Transcripts For CSPAN3 New Research On Alexander Hamilton 20240714

Started is on our website, studentcam. Org. Tv,ext on American History historian Michael Newton talks about his book, discovering hamilton, new discoveries in the lives of Alexander Hamilton, his family, friends and colleagues from various archives around the world. The Tavern Museum hosted this event. Tonight, we are delighted to who willichael newton present discovering hamilton, new discoveries and the lies of Alexander Hamilton, his friends, family and colleagues. Ands in a story specializing the American Revolution and the founding era. Is the promised expert on an on Alexander Hamilton. And we will hand out microphones for the q a. Wait for me to shove that microphone in your face. I would like to welcome michael to the lack turn. [applause] olectu ack turn lectern. I especially want to thank you all for coming and is great to see so many people interested in the real Alexander Hamilton. Im very excited to share with you my new book, discovering of newly 40 chapters discovered information about Alexander Hamilton, his grandparents, his father, his uncle, a previously unknown aunt and her children who were hamiltons first cousins, the cousin who paid for his education, his friends, his colleagues and many other hamilton related topics. Today, i will be touching upon just a few chapters from discovering hamilton. That leaves 30 something more chapters for you to explore later. For the longest time, everyone waseved Alexander Hamilton born on january 11, 1757. Alexander hamilton gave his age in a handful of letters and statements to friends with pointed to a birth in 1756. Both wrote that he was born on january 11, 1757. New evidence was found suggesting a birth on january 11, 1755. In 1939, the discovery was shared of the probate record which on february 20 2, 1768, said that her son Alexander Hamilton, was 13 years old. Ranching and, others concluded that the january 11 birthday is probably right but the 1757 year of birth must be wrong and that hamilton was not born january 11, 1757 but rather on january 11, 1755. This has been the debate for the last 80 years. Half of the leading hamilton experts have argued for 1757 and the other half argued for 1755. For full disclosure, for about argueds of analysis, i for january 11, 1757 in Alexander Hamilton the formative years. The last 80 years, we have argued the same thing. No one since 1939 has found any new evidence to throw into this debate until now. In 1759, John Michael Levine filed for divorce from Rachel Fossett, Alexander Hamiltons mother. Three witnesses were summoned to testify, jemima gurley, james ash, and james hedrick. The divorce was granted to John Michael Levine but rachel was barred from remarrying. Its not working too well. Court rulingorce has been known for the last 80 years, no one has found the actual no one had found the actual testimony of the three witnesses. Accordingly, we had no idea what these three witnesses had to say about Rachel Fossetts life from the time she left st. Croix in 1750 until their testimony in 1759. As a result, almost nothing was known about rachels life during this nineyear time, time that included her meeting James Hamilton and the birth of Alexander Hamilton. That is until now. The Danish National archives come in a collection of legal document from st. Croix, there sits a 56 page booklet of the Court Proceedings for the divorce of Rachel Michael levine,nee Rachel Fossett which includes the court record of the testimony of the three witnesses. Here is perhaps the most you can clearly see some interesting things on these two pages. Levine, and joh levine. El here is st. Croix, and the number five. I think i have gotten all of those. There is the number five. The rest is greek, or it is rather gothic danish. I was able to train it translate enough to get a rough idea, and realize its importance. Wordxample, here is one which means children. In other words, the witness was talking about her children, James Hamilton jr. And Alexander Hamilton. I have the record of the proceedings translated, and it was more interesting than i thought. Remember that this is 56 pages long and we do not have time to go through the entire proceedings so please refer to the relevant chapter for more details. I would like to speak briefly about the three witnesses, because we will be referring to them repeatedly. Ramsing identified these witnesses and had not seen their testimony. Mitchell explained in his 1957 biography that ramsing identified them as persons of no special note and do not figure otherwise in the records. He cannotbe have been more wrong. Jemima, wastness, in fact according to her own testimony, rachel faucets sister. Married two she bank. This makes her the aunt of Alexander Hamilton. See discovering hamilton for the interesting life story of aunt jemima and her children. The second witness apparently had no connection to rachel, John Michael Levine, or anyone else, that he apparently knew enough about the marriage and relationship to testify. The records ir have been able to find about james hendry. Wasthird witness, james ash a relative by marriage and to his uncle, and was a business associate. Blog for amy biography of him and his relationship to them. We do not have time to go through all 56 pages of the proceedings, these refer to the chapter for a full account. Nevertheless we will soon see what the witnesses had to say about Alexander Hamiltons birthdate and