Michael E. Newton raises the flag of St. Kitts and Nevis and talks about Alexander Hamilton at Bowling Green in New York City

Every year in July, the flag of the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis is raised at Bowling Green at the bottom of Broadway in lower Manhattan in honor of Alexander Hamilton, who died on July 12, 1804. This year (2015), the Lower Manhattan Historical Society and the Alexander Hamilton Awareness (AHA) Society invited me to raise the flag and say a few words about Alexander Hamilton.

For the whole story, complete with photos, visit http://michaelenewton.com/michael-e-newton-raises-the-flag-of-st-kitts-and-nevis-and-talks-about-alexander-hamilton-at-bowling-green-in-new-york-city/

Events Honoring Alexander Hamilton and the Publication of ‘Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years’

Starting tomorrow (July 10), there will be four days of events honoring the life of Alexander Hamilton. This weekend was chosen because it is the anniversary of Hamilton’s famous duel with Aaron Burr (July 11), his untimely death (July 12), and his funeral (July 13). This year’s events are extra special because Lin Manuel-Miranda’s HAMILTON musical opens on Broadway on July 13 and because my new book, Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years, was published earlier this month.

A complete list of events can be viewed as an e-flyer here or as a one-page printable flyer here. I would like to highlight the events pertaining to me and my new book.

July 10, 2-3 PM:  Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years – Michael E. Newton
Conversation with scholar Michael E. Newton about Hamilton’s youth in the Caribbean & as a young immigrant-turned-Revolutionary War hero. This event will be filmed by C-SPAN3 American History TV.
Location: Museum of American Finance, 48 Wall Street, NYC

July 10, 3-4 PM:  Book Signing and Alexander Hamilton Exhibit
Get a copy of Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years signed by the author and tour the exhibit “Alexander Hamilton: Indispensable Founder and Visionary”
Location: Museum of American Finance, 48 Wall Street, NYC

July 11, 1-1:30 PM: Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years – New Book Discoveries 
Rand Scholet of the Alexander Hamilton Awareness Society will discuss some of the new discoveries in Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years. (Michael E. Newton is unable to attend this event because the Jewish Sabbath.)
Location: Hamilton Grange,  414 West 141st Street, NYC

July 12, 3-5 PM:  “Hamilton’s Revolutionary War Service” by Michael E. Newton
Talk on Alexander Hamilton’s indispensable services during the Revolutionary War, followed by a book signing of Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years.
Location: Washington’s Headquarters Museum, 30 Washington Place, Morristown, NJ

July 13, 11-11:30 PM: “Hamilton at Bowling Green” and Flag Raising
The Lower Manhattan Historical Society hosts a flag-raising at Bowling Green in honor of Alexander Hamilton, followed by remarks by author Michael E. Newton.
Location: Bowling Green Flagpole on Broadway, NYC

I look forward to seeing you at these very special events.

How Wikipedia gets the Alexander Hamilton story wrong

Wikipedia is perhaps the single most used source of information on just about anything. It is generally reliable for uncontested facts, but when matters are up for dispute Wikipedia too often presents information as truth even when such details are far from certain. For most biographies, the details of one’s life are known and a site like Wikipedia can’t go too far astray. But when it comes to Alexander Hamilton, perhaps the most controversial Founding Father and certainly the one whose early life is the most unclear, numerous errors appear on Wikipedia.

Rather than go through the entire Wikipedia page for Alexander Hamilton and point out every error, I will focus on just one small section: Alexander Hamilton’s “Early military career.” It reads:

In 1775, after the first engagement of American troops with the British in Boston, Hamilton joined a New York volunteer militia company called the Hearts of Oak, which included other King’s College students. He drilled with the company, before classes, in the graveyard of nearby St. Paul’s Chapel.[23] Hamilton studied military history and tactics on his own and achieved the rank of lieutenant. Under fire from HMS Asia, he led a successful raid for British cannon in the Battery, the capture of which resulted in the Hearts of Oak becoming an artillery company thereafter.[24] Through his connections with influential New York patriots such as Alexander McDougall and John Jay, he raised the New York Provincial Company of Artillery of sixty men in 1776, and was elected captain.[25] It took part in the campaign of 1776 around New York City, particularly at the Battle of White Plains; at the Battle of Trenton, it was stationed at the high point of town, the meeting of the present Warren and Broad Streets, to keep the Hessians pinned in the Trenton Barracks.[26]

And here’s a screenshot for posterity (before someone edits it):
WikipediaHamilton

I will now address the many errors in this one section alone. (AHTFY is short for Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years.)

