{"id":16341,"date":"2023-08-22T17:10:37","date_gmt":"2023-08-22T21:10:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/?p=16341"},"modified":"2026-01-07T09:32:46","modified_gmt":"2026-01-07T14:32:46","slug":"eliza-hamiltons-visit-to-the-constitutional-convention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/eliza-hamiltons-visit-to-the-constitutional-convention\/","title":{"rendered":"Eliza Hamilton’s Visit to the Constitutional Convention"},"content":{"rendered":"

Eliza Hamilton\u2019s Visit to the Constitutional Convention<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

A recently \u201cdiscovered\u201d letter suggests that Elizabeth Hamilton (\u201cEliza\u201d also known as “Betsy”) visited Alexander Hamilton during the Constitutional Convention. Although no Hamilton biographies have envisioned this possibility, it appears that Eliza in fact traveled to Philadelphia in June of 1787. Admittedly, the prospect of Eliza\u2019s trip to the \u201ccity where it happened\u201d during the Constitutional Convention raises more questions than it answers. It is hoped that this discovery will attract attention to the compelling documents described below, which will help complete Eliza\u2019s untold story.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

From May to September of 1787 fifty-five delegates attended the Constitutional Convention meeting in Independence Hall.[1]<\/a> Apart from the Pennsylvania delegates who lived in Philadelphia, historians have estimated that as many as nine delegates from six states may been accompanied by their spouses.[2]<\/a> Based on newly uncovered evidence it appears that Eliza was fearless enough to make the trip to Philadelphia without her husband, Alexander. Nevertheless, Eliza selected good traveling companions, none other than the “Secretary at War,” Henry Knox and his wife, Lucy.<\/p>\n

This article is the first in a three-part series setting forth the Eliza \u201cPhiladelphia Surprise\u201d Thesis <\/strong>(the Eliza \u201cPhiladelphia Surprise\u201d or \u201cPS\u201d Thesis). Part I <\/strong>describes the emerging evidence of Eliza\u2019s trip to Philadelphia. Part II<\/strong><\/a><\/span> examines evidence that Henry and Lucy Knox traveled to Philadelphia in June of 1787. Part III<\/strong><\/a><\/span>\u00a0will provide evidence that Eliza traveled with Henry and Lucy. Part III<\/strong><\/a><\/span> will also identify questions for fellow researchers who are invited to join this investigation.<\/p>\n

It is anticipated that some will be skeptical of the emerging Eliza Philadelphia Surprise Thesis. Although generations of scholars have studied the Constitutional Convention, as far as can be determined none have examined Eliza\u2019s connections to Philadelphia in 1787. As a result, historians have overlooked the very real possibility that Eliza was present in Philadelphia on June 18, the day of Hamilton\u2019s all-day speech.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

Admittedly, the Convention\u2019s rule of secrecy would have minimized Eliza\u2019s input on the substantive deliberations over the Constitution.[4]<\/a> Moreover, there is zero evidence that Eliza entered the Pennsylvania State House (now known as Independence Hall) when the Convention was in session. Yet it remains possible that Eliza may have helped her husband prepare for his one-of-a-kind speech on June 18. Moreover, it is felt that the possibility of informal, behind-the-scenes contributions by Eliza cries out for further examination.<\/p>\n

Part I<\/strong> is based on a discussion of two manuscripts and a journal entry. The first \u201cnew\u201d source is a letter dated 8 June 1787 from Henry Knox to Rufus King. While Knox was not a delegate to the Convention he was intimately familiar with the issues confronting the nation. His June 8 letter discussed below makes clear that Knox would be arriving in Philadelphia in mid-June with \u201cMrs. Hamilton.\u201d This letter is the strongest piece of evidence supporting the Eliza Philadelphia Surprise Thesis.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The second critical manuscript is an undated letter from Alexander to Eliza describing their indeterminate separation (hereinafter Hamilton\u2019s undated \u201clove letter\u201d). In the excerpt pictured above, Hamilton writes that \u201cit will be impossible\u201d for him \u201cto submit to a long separation however inconvenient\u201d the expense might be. As it only mentions Hamilton\u2019s three oldest children, the love letter was necessarily written between May of 1786 and April of 1788. The Eliza Philadelphia Surprise Thesis argues that based on the discovery of Knox\u2019s June 8 letter, we can now better understand the timing of Alexander\u2019s undated love letter to Eliza. In other words, the Eliza Philadelphia Surprise Thesis argues that Knox\u2019s June 8th<\/sup> letter is directly connected to Alexander\u2019s undated love letter.<\/p>\n