other important topics. Theund this record of divorce Court Proceedings in february, five months ago. It took a few weeks to get them translated, and then i spent two weeks deciphering and organizing the information. There is so much, and given that it is a legal document, it took some time to understand it. In late march, when i realize the importance of what i had, a record of what happened to rachel between 1750 and 1759 mentioned hamiltons age, i could not wait to share this discovery. Moreover. I could not keep information about his age a secret. While i was finishing up some research. This is about four months ago. I found another record content pertaining to his birthday and early biography. I found the record of him testifying in court on august 5, 1771. So, here is the most interesting part of hamiltons testimony and you can see how his name jumps right off of the page. Actually it is easy to miss. Nicholas krugers name is more obvious, but hamilton is hiding over here, misspelled and split between two lines with no first name given. Throughout the record, hamilton is referred to as the witness, and only once more does it appear, again misspelled and with no first name. Thankfully i have been looking for Nicholas Kruger records, or else i might have missed this record. Details of the testimony in this case and his work for Nicholas Kruger, and other interesting kruger stories including information about his suppose a dual, see the revolution relevant chapter. After we skipped over the content of these records, let us see how the legal testimonies changes biography. First, we will look at his birthday. Records,e new sets of the divorce Court Proceedings and hamiltons own testimony there are three primary sources regarding hamiltons birthday. According to race out probate, Alexander Hamilton on february 22, 1768 was 13 years old. If this is true, he was born andeen february 23 1754 february 2, 1755. So, let us put this on a timeline. According to rachel, Alexander Hamilton was born between and february1754 2, 1755. C. Ce john since John Hamilton said that his birth date was january 11 and it sits in this range, people have accepted this birth date. This information was known and the catalyst for the current debate. The newly what do they normally newly discovered records have to say . According to the Divorce Court, onhels sister testified april 18, 1759 that two years children,ster had two the younger one being about three years old. 1759, jemima said that two years earlier her sister had two children and the younger one being three years old. Jemimas statement implies that Alexander Hamilton was was born about april 1754, if one assumes that two years ago means 1. 5 to 2. 5 years ago, and three years old means that the child was above 2. 5, but not yet 4, 1 with 1752th a range to 1755. April is the best estimate based on this record, january 11 1755 remains a possibility. January 11, 1757 be ruled out by the testimony. Let us add this to the timeline. This record seems to confirm 1755, and it rules out 1757. Now, let us turn to alexander oniltons testimony in court august 5, 1771. Involving his boss, Nicholas Kruger. Because of his young age he was asked for biographical details toascertain his suitability provide legal testimony. Among the questions he was asked how old he was. Hamilton answered that he was 17. In august 1771, he testified that he was 17 years old. Hamilton indicated that he was 1753 andeen august 6 august 5, 1754. That changes things. So, not only would that preclude sorry i went too far. At only would that preclude 1755, but also a 1757. Ors would indicate 1753 1754. In order for all three to be correct, Alexander Hamilton must have been born between february 23 and august 5, 1754. It is clear that Alexander Hamilton was not born january 11 1757 as he told friends and family. A birth date of 1755 also seems unlikely. If he was born on january 11 but , anged his year of birth 1750 four is just as likely as 1755 as each year has one primary source supporting it and one primary source contradicting it. Accordingly, the question is no longer whether hamilton was born on january 11, 1755 or 1757. The question is if he was born 3tween february 23 and august 1754, or january 11 7054 or 1755. Seeing how hamilton misrepresented his age and year of birth, which we will discuss shortly and there are no primary sources supporting a january 11 birthday, i must follow the Available Evidence and conclude that Alexander Hamilton was born between february 24 february 23 and august 5, 1754. Alexander hamilton was probably born between january february 23 and august 5, 1754. He could not have been born in january because three sources point to an earlier year of birth. Dateuary 11 1755 birth appears unlikely since hamilton himself indicated that he was 1753 andeen august 6, 1754. If one believes january 11 to be hamiltons birthday, the year of birth would be 17 54 according to his testimony, but 1755 according to the probate. Given the evidence, i am forced to conclude that Alexander Hamilton was probably born between february 23 and august 5, 1754. This of course means that everyone who has argued for january 11, january 1715 seven was wrong. Whoeans that everyone argued for 1755 is also wrong. Everyone is wrong. Now we finally know the truth. A second. Ink in for 6, 1771, poetry appeared in the royal danish american gazette. Ihey were preceded by a note, am a youth about 17, your a. H. Nt servant, this suggested that