Sex and the Founding Fathers: The American Quest for a Relatable Past (Sexuality Studies)

by Thomas A. Foster

  Ultimately, those who explain (and explain away) his affair focus on a variety of components that would resonate with Americans and place Hamilton in a more favorable light-essentially as a victim. Some use the story to emphasize his humanity, and some mobilize the language of gendereither tarring Reynolds with a misogynist brush or framing his confession as manly. Still others highlight the strength of his marital bond. That Hamilton died young in a duel shores up their view of him as being of strong character and masculine honor.

  Twentieth-century biographers writing of the affair tend to hew to the concept of "lapse" or a "folly."46 They, in effect, position the sexual transgression outside Hamilton, in opposition to who he really was.

  Refusing to allow the adultery to define their subject, memorializers and biographers emphasize that his marriage was a generally happy one. For Smertenko, it is imperative that his readers understand that "regarded through the eyes of his family, he appears the ideal husband and father: affectionate, comradely, sympathetic, and considerate."47 Love letters in courtship and through the marriage are marshaled to attest to the Hamiltons' bond. Writes one biographer, the Hamiltons, "father and mother, with three sons and a daughter, had been happy together in the ways of affection and under the best of fortune."48 Extant letters from Hamilton greatly aid biographers in characterizing the relationship as a strong one. During his courtship, Hamilton writes to Elizabeth's sister and "confesse[s] the influence" that Elizabeth has "gained over" him. He describes her as a woman who has "all the beauties and graces of her sex without any of those amiable defects." Shortly after, he writes to Elizabeth (whom he calls Betsey), "My Betseys soul speaks in every line and bids me the happiest of mortals." In another letter he declares, "I love you more and more every hour. The sweet softness and delicacy of your mind and manners, the elevation of your sentiments." Later during the war, he writes, "I have told you and I told you truly that I love you too much. You engross my thoughts too entirely to allow me to think anything else. You not only employ my mind all day, but you intrude on my sleep. I meet you in every dream and when I wake I cannot close my eyes again for ruminating on your sweetness."49 Many such letters come from their courtship; Elizabeth notably destroyed much of their correspondence from their marriage. For many authors, the affair could be downplayed in contrast to the strength of Hamilton's marriage. The Reynolds affair does not warrant a separate discussion for Bailey, for example. He weaves it through a chronological discussion of Hamilton's life so that it comes and goes amid other events occurring at the same time. Socialist politician and economics professor Broadus Mitchell also gives little attention to the affair, burying it in the middle of a paragraph on Hamilton's political difficulties at the time: "Another distraction had no excuse except the frailty of the human frame.... He had abundant reason to repent his brief infatuation-in disgust, depletion of pocket, fear of exposure, and tax on his attention."50 And, operating as a counterweight to the scandal, an appendix to the book includes many love letters to his wife.

  In those few accounts that do find discord between Hamilton and his wife as a possible explanation, the emphasis is generally on his potent sexuality. This view has roots in accounts from the early twentieth century. One early-twentieth-century biography argues that he did not get enough sex with his wife-a woman the author calls "under-sexed"-and explains, "And so Hamilton sought lighter love elsewhere."51 In his 1960s book on the intimate lives of the Founders, Charles Tansill similarly floats this explanation: "At home his large family was proof that he did not neglect the demands of an affectionate wife. His affair with Mrs. Reynolds showed clearly that he had an excess of virility that could only delight women with strong passions."52

