Apparently when Burr was a very young teen (we’re talking 13-15) he was being mentored by a man named Paterson, who was a grown adult man (24-26). Paterson had been in the same college club as Burr and, upon graduating, had decided to stick around and remain part of this club, while the other members grew younger and younger. Burr, at this point was the clubs, and (possibly?) the college’s youngest student. Paterson was very friendly with Burr and very free with advice. He was also very free with sexually suggestive talk, commenting extensively on Burr’s feminine traits (he’s literally 13) and using extremely thin metaphors to talk about masturbation, specifically likening it to writing to the (13-year old) Burr. In her biography, Isenberg uses this as an example of the young Burr’s precociousness and the spirit of platonic camaraderie at Princeton.
Personally, I don’t know how anyone can look at a 24 year old man engaging in this sort of dialogue with a 13 year old boy and draw such a sunny conclusion. Boys typically had not reached puberty until around 15 or 16 in the eighteenth century, so it is highly unlikely that Burr would have been even physically matured enough to make this sort of relationship acceptable, much less mental/emotional maturity. The fact that Isenberg completely ignores the possibility that this could have been an abuse situation strikes me as irresponsible. It’s especially irresponsible considering that, later in life, Burr assumed the role of the older mentor figure binding much younger men to him with both warm friendship and, it seems, sexually suggestive gestures and conversations.
It really is a shame that Isenberg is so determined to prove that her darling did nothing wrong that she can’t even look deeply at episodes in his life which may have been harmful, toxic, or traumatic to him. Another example of this is that she takes his frequent running away from home as a sign that he was eager to impress his family and, again, operating above his age (I don’t understand why this is so important to her), whereas it is much more likely that for a child in his situation, frequent attempts to run away from home, always ending in his uncle forcing him to unwillingly return, that this was a sign of poorly coping with a series of traumatic events, a failure to adjust well to a new environment, an attempt to extricate himself from a toxic environment, or some combination thereof.
Instead of humanizing him, she misses real opportunities to do so and decides instead against the evidence to pain him as a (frankly obnoxious) special snowflake.
Literally everyone deserves better here.
Yeah. Ignoring the age difference (or rather, Burr’s young age and the power imbalance) here bothers me a lot. The masturbation reference / feminine qualities letter was written to Burr when he was sixteen, but that’s still ridiculously young, and we need to remember that Paterson had already known Burr for years.
that thing about Burr’s childhood is weird – Isenberg’s not the only author who has some really dismissive opinions about it. Lomask for example offers some half-baked insight why Burr could have been ‘an unruly child’, but at the same time hints that Burr may have wanted to simply present himself as such (’lmao i was such a horrible brat’). Lomask also rejects the idea that Timothy Edwards could have been too harsh on Burr / Burr could have hated him, based on the evidence that they got along when Burr was adult. Because that proves everything, apparently.
I hate how unwilling historians are to discuss possibilities of same-gender-attraction, mental illness, disability, or abuse. They act like these are slanders they need to defend their subject from.
Burr’s running away could have indicated any number of things. He was, essentially, a foster child, and very young children who wind up in that situation often develop a whole slew of difficulties, including attachment issues. It could be indicative of the mental/emotional scar-tissue that was left behind when he lost his parents and grandparents and was uprooted at such a young age to go live with a different family in what sounds like a very overstimulating environment that would have been very difficult on a child in that situation. Instead she takes it as a sign of independence which just makes no sense? I don’t know, the way she dealt with his childhood was frankly just terrible.
Ah, I love the drama between these two! Hamilton met Madison in 1782 when he went to Philadelphia as a delegate to the Continental Congress. They worked together trying (unsuccessfully) to strengthen the central government under the Articles of Confederation. Then in 1786 they teamed up again for the Annapolis Convention, which was the run-up to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Their friendship reached it’s height in 1788, while they were working on the Federalist. They were constantly together, writing and plotting to get the Constitution ratified. This is the period when Hamilton’s issuing dinner invitations to Madison, people were writing to them as if they were one person, and, according to John Church Hamilton, they once played with a monkey climbing a tree in a neighbor’s yard (aka the Golden Days).