Alexander Hamilton proposed this poetry. I argued that there is reason to doubt hamiltons authorship. One of the reasons i gave was that hamilton was just 14 as a 1757 euros birth was to be believed. In 1755 he was nine months shy 17. Eing i gave reason to doubt the poetry and the attribution is far from assured. Now that it has been established that hamilton was probably born between february 23 and august 5 1754, it is more likely that he wrote this poetry because in april, 1771, he would have been about 17 years old. If you wish, one could point to this as evidence that hamilton was born in 1754, and use it to narrow down the possible range of dates for his birth based on him giving his age as about 17. Without a certainty that hamilton wrote this poetry, and the exact meaning of the word about being unclear, one must hesitate before drawing conclusions about these verses in the note preceding it. It is clear from his 1771 testimony that hamilton knew how old he was and that he was born, according to his own statement, between august 6 17 53, and august 5, 1754. And he later gave his age and told his family that he was born january 11, 1757, he could not be confused or mistaken. It appears that hamilton misrepresented his age in later life. Was bornnder hamilton 1755,4 or on january 11, one must ask why he misrepresented his age. He apparently told friends and family that he was born in 1757. People have been asking this question since the probate record was discovered in the 1930s that suggested a 1755 year of birth. Age was wellns known on st. Croix and he provided it in a testimony just a year before he left the island, he must have changed it sometime after he came to the mainland in 1772. The rationale behind the decision cannot be known with certainty, one plausible theory is that hamilton changed it so he would appear closer in age to his fellow students. He would have been among the oldest if not the oldest to when he entered Grammar School when he was 18 years old, and then entered college when he was 19. This theory seems most plausible , because hamilton mustve started misrepresenting his age immediately upon arriving in north america, because once his teachers and friends knew how old he was, it would have been impossible for him to alter it later in life, since people had known him in elizabethtown and new york wouldve realized he had changed it. Peopleother hand, many who knew hamilton on st. Croix, also knew him on mainland america including edward stevens, Nicholas Kruger, david dieckmann, and george called they codwife, and wouldve known his age and birthday. Those who realized that he provided an incorrect age mustve gone along with the deception and approved, or hamilton convinced them that they remembered incorrectly. However he got friends to comply, it is difficult to rectify his long deception regarding his age against his wellknown honesty. Hamilton frequently remarked on the importance of being honest, he often spoke honestly even to his own detriment. His friends noted his adherence to crew to truth and no man ever disdained duplicity or carried frankness further than he. Even his enemies acknowledged that they never knew him to disguise his intentions or deny their consequences. On his word, i can rely equally. Honesty, it is hard to believe that hamilton misrepresented his age for his entire adult life. It is possible, that these two are related. Perhaps his strict menaced honesty and other matters wheres was a strict result of his deception in this one case. Perhaps he maintained adherence to truth to continuously misrepresenting his age, and perhaps justified his deception in this one case by being extremely honest in all other matters. Thedes, hamilton was not only famous person in all of history to misrepresent his age. Birthday of another founding founder, James Mchenry is usually given as november 16, 1753. Family records give it as 1752, and in a letter in 1813, mchenry gave it as 1751, so he changed the year end date of his birth. Hitting closer to home, hamiltons mother also may have misrepresented how old she was because he agent her burial record is reduced from her real age. Is clear that hamilton misrepresented his age and his given birth to eight is birthdate is incorrect, it appears that taking liberties big anes age is not as deal then as it is considered today. Of course it was easier to get away with it then as it would be today. Addition to giving his birth date as january 11, 1757, he apparently told friends and family that he was born on nevis. This was repeated by james yard, probably based on information from edward stevens, who is yards brotherinlaw and repeated by john c. Hamilton. Unlike his birthday, his birth on nevis has never been questioned because there was never any reason to doubt it. However, none of the witnesses who testified in the Divorce Proceedings mentioned rachel having been on nevis during the 1750s. Jemima and james put rachel on saying you station us on another island, while saint henry only testified that he was a ralph that she was away from the island. This did not mean that they never lived on or visited nevis. Based on the information in the Divorce Court there is a gap in the timeline during which rachel could have been on the island. For one island in 1753, it was not known where she was living until she was still and again found in 1756. While it is possible that rachel and her family lived on an island during this entire period , there is no