Taking the two letters together, it is now possible to date Hamilton\u2019s love letter as having been written in late May or early June of 1787. A third piece of evidence that factors into the investigation is an intriguing journal entry of an unspecified June payment to Eliza which is contained in Hamilton\u2019s cash book.[5]<\/a> By connecting together these three pieces of evidence, an image of Eliza\u2019s trip to Philadelphia begins to take shape.<\/p>\n

Part II <\/strong><\/a><\/span>examines the proof that Henry and Lucy Knox traveled to Philadelphia. Part III<\/a> <\/strong><\/span>\u00a0will provide additional evidence that Eliza traveled with Henry and Lucy. Part III<\/strong><\/span><\/a> will also examine a host of unanswered questions which are raised by the Eliza Philadelphia Surprise Thesis. For example, historians have known for decades that Alexander Hamilton departed the Convention at the end of June.[6]<\/a> Is it possible that Hamilton\u2019s departure was timed to accompany Eliza back to New York? What news did Eliza bring to Philadelphia? Did the three Hamilton children (Philip, Angelica and Alexander Jr.) accompany Eliza on the trip? While there is no immediate answer to these questions, a cursory review of Hamilton\u2019s undated love letter makes clear how much information is unfortunately missing from the historic record.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

Knox\u2019s June 8th<\/sup> letter to Rufus King<\/em><\/p>\n

On June 8th<\/sup> Henry Knox wrote to Massachusetts delegate Rufus King that he would soon be returning to Philadelphia. Although largely overlooked, Knox\u2019s letter is highly significant.[8]<\/a> The exact purpose(s) of Knox\u2019s June trip is unclear.[9]<\/a> Nevertheless, it is beyond dispute that Knox was planning to travel to Philadelphia in mid-June. Knox\u2019s June 8th<\/sup> letter indicates that he anticipated setting out from New York \u201con Sunday\u201d [June 10] and would probably be in Philadelphia \u201con Tuesday\u201d [June 12].[10]<\/a> Critically, Knox mentions that Mrs. Knox and \u201cMrs. Hamilton\u201d would be \u201cof our party.\u201d<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, Mrs. Hamilton is only briefly mentioned at the end of Knox\u2019s provocative June 8th<\/sup> letter. Moreover, the Hamilton Papers do not contain any correspondence between Hamilton and Eliza specifically referring to this anticipated trip. For this reason, it is useful to begin with a discussion of Knox relationships with several Convention delegates, his prior time in Philadelphia in May, along the background behind his travel plans.<\/p>\n

In May, the same month that the Constitutional Convention convened, Knox attended a meeting of the Society of the Cincinnati also meeting in Philadelphia. Among the officers who attended the Cincinnati meeting were Alexander Hamilton and other wartime colleagues.[11]<\/a> While in Philadelphia, Knox interacted with Convention delegates who were awaiting the arrival of a quorum for the Constitutional Convention scheduled to begin on May 14.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n

Due to the late arrival of delegates, the Convention did not officially begin until May 25th<\/sup>. This delay likely permitted Knox ample time to confer with Convention delegates from Virginia and Pennsylvania, the only punctual delegations.[13]<\/a> As discussed in prior blog posts on StatutesandStories.com, Hamilton was also present in Philadelphia during the third week of May, as is confirmed by the minutes of the Cincinnati on May 17.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n

As the “Secretary of War,” Knox was intimately familiar with the issues confronting the Convention. In the months leading up to the Convention, Knox was one of the trusted advisors who regularly communicated with Washington.[15]<\/a> Based on surviving correspondence, it is also clear that Knox maintained open lines of communication with Washington and Massachusetts delegate Rufus King.[16]<\/a><\/p>\n

