By : Clarisa Colton
Source: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-21-02-0138-0002
The document I chose is an excerpt from The “Reynolds Pamphlet”, written by Alexander Hamilton.
Transcription:
The charge against me is a connection with one James Reynolds for purposes of improper pecuniary speculation [1]. My real crime is an amorous connection with his wife, for a considerable time with his privity and connivance, if not originally brought on by a combination between the husband and wife with the design to extort money from me [2].
This confession is not made without a blush [3]. I cannot be the apologist of any vice because the ardour of passion may have made it mine [4]. I can never cease to condemn myself for the pang, which it may inflict in a bosom eminently intitled to all my gratitude, fidelity and love [5]. But that bosom will approve, that even at so great an expence, I should effectually wipe away a more serious stain from a name, which it cherishes with no less elevation than tenderness [6]. The public too will I trust excuse the confession. The necessity of it to my defence against a more heinous charge [7] could alone have extorted from me so painful an indecorum.
Before I proceed to an exhibition of the positive proof which repels the charge, I shall analize the documents from which it is deduced, and I am mistaken if with discerning and candid minds more would be necessary [8]. But I desire to obviate the suspicions of the most suspicious [9].
The first reflection which occurs on a perusal of the documents is that it is morally impossible I should have been foolish as well as depraved enough to employ so vile an instrument as Reynolds for such insignificant ends [10], as are indicated by different parts of the story itself. My enemies to be sure have kindly pourtrayed me as another Chartres [11] on the score of moral principle. But they have been ever bountiful in ascribing to me talents [12]. It has suited their purpose to exaggerate such as I may possess, and to attribute to them an influence to which they are not intitled [13]. But the present accusation imputes to me as much folly as wickedness [14]. All the documents shew, and it is otherwise matter of notoriety, that Reynolds was an obscure, unimportant and profligate man [15]. Nothing could be more weak, because nothing could be more unsafe than to make use of such an instrument; to use him too without any intermediate agent more worthy of confidence who might keep me out of sight [16], to write him numerous letters recording the objects of the improper connection (for this is pretended and that the letters were afterwards burnt at my request) to unbosom myself to him with a prodigality of confidence, by very unnecessarily telling him, as he alleges, of a connection in speculation between myself and Mr. Duer [17]. It is very extraordinary, if the head of the money department of a country, being unprincipled enough to sacrifice his trust and his integrity, could not have contrived objects of profit sufficiently large to have engaged the co-operation of men of far greater importance than Reynolds [18], and with whom there could have been due safety, and should have been driven to the necessity of unkennelling such a reptile to be the instrument of his cupidity [19].
But, moreover, the scale of the concern with Reynolds, such as it is presented, is contemptibly narrow for a rapacious speculating secretary [20] of the treasury. Clingman, Reynolds and his wife were manifestly in very close confidence [21] with each other. It seems there was a free communication of secrets [22]. Yet in clubbing their different items of information as to the supplies of money which Reynolds received from me, what do they amount to [23] ? Clingman states, that Mrs. Reynolds told him, that at a certain time her husband had received from me upwards of eleven hundred dollars [24]. A note is produced which shews that at one time fifty dollars were sent to him, and another note is produced, by which and the information of Reynolds himself through Clingman, it appears that at another time 300 dollars were asked and refused. Another sum of 200 dollars is spoken of by Clingman as having been furnished to Reynolds at some other time [25].What a scale of speculation is this for the head of a public treasury, for one who in the very publication that brings forward the charge is represented as having procured to be funded at forty millions a debt which ought to have been discharged at ten or fifteen millions for the criminal purpose of enriching himself and his friends [26]? He must have been a clumsy knave, if he did not secure enough of this excess of twenty five or thirty millions, to have taken away all inducement to risk his character in such bad hands and in so huckstering a way—or to have enabled him, if he did employ such an agent, to do it with more means and to better purpose [27]. It is curious, that this rapacious secretary should at one time have furnished his speculating agent with the paltry sum of fifty dollars, at another, have refused him the inconsiderable sum of 300 dollars, declaring upon his honor that it was not in his power to furnish it [28]. This declaration was true or not; if the last the refusal ill comports with the idea of a speculating connection—if the first, it is very singular that the head of the treasury engaged without scruple in schemes of profit should have been destitute of so small a sum [29]. But if we suppose this officer to be living upon an inadequate salary, without any collateral pursuits of gain, the appearances then are simple and intelligible enough, applying to them the true key [30].