record of her whereabouts. Perfect timer the to return to nevis. Sometime after Alexander Hamiltons birth, rachel must have been on nevis because jemima testified that her sister made a declaration on Saint Christopher regarding her two children, thus she should have been there sometime in the period in question and could have been on nevis as well. Since there was evidence that James Hamilton and rachel returned from saint st. Eustatius sometime between 1754 and 1757 and they could have time on nevis, there was little reason to question hamiltons birth because it is a possibility that is not contradicted by any evidence. However that if hamilton misrepresented his age and birth date, he could have also done the same regarding his place of birth. If hamilton had been born on the island of st. Eustatius, he wouldve been considered more of a foreigner. By being born on nevis, he can claim to be a british citizen like everyone else born in the 13 colonies. Without evidence regarding his place of birth, one must assume that hamilton was born on nevis like he told friends and family, there remains uncertainty. Hamilton if hamilton was born on nevis, it would seem that rachel and her family spent less time on nevis and more time on st. Eustatius than previously thought, as we will see soon. To john c. Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton rarely alluded to his personal history and mentioned to be taught to speak the decalogue in hebrew. Hamilton biographers often place the school on nevis. Is now clear that hamilton the hamiltons were living on 1758,statius from 1756 to and perhaps much longer. Perhaps the school was on st. Eustatius. By the time that Alexander Hamilton was worn, the Jewish Community of nevis had all but disappeared. Had peakedcommunity at 75 individuals, but it was closer to zero by hamiltons time. In contrast, st. Eustatius had a thriving Jewish Community. A new synagogue was built and inut 350 jews lived there 1780 one. It would make more sense for the school which he attended to be on st. Eustatius rather than nevis. With the addition of the record of the divorce Court Proceedings there are three pieces of evidence regarding the birthdate of James Hamilton jr. , Alexander Hamiltons older brother, all of which agree on the timeframe of his birth. Rachels to rasul probate record, James Hamilton jr. Was 15 years old. Jamesndicates that hamilton jr. Was born between february 23 1752, and february 22 february 5 1753. Jemima statedny, that two years ago she had come to saint stacias st. Eustatius and that her sister had two children, the older being about five years old. This indicates a birth around april, 1752. Given the same parameters, James Hamilton would have been born, given that it was about two years ago was also imprecise, James Hamilton jr. Would be born between october 1750, and april, 1753. Additionally, james ash testified that he knew rachel on the witness was on st. 1750 1, 1752, and 1753. Had one orw her, she two children. This means that the older child must have been born in 1753, or earlier. Consistent with the other two records. The three pieces of evidence point to James Hamilton jr. Being born between february, 1752 and february, 1753. 1752, and 1753 and earlier. All three pieces of evidence agree that James Hamilton jr. 1752 orably born in early 1753. Based on the timeline, it appeared that he was born on the island of saint chris. Partner is rachels not mentioned in the record of the divorce Court Proceedings. Instead, this person is referred to as the unsummoned person. In other words this person was not summoned by the court was not person by and this person was not present for the hearings. Nevertheless record states that mentioned to the court which will not be entered into the protocol book. Testified rachel lived with the same person and that the children were her and his children and he had heard of the persons reputation. It is thus clear that jemima and james knew the identity of James Hamilton and reported it to the court, which means that rachels first husband knew hamiltons name as well. It is likely that him and others already knew that it was James Hamilton who had partnered with rachel even before it was reported in court. Surprise,d come as no because a 1758 baptismal record from st. Eustatius listed them as James Hamilton and rachel hamilton, his housewife. Thus, all the attendees at the baptism and society at large new that James Hamilton and racial faucet were together, and that rachel were together and acted like a married couple who had been with each other many years and had two children. There has been much debate regarding how much James Hamilton knew about rachels past. One story is that when james, rachel, and their children arrived on st. Croix, james learned the truth of rachels previous marriage, fair, and affair, imprisonment, and this prompted him to separate from her. The record of the divorce Court Proceedings completely debunks this narrative. According to the two witnesses who knew rachel, rachels prior marriage was wellknown. Testified that rachel had made a declaration to the judge on st. Christopher, the contents of which that the two children that rachel had with had been raised outside of marriage with a person who was not her husband. Although this declaration did not mention a husband living, the only reason such a declaration would have been necessary was if rachel was barred from marrying another man. Relationships between two unwed