 “Hamilton joined a New York volunteer militia company called the Hearts of Oak”

Alexander Hamilton joined the Corsicans (not the Hearts of Oak) in April or May 1775. In August or September, when the captain of the Corsican was promoted and left the company, one of two things occurred: 1) the Corsicans changed its name to the Hearts of Oak, or 2) The Corsicans broke up and its members (including Hamilton) formed a new company called the Hearts of Oak. (AHTFY 127-128)

“He drilled with the company, before classes, in the graveyard of nearby St. Paul’s Chapel.”

They drilled in the Church Yard of St. George’s Chapel. (AHTFY 128)

“Hamilton . . . achieved the rank of lieutenant.”

I am aware of no record of Hamilton being a lieutenant in the militia. I’m not sure where Wikipedia got this information as no citation is given.

“Under fire from HMS Asia, he led a successful raid for British cannon in the Battery…”

While Hamilton participated in the raid, he did not lead it. The raid was led by Capt. John Lamb. (AHTFY 579 note 31)

“…the capture of which resulted in the Hearts of Oak becoming an artillery company thereafter.”

The raid on the Battery occurred in August 1775. Hamilton was not made a captain of artillery until March 1776. There is no direct link between one event and the other, though Hamilton’s bravery in the raid may have helped him win his captaincy months later. Moreover, the Hearts of Oak did not become an artillery company. Hamilton’s artillery company was newly created and new men had to be enlisted. Hamilton may have recruited men from his old militia company, but the companies were distinct. In fact, the Hearts of Oak continued to exist until at least June 1776, long after Hamilton’s artillery company had been created. (AHTFY 127-128, 130-132, 134-138, 577 note 12)

“He raised the New York Provincial Company of Artillery of sixty men in 1776…”

Sixty men is an approximation. The company had 55 men on March 14, the day Hamilton was officially appointed captain of this company (he started recruiting sometime before this and even took command before this date). It had 66 men by the end of March, 69 by April 20, and 93 by June 29. (AHTFY 136-137)

“He…was elected captain.”

Hamilton was not “elected” captain. In New England, companies often elected their own captains. In New York, the Provincial Congress appointed company captains. Perhaps Wikipedia means that the New York government “elected” Hamilton, but there’s no record of an election, only that Hamilton was nominated, examined, and then appointed. (AHTFY 134)

“It [Hamilton’s artillery company] took part in the campaign of 1776 around New York City, particularly at the Battle of White Plains.”

Hamilton’s participation in the Battle of White Plains was first mentioned very briefly by John C. Hamilton in 1834. It was then expanded upon by Washington Irving and John C. Hamilton in the 1850s. There is, in fact, no evidence that Hamilton fought in this battle. Irving and John C. Hamilton provided no sources for their stories and it appears from eyewitness accounts that Hamilton did not fight in this battle. (AHTFY 168-173)

While Wikipedia remains a great tool, this small portion shows how everything must be verified before using it. Wikipedia will only get better as more accurate information replaces outdated and incorrect assertions. There is no better place to start this process than with Wikipedia’s biography of Alexander Hamilton.


After four years of research, writing, and editing, Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years is now available for purchase.

Discovering the “last will and testament” of Alexander Hamilton’s half brother

On St. Croix in the West Indies, Alexander Hamilton had a half-brother named Peter Lavien. Around 1764, Peter Lavien moved to South Carolina, where he owned a plantation in Prince William’s Parish along with co-partner John Kean. Kean later represented South Carolina in the Continental Congress, supported ratification in the state’s ratifying convention, was a leading Federalist, became cashier of the Bank of the United States, and married Susan Livingston, niece of William Livingston. As a leading Federalist and cashier of the Bank of the United States, Kean often corresponded and interacted with Alexander Hamilton. By marring Susan Livingston, John Kean came to own William Livingston’s home, Liberty Hall. I asked William Schroh Jr., Director of Museum Operations at Liberty Hall Museum at Kean University, if he had anything in The Papers of John Kean related to Peter Lavien. Turns out that William Schroh and Rachael Goldberg, Collections Manager, found in their collection the “last will and testament” of Peter Lavien dated February 12, 1778.

In his will, Peter Lavien wrote, “I give and bequeath to Alexander Hamilton and his brother Robert Hamilton (as the Testator believes) each one hundred and fifty pounds sterling.” [Hamilton’s brother was named James, not Robert.] Lavien also bequeathed three hundred pounds to Thomas Grayson and two hundred pounds to Rozay Moraes, but left the bulk of his estate to his wife and John Kean, his business partner, to be split equally between them.