[1] Hamilton is cleared of official misconduct with this confession; however, he trades this off with bringing shame to his family name. On December 15, 1792 James Monroe and two of his colleagues came to Hamilton’s home, expecting to destroy this man’s career as one of the most financially influential figures in history. Even though Hamilton is eventually cleared of Monroe’s accusations, what comes of this is a shocking reveal of what may be the first major sex scandal ever recorded (Swenson). Hamilton, however, did not make this confession public with this document until 5 years later when a journalist published that he may have been involved in a financial scandal.
[2] Hamilton comes out to confess that, contrary to popular belief, he did not financially conspire with James Reynolds but instead had an affair with his wife, Maria Reynolds. By including that this has been going on for a “considerable time” with James’ “privity and connivance,” it is apparent that Hamilton justifies this affair through the fact that James Reynolds was fully aware of it and yet did nothing to stop it. Also, the last part of the sentence explains how Hamilton had to constantly dish out money to James and Maria Reynolds so that this affair would be kept secret.
[3] The inclusion of this sentence explains how Hamilton cannot merely shrug off his misconduct. He recognizes that what he has done is very unethical, regardless of whether or not it was officially unlawful. In the late 1700s, class status was relatively rigid and such immoral actions would severely damage a family’s reputation; thus, since reputation was so important to Hamilton, it would be inconceivable for him to make this confession “without a blush” (Gross).
[4] Even though Hamilton recognizes his wrongdoing, he refuses to apologize for “any vice” because he lacks regret for his actions. By talking about the “ardour of passion,” it is rather obvious that Hamilton places his personal desires over the way society perceives him for his actions. Moreover, the sentence highlights the extreme magnitude of his affection for Maria as he is still troubled by confessing his affair–as seen in the previous sentence–yet still refuses to apologize.
[5] Here, Hamilton confesses that he feels terrible for the emotional pain inflicted on Maria as a result of this sex scandal being revealed to the world. This is further strengthened by the fact that he includes how he granted “all” of his “gratitude, fidelity, and love” to Maria; therefore, since this uncovering likely forces Maria and Hamilton to stay separated, it is quite obvious how much pain stems from this whole sequence of events.
[6] Hamilton feels that any repercussions the confession of the affair may amount to are far outweighed by false accusations of his “improper pecuniary speculation”. He believed that his frank and honest confession would free him of any blame or wrongdoing, but during the aftermath of the publication of this pamphlet, Jeffersonian’s used Hamilton’s affair to portray him as “an aristocrat who preyed upon women.”(Gross).
[7] Once again, Hamilton here was confident in the fact that this pamphlet would excuse him of any wrongdoing in the eyes of the public — but that was very much not the case. Instead the press realized that, “Hamilton’s affair could be just as much of a windfall to the Democrat-Republicans as a convoluted story of his supposed illegal financial speculation”(Gross). If the press had something that could hurt Hamilton’s chances, they would use it.
[8] In this sentence, Hamilton reveals that he is open to looking at this situation from a two-point perspective by including that he “shall analize the documents from which it [the charge against him concerning financial collusion with James Reynolds] is deduced.” Then, after looking at the evidence against him, he will peruse the documents in his favor “which repel the charge.”
[9] Here, Hamilton again describes how the only way to convince the people of his lack of unlawful conduct is to look at this situation from both sides. By saying that he “desires to obviate the suspicions of the most suspicious,” it is very evident that he will present his case by first shutting down those with extreme suspicion.
[10] James Reynold’s life was not documented much, as he was not someone of high class or much importance. Of what little there is about him, he is described as immoral, as seen by this quote, “Until he was publicly accused of conspiring with a swindler like James Reynolds to mulct a government that, as secretary of the treasury he had faithfully saved.”(Cooke). Here he is trying to set up his argument by basically saying that there’s no way he would have acting so immorally and so foolishly at the same time.
[11] Hamilton here is making a reference to Louis Philippe d’Orleans, duc de Chartres (from founders archive), who had in 1793 “deserted to the Austrians with his commander, General Charles François Dumouriez.” Hamilton is likening the immorality of this man to what he thinks his “enemies” will portray him as due to his actions.
[12] Hamilton continues with his almost mocking tone used in the sentence before, and shows how he is unfairly portrayed by those in opposition to him by ascribing to him false “talents” – which really he is meaning here to mean negative character traits about him. He is saying that his opposers will likely say anything about him, no matter how false in order to shed him in a bad light.
[13] Hamilton here continues to refer to the fact that lies and exaggerations have been made about him by opposers in order hurt his political image. He believes that his image has been hurt and misrepresented, which this entire pamphlet is trying to correct. This goes to show how much Hamilton cared about being truthful and honest in his work.
[14] Here Hamilton makes note that the crime he has been accused of, not only would point to him having questionable morals and ethics, especially being the Secretary of the Treasury, but also that he is extremely unintelligent, having seemingly executed the whole operation so poorly.
