An Unofficial Review of Lams by an Unofficial Historian

Rant Space

feel free to not read this as it probably won't make any sense because I'm just venting and honestly just chock full of my opinions. (and jeez this sounds a lot more violent than i planned for it to)

Ok.
I'm honestly fed up with historians. I mean, I get the whole "it's harder to tell whether two men/women were in a relationship in this time period because of our modern view on the letters" but to deny any possibility of a relationship between Laurens and Hamilton? It pisses me off.

For example: that godforsaken comma. (which, to be clear, does not exist.)

Hamilton added the comma to tease Angelica about using a misplaced comma.

"Indeed my dear, Sir if my path was strewed..."

To which Hamilton responds:
"You ladies despise the pedantry of punctuation. There was a most critical comma in your last letter... I presume it was accidental. Unriddle this if you can... Adieu ma chere, sœur."

Adieu my dear, sister.

See, the comma makes no grammatical sense, which is not what you'd expect from Mr. Writes-a-lot Alexander Hamilton.

And historians take this as proof of an affair over the much more affectionate letters between Hamilton and Laurens?????
I get that tensions were high.
I get that we don't have as much affection coming from Laurens' side.
I get that their writing was much more flowery than ours.
I get that we're viewing them in a 21st century lens.

But have they forgotten the letters were freaking censored? And that's still seen as a "best friend-ship" just because the world is made up of homophobic a-holes they can't face the fact that yes, there was a bi founding father.

Angelica exchanged flirtatious letters with a bunch of different important politicians at the time. Why should that mean she had an affair with Hamilton? Why not Jefferson, whose letters contain about the same level of flirting?

First of all, Hamilton and Angelica's letters were written under their mutual love for Eliza. Eliza was aware of the flirting and encouraged it because she knew it was a joke.
Secondly, Angelica didn't visit the Hamilton household often or long enough for anything to even escalate!

So tell me, historians, where is your proof?
A couple misplaced commas added to tease; oh, yeah, that flowery writing you keep reminding us about and how it covers up his "friendship" with Laurens; and that fact you keep bringing up, the one where, oh, I don't know, we're viewing the letters through a twenty-first century eye?

Wow, I wish there was somewhere else we can find commas and affectionate flowery writing and assume there was a romance!

Oh wait, there is.

Historians, allow me to introduce you to John Laurens.

But you don't want to admit the fact that there could've—at least possibly—been a gay romance with a person so important to American history.
News flash: we're still here! Has the country exploded yet?

At least Ron Chernow says something: "At the very least, we can say Hamilton developed an adolescent crush on his friend." or something along those lines.

We have no trouble recognizing the LGBTQ+ today. Why is it so hard to look for it in the past? The community didn't just rise from the ground in the twentieth century.

okay i've gone off track.

Back to the point: How are we so sure of an affair between Angelica and Hamilton because of some flirty letters?

I don't doubt that the two were close. I don't doubt Hamilton would've been a better match for Angelica than John Church.

But to assume a romance between them because it's a man and a woman over the affectionate words between Hamilton and Laurens because it's a man/man relationship?
It just goes to show how ignorant the world is.

Anyway, there's my take on that.

gosh, i'm salty at seven in the morning.