PeterLavienWill 1PeterLavienWill 2 PeterLavienWill 3

Peter Lavien died sometime before March 1781. Upon Lavien’s death, John Kean, his “surviving copartner,” auctioned off “the property of Peter Lavien and Co.,” including “fifty-five valuable slaves, chiefly country born, some plantation tools, horses, etc.” When Hamilton learned of Peter Lavien’s death, Hamilton wrote to his wife, “Engrossed by our own immediate concerns, I omitted telling you of a disagreeable piece of intelligence I have received from a gentleman of Georgia. He tells me of the death of my brother Levine. You know the circumstances that abate my distress, yet my heart acknowledges the rights of a brother. He dies rich, but has disposed of the bulk of his fortune to strangers. I am told he has left me a legacy. I did not inquire how much.” Hamilton also wrote to Nathanael Greene, “I take the liberty to enclose a letter to Mr. Kean, Executor to the estate of Mr. Lavine, a half-brother of mine who died some time since in South Carolina.” The letter from Hamilton to Kean has been lost, but it obviously concerned the “legacy” Peter Lavien had left him.

The recent discovery of Peter Lavien’s will finally reveals the “legacy” that he had left for Alexander Hamilton.

Citations and more supporting evidence will be found in Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years.

Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years is now available for purchase.

Identifying the two doctors who treated Hamilton in November 1777

On October 30, 1777, George Washington sent Alexander Hamilton about 230 miles northward to General Horatio Gates in Albany “to point out to him the many happy consequences that will accrue from an immediate reinforcement being sent from the Northern Army.” The ride from Pennsylvania to New Windsor, then to Albany, then back to New Windsor–a journey of over three hundred miles in ten days– and the clashes with Gates and Israel Putnam as well took their toll on Alexander Hamilton’s health. Despite his illness, Hamilton travelled from New Windsor across the Hudson River to Fishkill and then made the twenty-mile journey south to Peekskill. On November 15, Hamilton wrote to Washington, “I arrived at this place last night and unfortunately find myself unable to proceed any further.” On November 23, Captain Caleb Gibbs, who had accompanied Hamilton on this mission, informed Washington:

I . . . arrived here yesterday morning about 9 o’Clock, where I found Colo. Hamilton much worse than I expected, labouring under a Violent nerves fever and raging to the greatest extremity; he continued through the day & last night very Ill. He is this morning something better, the fever in some small degree abated. Every possible measure is taking to restore him & it is the opinion of the Doctor two or three days will determine his fate. . . . Doctors Adams or Ustice has kept constantly with him and have paid the greatest attention possible to him, both by day & Night, and to do those Gentlemen Justice, they have spared no pains in making things comfortable around him.

Nearly every Hamilton biographer writes about this important mission given to Hamilton by Washington and many also write about Hamilton’s subsequent illness. But no one has identified these two doctors. Perhaps they don’t merit notice; perhaps they do. In researching Hamilton’s life, I decided to see if I could discover more about these two men who helped Hamilton in his illness and may have even saved Hamilton’s life.

John Adams recorded in his diary on November 18, 1777:

Dined at Fish Kill, at the Dr’s. Mess, near the Hospital, with Dr. Sam. Adams, Dr. Eustis, Mr. Wells, &c.

Here was a Dr. Adams just 20 miles from Hamilton along with a Dr. Eustis, who must be the Dr. Ustice that Gibbs had written about. Knowing that Dr. Adams’s first name was “Sam.” and the correct spelling of Dr. Eustis’s name, it is clear that these two doctors were Samuel Adams Jr., son of the more famous Samuel Adams, and William Eustis, future U.S. representative, secretary of war, and governor of Massachusetts. (William Eustis was only one Dr. Eustis in the army at this time http://bit.ly/1CmFMRU. Samuel Adams Jr. was a friend of this William Eustis http://bit.ly/1Le8VpO http://bit.ly/1IYkChR, he was stationed “on the Hudson” at this time http://bit.ly/1CmcyCG, and it is clear that it was this Samuel Adams who met John Adams in November 1777 http://bit.ly/1CmGjmY. )

The method of identifying Adams and Eustis is described immediately above in more detail than in Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years. (In hindsight, the endnote in AHTFY for this topic probably should have provided these details). Citations for the earlier quotes, which are not given in this post, will be found in Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years.

Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years is now available for purchase. Click here for links to the print book and various ebook editions.

Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years is now available for sale.

The wait is over. After four years of hard work, Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years is now available for sale.

The print edition of Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years can be purchased at:
Buy AHTFY print book from Amazon

The ebook of Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years can be purchased and downloaded from:
amazon-kindle-buy
Buy ebooks from Nook
available-on-itunes
buy-now-button-kobo1

Don’t be so naive: the real reason the Treasury plans to remove Hamilton from the $10 bill.