As late as 1789, Hamilton was still reaching out to Madison as a friend for advice as he began his work in the Treasury. On October 12, 1789, Hamilton wrote, “As I lost the opportunity of a personal communication May I ask of your
friendship to put to paper and send me your thoughts on such objects as
may have occurred to you for an addition to our revenue; and also as to
any modifications of the public debt which could be made consistent with
good faith the interest of the Public and of its Creditors?” By November 24, 1791, things seem to be taking a turn between them. Hamilton forwarded his Report on Manufactures and said he’d like to call on Madison to discuss it, but added, “It will not be disagreeable to me if after perusal you hand it over to Mr. Jefferson.”
The letter to read if you’d like a lengthy, thorough account of their relationship falling apart is Hamilton’s to Edward Carrington, dated May 26, 1792. After 1789, Hamilton reported, “repeated intimations were given to me that Mr. Madison, from a spirit of rivalship or some other cause had become personally unfriendly to me.” He goes on to detail their fights over the Report on Public Credit, and how Madison made insinuations that Hamilton was mismanaging public funds. “The whole manner of this transaction left no doubt in any ones mind that Mr. Madison was actuated by personal & political animosity.”
Madison and Jefferson were genuinely cruel when speaking about Hamilton at times in the 1790s. One letter in particular has always bothered me. Hamilton contracted Yellow Fever on September 5, 1793. On September 8, 1793, Jefferson reported to Madison, who had already returned to Virginia:
“Hamilton is ill of the fever as is said. He had two physicians out at
his house the night before last. His family think him in danger, &
he puts himself so by his excessive alarm. He had been miserable several
days before from a firm persuasion he should catch it. A man as timid
as he is on the water, as timid on horseback, as timid in sickness,
would be a phænomenon if the courage of which he has the reputation in
military occasions were genuine. His friends, who have not seen him,
suspect it is only an autumnal fever he has.”
Jefferson’s cruelty here is awful, but somewhat expected. What’s always gotten to me is that he thought Madison was a sympathetic ear to which to spew this vitriol.
They grew distant in the coming years. The last extant correspondence between them is from May 1801. Hamilton reported an account he’d received that Spain had transfered the Louisiana Territory to France. Madison responded with cool formality on May 26, 1801: “The Cession of Louisiana by Spain to the French Republic, referred to in
the letter, had been previously signified to this Department from
several sources, as an event believed to have taken place. Supposing you
might wish to repossess the letter from Mr. C I herein return it.”
Hamilton’s death in 1804 didn’t prompt any kind of emotional outpouring from Madison. Most of his mentions of Hamilton are very calculating and political. For example, he wrote to Noah Webster on October 12, 1804 to correct certain accounts of the constitutional convention that were arising “on the late occasion which so strongly excited the effusions of party & personal zeal for the fame of Genl. Hamilton.”
However, Madison does seem to have thawed towards Hamilton in his later years. Neither Jefferson or Madison tried to dismantle his financial system, mostly because doing so would have injured the American economy. Even Albert Gallatin, Jefferson’s Treasury Secretary, could find no flaw in Hamilton’s plan. After a thorough investigation of all the documents at Treasury, Gallatin reported to Jefferson that he had found, “the most perfect system ever formed–any change that should be made to it would injure it–Hamilton made no blunders–committed no frauds. He did nothing wrong.” (Or so he later reported to James A. Hamilton). The charter lapsed on the Bank of the United States not so much because Madison wanted to see it ended, but more because no one fought particularly hard to keep it. However, after the War of 1812 and before the end of his presidency, Madison had rechartered the bank. Madison was also instrumental in acquiring Hamilton’s military back-pay for Eliza and the children. This is likely the period where you found Madison speaking positively about Hamilton’s financial plan. His overall tone towards Hamilton became much more civil and respectful.
