Sex and the Founding Fathers: The American Quest for a Relatable Past (Sexuality Studies) (27 page)

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 resonances 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