[15] Once again, Hamilton makes a point of showing how unimportant that Reynold’s was – such a nobody that it would make no sense for Hamilton to choose him as the person to work with if he was to extort money from the government. Even from reading the letters exchanged between the two men, it is clear that Reynold’s is of much lower status and education by the way he writes, for example, “before matters was Carred to two great a length”.(Reynolds).
[16] Hamilton here is expounding on the fact that Reynolds is basically a stranger who he would have no reason to trust. He again is making the point of Reynolds being the last person he would have confided in for such a serious crime. Since there is no one else higher up who seems to be involved, the whole story of what happened does not really make sense if someone was to actually consider the accusations.
[17] The Mr. Duer that Hamilton is referring to here is the man William Duer, who was appointed by Hamilton to be Secretary to the Board of the Treasury. Additionally, Hamilton appointed William Duer as first assistant in 1789 when he was appointed Secretary of the Treasury.
[18] Once again, Hamilton expounds upon the fact that if he even were to do the things he is accused of, he would have never been so careless about it. James Reynolds was not a man of any importance as seen by this quote from Jacob Cooke’s book Alexander Hamilton, “Nor could he point to any personal accomplishments: his principal preoccupation seems to have been the avoidance of an occupation by chicanery or fraud.”
[19] Hamilton is trying to explain to anyone who might read the pamphlet that he would never have engaged in this behavior at all, let alone with someone he hardly knows with extremely questionable morals – it would be with someone he trusted.
[20] Here, Hamilton emphasizes how ridiculous these accusations towards him are. By using the phrase “contemptibly narrow” and calling himself a “rapacious secretary”–how he would be described by those on the opposing side–we see that Hamilton criticizes his opponents for pulling only “narrow” pieces of evidence to try to convince the world of such a major charge that is so under-supported to the point where his enemies are belittling themselves.
[21] This sentence simply emphasizes the transparency between Clingman, Reynolds, and Maria. Clingman and Reynolds were caught impersonating claimants and jailed together, which further supports this idea of these characters being in “close confidence” with one another. Moreover, by including the word “manifestly,” it is inferred that the collaboration between these three entities was virtually public information.
[22] Again, in this sentence we see how Hamilton further highlights the unhindered flow of information between Clingman, Reynolds, and Maria. Although, there is speculation as to whether or not Maria herself was in on the scheme to begin with as seen by this quote, “It is impossible to know whether James and Maria Reynold’s concocted the blackmail scheme together or if James had indeed temporarily deserted Maria, returning only to find his wife in a relationship with the secretary of the treasury.”(Gross).
[23] In this sentence Hamilton picks out the inconsistencies with the documents from the skeptics that he analyzed. He uses the word “clubbing” to emphasize how roughly and awkwardly the information from his opponents meshes together. Hamilton focuses on the sum of money he gave to Reynolds; by asking “what do they amount to?” at the end of the sentence, it is apparent that this is a question with no concrete answer, which further undermines the opposition’s evidence.
[24] Here, Hamilton simply directly references information from the opposition regarding the exact amount of money given to Reynolds. He reveals that Clingman claims that Mrs. Reynolds told him that “her husband had received upwards of eleven hundred dollars,” which will be contradicted by evidence Hamilton surfaces later in the pamphlet. Moreover, by starting the sentence with “Clingman states, that Mrs. Reynolds told him” Hamilton underlines the unorganized accusations by his opponents by criticizing their “he said, she said” approach.
[25] Hamilton further emphasizes the mass speculation involved in his opponents’ claims. By including the casual phrase “some other time” at the end of the sentence, he strengthens the image of his enemies being very disorganized and inconsistent with their accusations. Further, the fact that this sentence simply exists instead of it just being meshed into the previous one allows Hamilton to draw even more attention to the faultiness of this charge.
[26] Here, Hamilton further ridicules his opponents by contrasting the amount of money he was accused of giving Clingman, Reynolds, and Maria with the amount of money Monroe accused him of meddling with in the initial charge. According to the previous sentences, Hamilton likely paid no more than 1500 dollars to maintain the secrecy of his affair, which is virtually nothing in comparison to the forty million dollars referenced in Monroe’s accusation.
[27] Hamilton, here, continues to undermine the opposition as he walks through what would have been the outcome of him fraudulently acquiring tens of millions of dollars. He says that it would have been foolish of him to dish out only a little more than a thousand dollars–as he was accused of doing to keep the affair secret–since he would be essentially swimming in money and could easily afford better insurance to avoid “risking his character.”