individuals were common and not cause for legal action. Rachels relationship was only an issue because she was already married to someone else. Therefore, remarriage to another man in a forbidden relationship with James Hamilton became a matter of public record. Likewise, james ash testified that rachel and other people testified that she was married and she went on st. Christopher and saint and st. Eustatius under that name, although she associated with a person of another name. Ash added that rachel and the mans reputation was that she re, which meanso the general public knew some details about her past. While her previous marriage was wellknown and everyone knew that her relationship with James Hamilton was in violation of that marriage, no mention was of her witness testimony earlier affair and imprisonment. It is possible that James Hamilton did not know about rachels prior affair and imprisonment, but he knew that she had been and still was married, and that the two children were considered illegitimate according to the law. Affaireless, rachels and imprisonment probably were also Common Knowledge and James Hamilton presumably knew about them. These matters were not brought up by the witnesses, or where they asked about them because they were not a party to the events, and the events were already established by previous courts. Claim,r, in his divorce John Michael Levine mentioned rachels earlier affair, and his lawyer mentioned other evidence that he had in his possession, which probably included the court record of the earlier affair. One assumes that he referred to to referred the Court Previous records of that affair and did not need to be raised in the questioning of the witnesses, so the fact that it was not mentioned and they were not asked about it does not mean that they knew nothing about it. One assumes that they did and that James Hamilton did as well. Hamilton,to alexander my mother afterwards became acquainted with my father and a marriage ensued, followed by many years cohabitation in several children. Ever since the question whether if whether there has been a marriage has been raised. This question was introduced in 1759. She asked, jemima said that had heard it said that rachel had gotten married to another person, but did not know if it was true. In contrast, james henry hendry had heard that there was another Man Associated but she had not married another man. Was askedjames ash and rachel replied that he and had replied that he had not heard that. Unclear by9, it was those who knew rachel and James Hamilton whether they have gotten married or not. Others had heard that they had been but no one knew for sure. The fact that the lawyer asked the questions and the witnesses were uncertain showed that then as now, it was unknown whether james and rachel had a wedding ceremony, but according to jemima, rachel had made a declaration to the judge on st. Christopher, the contents of which that the two children that rachel had had been raised outside of marriage with a person who is not her husband. It would disappear that james and rachel knew that they were hand,rried, on the other a record from st. Eustatius asted james and rachel housewife. The fact that they use the hamilton name and was listed as james housewife which was a describe allo wives said that they were treated as a married couple even if such a marriage was prohibited. It was also proclaimed that James Hamilton was not the father of Alexander Hamilton. Someone else, possibly thomas father,was hamiltons and some have suggested george washington, and other names as well. Even though rachel had a common reputation as a public whore the witnesses who knew her all testified that she in both places was associated with the same person, James Hamilton. According to these people, from the time that rachel met this person, perhaps in 1751, until they saw her in 1757, rachel had been with the same man the entire time. Stated thates ash when he knew her on st. Christopher, she had one or two children, which everywhere passed as her and the persons children. Rachel only had one child at this time, but he knew her again on st. Eustatius, where she lived with the same person that she had lived with from st. Christopher. Thus, according to the witnesses, rachel was same was with the same person the entire time, and her children passed as the children of this man. It is always possible that rachel cheated on her new partner, but none of the witnesses nor john michael made any allegation. Such rumors would have been introduced into the court as further evidence of rachels infidelity and as for example being a public whore. One could conclude that everyone believed that from 1751 through 1757, rachel associated with James Hamilton. This suggests that rachel was with one man during this whole period, meaning that James Hamilton wasnt was indeed Alexander Hamiltons father. It has also been argued that Alexander Hamilton was jewish. The contention is that john rachel was jewish, and converted to judaism to marry him, and thus Alexander Hamilton was jewish because his mother was jewish. Hendrytestimony, james that testified that he had seen the two married saying that he had not seen the priest that married them. If the wedding had been conducted by a rabbi, hendry would have said a jewish priest. If he had been jewish, and there is no evidence that he was, he must have converted to christianity or pretended to be christian when a priest officiated his wedding to