  Most accounts, however, focus on their loving bond and highlight Elizabeth's devotion to him. By emphasizing that his wife stood by him throughout the ordeal, biographers encourage Americans to do the same. After all, if there was a wronged party here, it was his wife. Hamilton's grandson emphasizes that Elizabeth remained devoted to the memory of her husband and illustrates this fact by the grudge she held toward Monroe, whom she held directly responsible for leaking the story to the press: "Mrs. Hamilton could never forget the behavior of Monroe when he, with Muhlenberg and Ven ables, accused Hamilton of financial irregularities at the time of the Reynolds incident." And he describes a moment when she was elderly and Monroe visited her home. She "did not ask him to sit down." He told her that as they were both elderly and time softened hardened hearts, he sought conciliation. But she replied that "no lapse of time, no nearness to the grave, makes any difference." Upon hearing this, Monroe "turned, took up his hat and left the room."53 Decades later, another account explains that Elizabeth simply "did not waver in her loyalty to her husband."54 One mid-twentieth-century biographer likewise emphatically asserts, "However shocked Elizabeth may have been by these sordid disclosures, there is no evidence whatsoever that the ugly episode affected their marriage."55 Yet another similarly repeats that Elizabeth did not mention wanting a divorce and stayed loyal, singling out Monroe as the cause of her anger.56

  Many other accounts directly and extensively discuss the affair and defend Hamilton from nearly every aspect of it, including by singling out the Reynolds as especially blameworthy. One 1902 account, purported to be a slightly romanticized biography, defensively describes the Reynolds affair as follows: "I shall not enter into the details of the Reynolds affair," the author explains. "No intrigue was ever less interesting." But as in most accounts, it is the elephant in the room and needs to be addressed. So the author continues, "Nor should I make even a passing allusion to it, were it not for its political ultimates." Describing Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds as a "couple of blackmailers" and the affair as "a trap" they "laid," the author is quick to note that Hamilton's actions made him no different from "the wisest of men" who had all "done before and since, when the woman has been sufficiently attractive at the right moment." Taking a tactic from the earliest of his defenders, this early-twentieth-century account depicts Mrs. Reynolds as "common and sordid" and "designing and seductive."57

  Typical in this line of thinking is the depiction of Reynolds as beneath Hamilton. Thus, several years later, his grandson writes, "The wonder is, how a man of Hamilton's refinement and critical sense should ever have been led into an amour with a course and illiterate woman, apparently of a very low class, and this is quite inconceivable to most people." And physical attraction is not used as an explanation: "There certainly could not have been anything but rather indifferent physical attractions." (After all, her letters contain "moments of vulgarity and bad spellings.") And Allan Hamilton, much like his fellow early-twentieth-century biographers, explains the affair in a tragic manner, as something typical of other men: "Such an entanglement can only be understood by those who are familiar with the sporadic lapses upon the part of other great men who have been tempted to give way to some such impulse, and for a time degrade themselves, often to their lasting ruin."58

  Contrasted with Hamilton's allegedly manly conduct is the behavior of those political enemies, such as Jefferson and Monroe, who sought to destroy him. Eugene E.Prussing notes in 1925, "A base attempt was made to besmirch the character of Alexander Hamilton as a public man." Calling Jefferson "directly responsible," he praises the confession as indicative of the strength of Hamilton's character.59 For some biographers, the villain in the story, however it might reflect on his personality, is certainly not Hamilton but Monroe and others who used the story for political gain. After Bailey describes in his 1930s biography how Hamilton published information on the affair to clear his name in the financial scandal, he writes, "It must have been impossible for the public to read the pamphlet without realizing that Monroe was the man whom its complete and scandalous truth most destructively condemned.""

  Most accounts, however, emphasize Reynolds's status as particularly unworthy of Hamilton's attentions. One author establishes the novelty of this situation by contrasting it with that of Hamilton's colleagues: "The women
who had fascinated Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Gouverneur Morris had possessed both beauty and brains, and in France Morris's mistress was a person of culture who became a famous novelist." Those defending Hamilton's character rely on age-old depictions of lower-status seductresses to portray the elite Hamilton as a victim. Tansill's depiction of Reynolds follows the model of her as lowly: "The woman who attracted Hamilton's attention in 1791 had no claim to culture, and her letters to him reveal her to have been a person of neither education nor refinement. Maria Reynolds was a brazen hussy with a strong penchant for sex who seemed to set Hamilton's nerves on urge." The author continues, "Her sultry beauty, combined with sexual charm he had seldom encountered, seems to have made his warm Caribbean blood come to a sudden boil." Finally, this account emphasizes her as a seductress: "It was plain that she had laid a trap which was as old as Eve and had used a bait which has been attractive to men since Adam showed that free will is often on the side of sin.."6'