[28] This sentence similarly highlights how ridiculous his opponent’s claims add up. Hamilton goes on to include how he was accused of paying the “paltry”–or meager–sum of fifty dollars in order to protect his reputation but then refused to dish out 250 more dollars, which would also be deemed “inconsiderable” if he had secured the huge sum of money he was charged with; however, this was not the case according to his opponents, which emphasizes the contradictory nature of their evidence.
[29] Here, Hamilton looks at the situation from both sides and, once again, walks through multiple possible outcomes. He goes on to explain that if the charges against him were true, that would mean he made a ton of money–would be “destitute of so small a sum”–since he was so frugal with his scandalous payments. On the other hand, if the charges against him were false, and he didn’t acquire the huge amount of money, it makes sense for him to be much less generous with his offerings to prevent the world from being exposed to his affair. Moreover, Hamilton uses “comports” to create a sense of harmony and accord, which highlights the strong consistencies between his action and the idea of him not being guilty of the charges brought forth by Monroe.
[30] In this last sentence, Hamilton is describing a scenario where the accusations made against would have made sense: if he had no money. This directly opposes what he is accused of doing — stealing large funds from the government, meaning the the story does not line up. On one hand, he’s accused of stealing huge sums of money, on the other hand, there is evidence of him refusing a sum of $300 to Mr. Reynold’s, which would have only happened if he didn’t have those large sums of money.
Works Cited:
Alberts, Robert C. “The Notorious Affair of Mrs. Reynolds.” American Heritage, Feb. 1973, www.americanheritage.com/content/notorious-affair-mrs-reynolds.
“Appendix No. IV (a): From Jacob Clingman, 13 December 1792,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-21-02-0138-0006.
Cogan, Jacob Katz. “The Reynolds Affair and the Politics of Character.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 16, no. 3, 1996, pp. 389–417. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3124057.
Cooke, Jacob Ernest. Alexander Hamilton. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982.
“Draft of the “Reynolds Pamphlet”, [25 August 1797],” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-21-02-0138-0001.
Finer, Herman. “Jefferson, Hamilton, and American Democracy.” Economica, no. 18, 1926, pp. 338–344. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2547820.
Gross, Alexandra Marie. “The Reynolds Affair, Party Politics and Sexuality in the Early Republic.” Order No. 10631697 The College of William and Mary, 2014. Ann Arbor: ProQuest. Web. 15 June 2018.
Lind, Michael. “Hamilton’s Legacy.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), vol. 18, no. 3, 1994, pp. 40–52. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40258878.
Marsh, Philip. “Hamilton and Monroe.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, vol. 34, no. 3, 1947, pp. 459–468. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1898101.
Mosher, John. “Alexander Hamilton.” History, vol. 33, no. 1, 2004, pp. 3-4. ProQuest, http://prx.library.gatech.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.prx.library.gatech.edu/docview/232117276?accountid=11107.
“Printed Version of the “Reynolds Pamphlet”, 1797,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-21-02-0138-0002.
Pruitt, Sarah. “The Sex Scandal That Ruined Alexander Hamilton’s Chances of Becoming President.” History.com, A+E Networks, 19 June 2018, www.history.com/news/alexander-hamilton-maria-reynolds-pamphlet-affair.
Schoone-Jongen, Bob. “William Duer: America’s First Wall Street Villain.” Historical Horizons, 15 May 2015, historicalhorizons.org/2015/05/15/william-duer-americas-first-wall-street-villain/.
Serratore, Angela. “Alexander Hamilton’s Adultery and Apology.” Smithsonian, 25 July 2013, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/alexander-hamiltons-adultery-and-apology-18021947/.
Smith, John L. “Alexander Hamilton’s Extramarital Escapades.” Journal of the American Revolution, 2 Aug. 2016, allthingsliberty.com/2016/08/alexander-hamiltons-extramarital-escapades/#_ednref7.
Swenson, Kyle. “America’s First ‘Hush Money’ Scandal: Alexander Hamilton’s Torrid Affair with Maria Reynolds.” The Washington Post, 23 Mar. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/23/americas-first-hush-money-scandal-alexander-hamiltons-torrid-affair-with-maria-reynolds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ccc7b3506ffc.
“To Alexander Hamilton from James Reynolds, 15 December 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-10-02-0029.
“To Alexander Hamilton from Maria Reynolds, [January 23–March 18 1792],” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-10-02-0125.
“William Duer (Continental Congressman).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 June 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Duer_(Continental_Congressman).
Young, Christopher J. “Connecting the President and the People: Washington’s Neutrality, Genet’s Challenge, and Hamilton’s Fight for Public Support.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 31, no. 3, 2011, pp. 435-466. ProQuest, http://prx.library.gatech.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.prx.library.gatech.edu/docview/1272315262?accountid=11107.