Knox\u2019s June 8th<\/sup> letter was not the first to mention Knox\u2019s planned trip to Philadelphia. Rufus King wrote to Knox on June 3rd<\/sup>, indicating that \u201cMrs. King & myself shall expect you & Mrs. Knox in about six or eight days.\u201d[17]<\/a> Similarly, on May 29<\/span>th<\/span><\/sup><\/strong><\/a> Knox alerted Washington that he and Mrs. Knox planned to return to Philadelphia \u201cfor a few days\u201d:[18]<\/a><\/p>\n

I hope to be able so to arrange my business as to accompany Mrs. Knox to Trenton in the course of next week, and thence to Philadelphia for a few days, at which some public business requires me to be present.<\/p>\n

Washington replied to Knox on May 31st<\/sup><\/strong><\/a> <\/span>indicating that he was pleased that \u201cwe might flatter ourselves with the expectation of seeing Mrs. Knox & you at this place.\u201d[19]<\/a><\/p>\n

News that Eliza Hamilton would be traveling with Henry and Lucy Knox is not mentioned in King\u2019s June 3rd<\/sup> letter to Knox, or Knox\u2019s correspondence with Washington. Thus, it appears that Mrs. Hamilton’s joining the party was not previously planned. This, in and of itself, may be significant and will be discussed in Part III<\/strong> (pending).<\/p>\n

Hamilton\u2019s undated love letter<\/em><\/p>\n

Hamilton\u2019s undated love letter is an untapped treasure trove. The love letter was sold by Sotheby\u2019s<\/strong><\/a><\/span> in 2017[20]<\/a> and is cataloged in the Hamilton Papers<\/strong><\/a><\/span>.[21]<\/a> The Eliza Philadelphia Surprise Thesis argues that this love letter was the lynchpin which set in motion Eliza\u2019s trip to Philadelphia with Henry Knox in June. While no definitive answers can yet be provided, it is useful to deconstruct this letter and connect it with known dates and events.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Hamilton begins the undated love letter by recounting that it had been four days since he last wrote to his angel.[22]<\/a> During those four days he received a letter from Eliza indicating that she was \u201cout of health.\u201d[23]<\/a> Reporting that he \u201ccannot yet determine what will be our stay here,\u201d[24]<\/a> Hamilton professes that \u201cit will be impossible for me to submit to a long separation however inconvenient it may be to incur the expense which will attend her coming here.\u201d<\/p>\n

While Hamilton was unable to determine the length of time that he would be away from home, he makes clear that this would be a \u201clong separation.\u201d Interestingly, Hamilton also indicates that \u201cI stand in need of every consolation you can give\u2026\u201d Why was Hamilton in need of \u201cevery consolation\u201d? Was Hamilton referring to the difficulty he was encountering at the Constitutional Convention?[25]<\/a> Or was Hamilton merely bemoaning their extended separation? Is it possible that he had multiple reasons why he needed \u201cconsolation\u201d?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Professor Syrett and the editors of the Hamilton Papers reason that the undated love letter must have been written between May of 1786 and April of 1788. This conclusion is based on the fact that the letter mentions three Hamilton children, Philip and “the other two.”[26]<\/a> For a variety of other reasons to be discussed in Part III<\/strong> (pending), the undated letter no doubt falls within this 1786 to 1788 window.<\/p>\n

Hamilton was separated from Eliza for three extended periods of time from 1786 to 1788: the Annapolis Convention, the Constitutional Convention and the New York Ratification Convention. While it is possible that the letter was written during the Annapolis Convention, this is exceedingly unlikely based on a letter dated 8 September 1786<\/a><\/strong><\/span> from Alexander to Eliza.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In his September 8th letter written from Annapolis, Alexander expected that the Annapolis Convention would last eight to ten days, not to exceed a fortnight. By contrast, in the undated love letter Alexander was unable to estimate the length of their separation. The Constitutional Convention is thus the likely reason for the \u201clong separation\u201d that Hamilton is referring to in the undated love letter.[27]\u00a0\u00a0<\/a>Part III (pending) <\/strong>will also describe why the undated love letter does not align with the New York Ratification Convention in Poughkeepsie, which began in June of 1788.\u00a0<\/p>\n