  Airing Dirty Laundry

  The affair was one thing in assessments of Hamilton's true character, but the public confession was quite another. In Western society, the "confession," especially of sexual transgression, has long held great cultural significance as the revelation of the soul." That Hamilton, unlike Jefferson, who remained silent on the charges hurled at him, publicly revealed the details of his extramarital affair seemed to elevate the event as one that captured his essence. To counter this powerful message, biographers and memorializers attempt to extend their justifications and explanations beyond simply an analysis of why he had the affair-they also attempt to frame for audiences how best to understand his actions afterward, including his published confession.

  Many frame the act as brave and manly. Explains one early-twentiethcentury writer, Hamilton's political enemies foolishly thought he "would never... be man enough... to admit his connection with Mrs. Reynolds."63 In 1920, Henry Jones Ford notes that the confession was quite distinct from the affair and highlights how it reveals Hamilton to be a man of honor. Regarding his "personal integrity," he was "as sensitive as a good woman is to her reputation for chastity."64 "The manliness with which he had faced every accusation affected even inveterate enemies," he explains.65 This approach would continue through the century. Thus, one mid-twentieth-century chronicler praises him, noting that he "wrote and issued a pamphlet in which he disclosed the entire story, proving conclusively to every prejudiced man that he had not been guilty of using his public office for private gain. It required a great deal of courage to do so and many Republicans jeered at his embarrassment."66 Another captures the view of Hamilton's greatness as visible in his public confession: "His integrity as a public man was at stake; his private life must be sacrificed. It was an amazing performance. Never in American history has a public man shown greater candor."67

  Many accounts also position the public confession as another layer of victimization, thereby making Hamilton into a sympathetic adulterer. One mid-century biographer portrays the affair as essentially a one-time transgression-and one that had been "paid" for: "Gallantry might pass the bounds of flirtation or discretion. In one case it did, and Hamilton paid dearly for his indiscretions."68

  The Reynolds affair itself is readily dismissed by characterizing it as an aberration, a "lapse," by those biographers who emphasize that it did not jeopardize the bond of husband and wife. Thus, the popular documentary Alexander Hamilton (2007) describes their marriage as weathering the public scandal and remaining an "extremely close and affectionate marriage."69 In this portrayal, Hamilton and his wife are able to maintain their Founding marriage as a model for strength and enduring love. Chernow writes, "It is easy to snicker at such deceit and conclude that Hamilton faked all emotion for his wife, but this would belie the otherwise exemplary nature of their marriage. Mrs. Hamilton never expressed anything less than a worshipful attitude toward her husband. His love for her, in turn, was deep and constant if highly imperfect .1171 In addition to the weight that her alleged forgiveness carries, one other individual's support for Hamilton is mustered and is as persuasive for Americans. As the documentary explains, "But, after this whole thing somewhat subsided, what did Hamilton receive in the mail but a very beautiful silver bowl from Washington. Washington was no longer president now. He was telling Hamilton-you're still my man."7i Readers are encouraged not to turn away from Hamilton in light of the fact that neither his wife nor the father of the nation did so.