Up until two days ago, there was a growing movement to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with a woman. A bill was proposed in Congress to do this. A website was established to promote this idea. A poll was taken to choose a worthy woman to replace Jackson, which Harriet Tubman narrowly won, beating out Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, and Wilma Mankiller.

But then the Treasury suddenly and somewhat unexpectedly announced that it would replace Hamilton on the $10 bill with a woman. Why the sudden change?

It all comes down to politics and public opinion. If the Treasury had announced it would replace Andrew Jackson with a woman, there would have been protests against it. Those who like Andrew Jackson would have argued that no woman was as important to American history as Jackson, who was a popular president and founded the Democratic Party. Those who are less favorable towards Jackson would have also opposed the move by asking why he should be replaced by a woman rather than another worthy male, such as John Adams, James Madison, or the very underrated Albert Gallatin. The public uproar against replacing Jackson with an undetermined woman may have forced the Treasury to cancel its plans.

The people at Treasury or perhaps the White House recognized this challenge. There are a lot of smart people in the White House and at Treasury and one of them realized that they could accomplish their goal by using the door-in-the-face (DITF) technique. This psychological technique, which is often used in marketing, involves “making a large request that the respondent will most likely turn down” and then making “a second, more reasonable request.”

So the Treasury Department suddenly and somewhat unexpectedly announced that it would replace Hamilton on the $10 bill with a woman. Social media went berserk. How could the Treasury Department replace one of the leading Founding Fathers, the man who made the Treasury Department, the man who did more than anyone else to establish the U.S. on a solid financial footing? Not only are they making these arguments, they are also asking why Hamilton is being replaced instead of Jackson. Many have pointed out how Hamilton established the Treasury whereas Jackson shut down the Second Bank of the United States and opposed paper money (the country suffered a severe depression as a result). Many have pointed out how Hamilton opposed slavery whereas Jackson owned many slaves. Many have pointed out how Hamilton refused to shoot his opponent (Aaron Burr) in a duel whereas Jackson had an apparent blood lust when it came to duels, fighting in upwards of 100 duels according to some and killing at least one opponent. Many also point out Jackson’s genocidal persecution of the Native Americans.

While these arguments are convincing and it is clear that Hamilton is a superior candidate to stay on the U.S. currency, we have fallen into the Treasury Department’s trap. By defending Hamilton as worthy to remain on the $10, we have given the Treasury all the ammunition it needs to remove Jackson. Instead of debating which individuals most deserve to be on our currency, we are instead arguing about who to remove from our money and which woman to put on it. We should instead be debating which individual, regardless of race, religion, or gender, deserves to be on our currency.

But I’m afraid we’ve already lost this argument. If the Treasury succeeds in replacing Hamilton on the $10, it won’t be long before Jackson is replaced on the $20 and Grant on the $50. (Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin are too popular and likable to replaced, at least for now.) If we succeed in convincing the Treasury that Hamilton should stay, they’ll instead replace Jackson with little public uproar and it won’t be long before Grant is also replaced. I would not be surprised if we see the faces on certain bills changing every 10 years or so to satisfy all the different minority groups. The decision as to which people will be featured on our money will become part of the political debate and the different political parties will attempt to buy votes of various interest groups with the promise to put a member of their group on our currency.

We must challenge the Treasury Department’s decision to remove Hamilton from our $10 bill with all the power and influence in our possession. But we must be sure to do it correctly. We must argue that our money should feature those Americans who contributed the most to our nation regardless of race, religion, or gender. If we fail, not only will Hamilton be removed from the $10 bill, Jackson will be removed from the $20, Grant will be taken off the $50, less deserving individuals will appear on our currency, and I predict that our currency will ultimately feature a rotation of individuals chosen for political reasons and our money will lose the respect that it earned thanks largely to the work of one and only Alexander Hamilton.

(As to the question of which woman most deserves to be on our money, my vote goes to Martha Washington. If George Washington was the father of our country, Martha was the mother. The soldiers in the army of the American Revolution certainly saw her in that light when she stayed with them at headquarters each winter and led the women in producing homespun clothing and blankets for the troops. Obviously, women now play a greater role in politics and public affairs than they did in the eighteenth or even nineteenth centuries, but that makes Martha Washington all the more remarkable. But again, I don’t see the achievements of Martha Washington, Abigail Adams, Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, or Wilma Mankiller as coming even close to what was accomplished by Hamilton, Jackson, Grant, Adams, Madison, or Gallatin.)