rachel. Yet again, there is no evidence or reason to believe that he was jewish, and it would appear that people who knew him thought that he was christian. There is no reason to believe that rachel converted to marry wien to marry him or that Alexander Hamilton was a jew. Testimony, Alexander Hamilton declared that he had been caught up in the reformed religion as it was observed in the english established church. In other words, his parents raised him as an anglican. And did was not asked, not say if he had been baptized, but he testified that he had not yet received communion, which was seen as a sign of reaching adulthood. With the newly discovered records of the 1759 divorce Court Proceedings, and Alexander Hamiltons testimony along with the previous analysis and a few other sources, a new narrative for the years 1750 to 1765 can be established. After being in prison for eight months for her affair, rachel was released from prison on may 4, 1750. , both rachel and her mother left st. Croix, but separately or together is unknown. Immediately tot where she would be living the following year, or some other island is not known from the available records. Of 1751ay, by the end she was living on one island. There she met James Hamilton. To James Hamilton jr. In 1752, or early 1753. 1753, James Hamilton absented himself to st. Eustatius on account of debt. Racial follow rachel followed him. What happens next is unclear. No known record reveals where they were. Hamilton woulder be born in between between january february and august. At some point after his birth, but before 1757, rachel made a declaration to the judge regarding her two children. Whether she was visiting at the time or had living there is not known. End of 1756,y the rachel and james lived on st. Eustatius again. They are found there still, or again in 1757 and october, 1758. After 1758, james, rachel, and their children disappear until james arrives on st. Croix in april 1755 and the rest of the family follow shortly afterwards. Did james, rachel and their children stay on st. Eustatius until 1765 . Or did they move back . Where were they living immediately before coming to st. Croix in 1765 . While these records have helped close the gap, we still know nothing about what happened between 1759 and 1765. I want to thank you all for joining me on this journey. After rewriting the hamilton book, i am sure there is a lot of questions. [applause] just a quick question. I know we went on for this over this in the beginning. I thought you had said his birth date was january 11, 1750 seven, but you said it was between 1754 and 1755, what was the final conclusion . 1757, i when i said wrote a book published four years ago where i looked into the issue, wrote 10 pages of analysis and concluded that 1757 is probably right. And i found these records. And i believed that up until figure february and i found these new records. Now we have three independent primary sources that all say hamilton was born earlier than 1757. 1757 is out of the question. My current idea is that he was withbly born 1754, but as any of these kinds of records there is always some uncertainty which is why we were sure before, and sure about something else, and now something different. That is why i say probably, 80 or 90 sure that that was when he was born. Bornure that he was not january 11, 1757. January 11 day is out . Michael it would be a possibility if the probate record or hamiltons testimony was wrong, by the person giving it or recording it. If they are both correct than january 11 is out. If it is january 11 can then we are not sure of it is 54 or 55. It would just be which one of them are wrong. If either. I was wondering whether or not the january 11, the earlier one might still be possible if he needed to be seen as being 17 either to get his poetry published, or to get to be eligible to testify in court. Youngsters do round up their ages sometimes, and it would not be that much for him to round it up by five or six months. That,l the problem is firstly to throw out 1757, there are three independent sources, then 55 to 54, if you are arguing that hamilton lied in legal testimony, you would have ,o go against the 1754 poetry yes. Right, you have to say that he stretch the truth in one case, and lied in another case rather than saying he told the truth, and there is a new conclusion. Hadproblem is that hamilton to have misrepresented his age and one case of in the other, either later or earlier in life, and the question is which. You go by the Available Evidence, and hamilton swore but not under oath in this testimony before the court about his age, one would assume that that was more reliable than him writing a letter, i was about 16 when i showed up in this country, which was not sworn testimony, and therefore less credible and reliable. It is still an open question. Do not look at me. Hello, thank you for another great lecture and another great book. I know how extensive your research was from your other book. How did you come upon this new evidence . Michael i will try and make a long story short. I was taking my old book and trying to write a more narrative biography, and i had to double check primary sources because things were taking out of context by other historians or one historian wrote one thing napa auger wrote something different. I went to check the primary sources. When i checked, i found that some of the stuff that was already written was not right or out of context, that i found