It is noteworthy that during the Annapolis Convention Alexander Jr. would only have been four months old. It is doubtful that Alexander would have wanted Eliza to travel with an infant child all the way to Annapolis. By June of 1787 young Alexander would have been over a year old, which arguably would have made it easier for Eliza to travel to Philadelphia. One could ask whether Eliza would have been traveling as the mother of young children. It remains unclear whether she took the growing brood of three children with her to Philadelphia. Or, she may have left them in the care of their grandparents or other relatives. Part II<\/strong><\/a><\/span> will describe that Henry and Lucy Knox left their children in the care of Henry’s brother William.<\/p>\n

Note that Hamilton was not afraid of family travel. Alexander and Eliza regularly traveled to Albany. Moreover, when Hamilton was a member of Congress in 1783 he asked Eliza to join him with Philip in Philadelphia. According to Hamilton\u2019s 8 January 1783<\/strong><\/a> <\/span>letter:<\/p>\n

\u27e8The post my\u27e9 angel has met with some interruption (I suppose by the river being impassable) which deprives me of the pleasure of hearing from you. I am inexpressibly anxious to learn you have began your journey. I write this for fear of the worst, but I should be miserable if I thought it would find you at Albany. If by any misapprehension you should still be there I entreat you lose not a moment in coming to me. I have borne your absence with patience \u2019till abo\u27e8ut\u27e9 a week since, but the period we fixed for our reunion being come I can no longer reconcile my self \u27e8to it.\u27e9 Every hour in the day I feel a severe pang on this account and half my nights are sleepless. Come my charmer and relieve me. Bring my darling boy to my bosom.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Adieu Heaven bless you & speedily restore you to yr. fond husband<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a3100<\/em> payment to Eliza in June<\/em><\/p>\n

Pictured below is a journal entry in Alexander Hamilton\u2019s cash book reflecting a payment of a \u00a3100 to Eliza from her brother-in-law, Stephen Van Rensselaer. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether the payment was made in June of 1786 or 1787. If the payment was made in 1787 this could be the very source of funds used by Eliza to take her trip to Philadelphia. On the other hand, if the payment was made in 1786 it would be irrelevant to the Eliza Philadelphia Surprise Thesis.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It is noteworthy that the \u00a3100 payment was made to Eliza by her brother-in-law, Stephen Van Rensselaer. Stephen was the husband of Eliza\u2019s sister, Margarita \u201cPeggy\u201d Van Rensselaer (n\u00e9e Schuyler). \u00a0If indeed Eliza received the \u00a3100 payment in June of 1787, it makes perfect sense that she might have reached out to her wealthy brother-in-law[29]<\/a> for funds when Alexander was away at the Constitutional Convention.<\/p>\n

One might also reasonably ask whether \u00a3100 was enough for an out-of-state trip to Philadelphia. The quick answer is that \u00a3100 was a substantial sum at the time. In fact, delegates from several states were paid \u00a3100 advances before they left for Philadelphia.[30]<\/a> It is unlikely Eliza would be staying in Philadelphia for long, particularly if she left her children behind. Nonetheless, one can expect that she would have wanted money to go shopping in the nation\u2019s largest city at the time, Philadelphia.<\/p>\n

Healthy skepticism and unanswered questions<\/em><\/p>\n

The significance of Knox\u2019s June 8th<\/sup> letter depends on two key assumptions. First, one can ask whether it is reasonable to assume that the \u201cMrs. Hamilton\u201d referred to by Knox was Eliza Hamilton?[31]<\/a> As is evidenced by a lifetime of correspondence, Alexander Hamilton and Henry Knox worked closely together for decades. The Hamilton Papers contain 44 letters written from Hamilton to Henry Knox and 40 letters written from Knox to Hamilton. Apart from their written correspondence, it is reasonably safe to assume that Henry and Alexander were closely connected both socially and politically during the period preceding the Constitutional Convention when New York served as the federal capital (and Hamilton lived on the same street as Federal Hall). In other words, it is logical that Eliza would have traveled with Henry and Lucy Knox, who were likely family friends of the Hamiltons. Indeed, in a letter to Knox dated 11 July 1787 Rufus King described Hamilton as “our very able and sagacious friend Hamilton.”[32]<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n