  Biographers seeking to complicate culpability for the extramarital affair have no shortage of explanations to draw on. For some, blame lay partly on the shoulders of Hamilton's wife. Chernow explains that Elizabeth's being away provided him with an opportunity that could not be resisted: "It was a dangerous moment for Eliza to abandon Hamilton." And he notes her inability to satisfy him, explaining Hamilton's womanizing as a product of being married to an always-pregnant wife.72 For others, Hamilton continues to be portrayed as something of a naive, honorable man caught up in a dirty political world. "He and his family had to endure the torment of having this affair made public, years after its termination," Joseph A.Murray quips.73 The documentary Alexander Hamilton similarly highlights the politics involved: "It is a classic smear campaign," the narrator explains. "While his political enemies know very well that Hamilton was only paying blackmail money to Maria Reynolds' husband, they use the letters to claim that Hamilton was speculating with money from the Treasury."74 With Hamilton ever the victim, thus, Hamilton's enemies take delight in what seems to be his innocence. "Jefferson and Madison couldn't believe their eyes. It was the most... one of the most self-destructive things they ever saw anybody do, and they just rubbed their hands. They really, more or less, realized Hamilton was finished; he never could be president now."75 Finally, in addition to being a victim of the political world, he is also portrayed as the Reynoldses' prey. Murray explains, "He engaged in an extra-marital affair with a woman who, in collusion with her husband, had set out to destroy him politically."76 Writing at the turn of the century, conservative journalist Richard Brookhiser says, "Mrs. Reynolds was a whore, her husband was a pimp and both were blackmailers; Hamilton was a john and a gull."77

  However naive Hamilton might come across in accounts that position him as a victim of politics, he is still able to appear virtuous by his behavior in handling the events that unfolded. Writer Murray, for example, praises Hamilton's conduct: "When confronted with a public accusation of this indiscretion he did not attempt to deny it or cover it up, but acknowledged his wrongdoing; he also exposed the political calumny of his opponents who had engineered the scandal."78 The documentary Alexander Hamilton similarly portrays Hamilton as rising to an honorable challenge. The script reads as follows:

  ALEXANDER HAMILTON (as portrayed by actor): I trust I shall always be able to bear newspaper scurrility when they accuse me of errors of judgment. But when they so unfairly attack my integrity, I cannot control my indignation?9

  Biographers mobilize the language of frailty, making Hamilton seem vulnerable and sympathetic, despite his deceitful actions. In such accounts, the affair confirms that he was an ordinary American. This view could serve as the ultimate excuse-after all, it virtually naturalized his actions. In his preface, Murray writes that "Hamilton was subject to the frailties of his humanity and paid a severe price for his human weaknesses.""

  As we have noted, in the Victorian era, biographers are writing about the Reynolds affair as the scandal of the Beecher-Tilton affair plays out around them. At the turn of the new millennium, Hamilton biographers are writing as another very public and politicized extramarital transgression claims public attention. In the wake of Bill Clinton's impeachment hearing, Hamilton biographies continue to sound a positive note, particularly when referring to his public confession. Perhaps gesturing to public memory of Clinton's initial public denial, Chernow explains, "When confronted with a public accusation of this indiscretion he did not attempt to deny it or to cover it up, but acknowledged his wrongdoing."" With strong res
onances of popular analysis of the Clinton scandal surrounding his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Fleming portrays Hamilton's adultery as the product of an ego that soared when he was at the height of his political power and accomplishments. "Sexuality," Fleming explains, "became intermingled with his political triumphs and his growing fame-a phenomenon that would be repeated by more than one American politician in future decades."82 Willard Sterne Randall sounds this relatively unsympathetic note a few years earlier when he also characterizes the affair as the product of an overweening political ego and the particulars of Hamilton's parentage, which propelled him to sexual connections with working-class women.83

  A Gay Founding Father

  In the final quarter of the twentieth century, among a relatively small circle of Americans, Hamilton has come out of the closet. The basis for the char acterization of Hamilton as gay or bisexual is not that he had few heterosexual connections to his name, but rather extant letters penned by Hamilton to Laurens. In his short lifetime, Hamilton wrote romantic letters to men as well as women, and his declaration of "love" for Laurens has been recognized by some scholars as evidence of an intense emotional bond that the two men shared. Laurens and Hamilton served in the military together as part of a close inner circle of staff and supporters who made up Washington's military "family." Laurens, a South Carolinian of roughly the same age as Hamilton, also had the same military experience and status. He was a military hero who died in battle late in the Revolutionary War. The letters that Hamilton wrote to Laurens when they were separated from time to time during the war express a depth of emotionality like that appearing in Hamilton's letters to his wife.