of his sense of honor. Even though Hamilton was no longer in office when news of the affair broke, he placed the sanctity of the position over his private interests and his own reputation. If Hamilton had listened to his friends or had a modern day spin doctor, he would have allowed the rumors to live instead of feeding the fire with a full, dramatic revelation. For better and for worse, Hamilton was a person who followed his own mind and lived by his own unbendable code with regard to his political life, even when his personal life fell short of that code.
It's Hamiltime! 