that was a lot of stuff that was not reported. I was like, somebody has to do a systematic search through the entire sources of relevant documents. That was three years ago. I am still going through them. Three years later ive gone through tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of pages just looking for hamiltons name or krugers or rachels name. These, going found through the legal files. Ound the Divorce Court Divorce Court testimony just sitting there. It takes a lot of work. Fortunately, it is all on their website. Millions oflly pages, first you have to know what you are doing and it takes work to figure it out, and you have to have the time and to know what to look for, so who knows to look for jemima fossett until today faucett until today. Hamilton landed in boston rather than new york, you know why he landed in boston, and how did he get to new york . Did he take another boat . Michael i discussed that in my previous book four years ago so i will try to remember it all. Writes based on a letter on hearst paste on hercules mulligan. That said that he went to boston. Why he went to boston we do not know for certain. My theory is that hamilton left shortly after the hurricane and a lot of the ships basically all of the ships on the islands were destroyed or damaged. Find a ship coming to north america was difficult. I found one that left earlier to philadelphia. I do not know why he was not on it, maybe he stayed back. Other than that there were very few ships that left the island. It is possible that the next ship to leave was going to boston so hamilton went to boston rather than to wait to want to go to new york. How he went from boston to new york, there is no evidence. He could have taken a ship, according to newspapers there was no ship that went directly, so it is possible that he took a ship to hartford, or newport and boarded another ship. That would be erratic, and inconsistent and you never know how long it will take. He could have taken a stagecoach, which was operating from boston to new york. It took two weeks. It only took one week to travel but they took a stop at hot ford hartford. So they probably stayed at his place and made more money. Or he could have rented horses, so we do not know for certain. You had a theory about hamilton preferring nevis as a place of birth because of what it provided it would have provided british citizenship. Havent the other island done the same . Michael i want to address my theory. That is only assuming that it was not actually nevis. We are assuming that he was born there. We are open to the possibility because of the lack of primary source evidence that is plausible that it was st. Eustatius, but i am not arguing for it. I believe that he was born on nevis. He could have said any other island, any other british island. They would have been the logical ones. Hamilton wrote that his parents were married there. That probably would have made more sense because he would have mentioned that. Nevis is the islands that his mother was from. That was thathose he was actually born on nevis. It is what we are going to believe anyway. It is believing based on what hamilton wrote. Hispt for misrepresenting everythinglly hamilton writes proves true. Met his were parents met on one island, but now that we have this testimony proves that hamilton was right, his parents met there. All of these things hamilton says, it turns out there is no proof, but corroborating evidence that hamilton was telling the truth. The only real open question is on the birthdate, and i just raised the possibility that saint you station us st. Eustatius, but if you look at the Divorce Court testimony that she would think it is that, because it does not say that they ever go back except for that one visit. Hamilton saying nevis and st. Kitts, so why not assume that he was telling the truth and that when they went to saint kiss st. Kitts hamilton was also born on nevis. Hello. Slaves,that rachel had i think she owns two or three . Michael when she first comes to st. Croix she owns three. By the time she dies, i think in andrecord there are eight her estate has nine the following year, so some of those things were born to her slaves and she acquired additional ones that shows that she was a Good Business woman making money and able to investor profits, not that that is good. But Alexander Hamilton did not inherit that . He never had slaves himself . Michael he never personally owned slaves. He had slaves working for him. Slaves,e his mothers and when they died, his halfbrother inherited everything, so the proceeds from the nine slaves ended up going to him. There is no record of hamilton ever owning slaves, there is one record of hamilton acquiring slaves for his brotherinlaw. Said thate people that shows hamilton owned or bought slaves, other people will argue, that is not true, and a counter argument is that it does not matter. There is no record that he ever owned slaves. Hamilton sisterinlaw complained that Elizabeth Hamilton did not have slaves to help her out. He became an abolitionist afterword . Michael he was a manumission nest manumissionist. He never went around saying that all slaves should be freed, and he never said that all slaves in new york should immediately be made free. He probably believed that but he knew it was politically impractical. He did argue for manumission, so he helped pass a law in new york that basically banned future slavery. If you owned a slave you could own it