As an interesting side-note, when Alexander Hamilton, Jr. went to Europe to fight in the Napoleonic Wars, he sent a few letters to Madison reporting intelligence he’d gathered on his travels. (See, for example, Alexander Hamilton to James Madison, June 12, 1811.) In 1831, they exchanged letters again, this time because Alex Hamilton wanted to report James Monroe’s fast failing health to Madison. Madison responded a week after Monroe’s passing: “With my thanks for the kind attention manifested by your letter, I pray you to accept assurances of my friendly esteem, and my good wishes.”
Over time, reading their letters and learning about what they were like, I’ve developed my own idea of how they would have sounded, pretty independent from any of the (amazing) actors who have played them.
Hamilton was a talker (as we all now know :)), but many people also enjoyed hearing him speak. He was often soft spoken, and I imagine his voice being deep and soothing, almost hypnotic, with just the slightest hint of a foreign accent. Eliza, I imagine, had a similarly soft, gentle manner of speaking, but also possessed a rich voice and a musical, contagious sort of laugh.
You mean set in the 18th century o written in the 18th century?
I have to say I have read both kinds and the results are quite mixed XD
About novels set in the 18th century – There are only two kinds: the ones that have great research, and the ones that didn’t even search what people wore under their clothes and have a scene of someone dressing or undressing and NOTHING makes sense. I have to say that most times those inaccuracies are just odd and make me roll my eyes, but if the novel is well written and interesting, well we can forgive them. These are a couple I’ve read lately:
About novels written in the 18th century – This is a tricky business, and you need to know and understand before starting to read the, that people wrote and talked quite differently in the 18th century. There will always be weird words that you’ll have to search the meaning, and weird situations that we no longer relate to because, you know modern world. Now, of course there are all kinds of cool stuff written in the 18th century: from epistolary novels to adventure novels, and of course let’s not forget erotic novels. Here a small selection of stuff that it’s likely you all might have read in school, but that there is no reason why not enjoy again:
Dangerous Liaisons (1782), by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos. The ultimate novel to get the French nobility, written in a epistolary form (like a collection of letters that you should definitely not be reading).
Gulliver’s Travels (1726), by Jonathan Swift. Yeah, this was written in the 18th century. Fantasy for everyone, not mattering what century you’re from.
The Castle of Otranto (1764), by Horace Walpole. A perfect novel for our inner gothic.
Robinson Crusoe (1719), by Daniel Defoe. Because we all wanna know about “The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, Of York, Mariner: Who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroonoque; Having been cast on Shore by Shipwreck, wherein all the Men perished but himself. With An Account how he was at last as strangely deliver’d by Pyrates”. Oh, yeah, all that is the original title of the book.
In France during the 18th century, “pornographic novels” were all the rage and the best sellers, so here you can read Justine (1791) (and/or ALL of Sade’s work), Thérèse the Philosopher (1748) by Jean-Baptiste de Boyer, Marquis d’Argens. Because, this genre was not invented by fanfiction.
There is of course a long long LONG list of more novels, written or inspired in the 18th century, so readers, please add your favourite ones!
“He [Aaron Burr] crafts a sexual cipher for himself, inventing code words to describe the different types of women he encountered, classifying them according to age, marital status, sexual escapades and occasionally nationally. One favorite term for illicit sex was “muse.”… a typical entry: “Vis. inv. pr. I. pa. bi. jo. ma. bi. fa.” which stood for “visistai invite plusieurs fois une jungfru pas bien jolie mais bien faite” (after repeated invitations, I have sex with a Swedish maid who was not very handsome, but well built). He tended to mention the circumstances leading to the amorous adventure (in other cases, his resolve no to take advantage of the opportunity); the amount of money paid; and sometimes how long the event lasted.”
Daintyfire 