until it turned they turned iceland certain age and it became free. Any children born were free when they reached adulthood. Theye adulthood, how would fend for themselves . So they phased out slavery in new york, and that was partially hamiltons doing. Thank you for your research. I know it has not been easy for you to question all of our answers. Michael and answer your questions. We knew about hamilton, we are questioning. I also want to know, since you have a great body of documents to roll through, and it will take time and then you have to get back to your research, do you see a second book in the coming . You see that there is a may also find out more evidence, not about rachels past, but about whether or not hamiltons career at beekman and kruger, i am more curious about some of his work records. You mention that he was working for them earlier than we had suspected. That aspect about because that means this kid was not even an orphan and he was already working and that is crazy. Do you see another book in the making and you have more evidence coming forward that you can present at a later date, or in another book . Book,l in the current there are two chapters about hamiltons working for beekman and kruger and then another site which i wrote on my blog. I discuss how hamilton was working for beekman and kruger starting in 1766 or early 1767 based on the oldest known records that i discovered and they are mentioned in the book. I have another chapter about other records that show hamilton working for them. There is a lot, which you probably have not read yet. More, iy there will be do not know what i will find. Are hundreds of thousands of pages about st. Croix and i do want to go through some st. Thomas records and other islands as well. Found thee i only first record in february, and then i found the second record in april, and the book comes out in july, this is all the nation were period of time, i could not, include everything i had. A lot of it still has to be translated, so there is a lot of stuff that i found that has not been translated, or i found that has been translated but did not have time to put in. Will there be a second volume . Yes. What will it look like . I have no idea. It might be an expanded edition, it might be a second volume, i do not know yet. The book just came out, give me a couple of weeks and i will get back to the research, and then maybe next year or the year after there will be another book. We will see where it leads. Any more questions . Last question . Thank you for the lecture. I was interested in the relationship of hamilton with his brother. If i am correct they were not very close, particularly later in life. Is our any explanation . Is there any explanation . Michael it is really hard, because there is basically no record of their relationship when they were living together on nevis and st. Eustatius and st. Croix. They are about two years apart. We do not know how close they were. We can guess, but it is a gas. There is no record of how close they were as friends. Later in life all we have are a few letters. If you look at the letters, it would seem that they are very close. Most of the time they talk about their father. Is some stuff about money, because hamilton is lending money and paying bills for his brother and father. I will say that we probably only have a fraction of the letters that passed between Alexander Hamilton and his brother, and father, because all the letters would often mention, i sent you two previous letters, did you receive them . It is the same back and forth. There are three or four letters, but you assume that they talk more often. And we know they do, but how much more we do not know. Know really impossible to how close their relationship was from the letters we have. It does not seem close, but it could be misleading. I would not draw conclusions from that. Thank you everyone and i am glad you all came. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] coming our way. Here in place right wyoming. You can see that the culture is western based. One from reno. We have more horses than people. I am thoroughly convinced of that. The cities tour is traveling the country as we explore the american story. This weekend we take you to sheridan, wyoming, located along the big horn mountains, a city of about 17,000 is known for its cowboy culture and open ranges. With the help of our cable partners. A look at sheridan and the state through its local authors. No state that is 100 square miles has a single driver economy, no ocean or major cities. We are utterly singular when it comes to state narratives. Willnday at 2 00 p. M. , we explore the history of sheridan and the surrounding area. The landscape is our artifact, so when people come in, you see them start to absorb that weial the artifact preserve is this landscape. Watched cspans cities tour today at noon eastern on book tv and this sunday at 2 00 p. M. On cspan3s the house will be in order. It cspan has provided unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the spring court, Public Policy events from around the country. You can make a bureau in mind. Yourbrought to you by local satellite provider. Your unfiltered view of government. Army heritage day is in may at the Education Center in pennsylvania. Hundreds of hobbyists conduct demonstrations. The theme this year was the dday 75th anniversary. We visit a living history camp to learn about the experiences of the parachute regimental combat team