The second assumption underpinning this analysis is the expectation that Knox actually traveled to Philadelphia with his wife and Eliza Hamilton. As of the time of publication, it remains to be seen whether the anticipated June trip to Philadelphia actually took place. It is possible, for example, that Eliza or Henry Knox may have taken ill or otherwise been prevented from traveling. Indeed, Knox\u2019s youngest daughter, Caroline, would pass away in August of 1787. It remains unclear, however, when Caroline became ill and whether her illness impacted the planned Philadelphia trip in June.[33]<\/a> These questions will be discussed in Part II<\/strong><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

ENDNOTES<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Richard Beeman, Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution (2009), 64. <\/em>Twelve of the original thirteen states, with the exception of Rhode Island, selected seventy-four delegates to attend the Convention. Christopher Collier & James Lincoln Collier, Decision <\/em>in Philadelphia<\/em> (2007), 103. State delegations in Philadelphia ranged in size from two (New Hampshire) to eight (Pennsylvania). National Park Service, 1787: The Day-to-Day Story of the Constitutional Convention <\/em>(1987), 7-8. While only two of its delegates attended the Convention, four delegates were appointed by the state of New Hampshire. As a result, the state to appoint the fewest delegates was New York. Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787<\/em>, III:557-558.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 John R. Vile, The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of America\u2019s Founding <\/em>(2005), 1;217; David O. Stewart, The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution<\/em> (2007), 44. In some cases the spouse traveled with the delegate to Philadelphia. In other cases the spouse subsequently joined the delegate in Philadelphia during the summer. Vile identifies seven delegates who brought their spouses to Philadelphia: Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (SC), Elbridge Gerry (MA), Rufus King (MA), William Houston (NJ), Edmund Randolph (VA), Pierce Butler (SC) and Alexander Hamilton (NY). Vile further suspects that two other spouses may have traveled to Philadelphia: the wives of Luther Martin (MD) and John Rutledge (SC).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Although Alexander Hamilton was uncharacteristically quiet during much of the Convention, he set the record for the longest speech, which lasted the entire day on June 18. Farrrand, I:282. Connecticut delegate William Samuel Johnson\u2019s diary famously summarized the day\u2019s activity on June 18 with the one-word description \u201cHamiltn.\u201d Farrand III:552.<\/p>\n

In presenting his own plan \u201ctotally\u201d different from the competing Virginia and New Jersey plans, Hamilton offered a third alternative. In so doing, according to Johnson, Hamilton acted with \u201cboldness and decision\u2026.\u201d Farrand, I:363. Nevertheless, Hamilton\u2019s June 18 speech was \u201cpraised by everyone\u201d but \u201csupported by none.\u201d Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 John P. Kaminski, Secrecy and the Constitutional Convention<\/em> (2005). https:\/\/csac.history.wisc.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/281\/2017\/07\/secrecy_essay.pdf<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As set forth below, Hamilton\u2019s cash book evidences a \u00a3100 payment to Eliza from her brother-in-law, Stephen Van Rensselaer. If the payment was made in June of 1787 it is highly relevant. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether the payment to Eliza was made in 1786 or 1787.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Farrand, III:588.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 For example, the first paragraph of the undated love letter refers to a recent letter from Hamilton and a response from Eliza. Neither letter is contained in the Hamilton papers. One can only speculate if these letters were purposely destroyed by Eliza, or might still exist in private collections.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Knox\u2019s June 8 letter to King is not included in the canon of records of the Constitutional Convention compiled by Max Farrand in 1911 or James Hutson\u2019s supplement published in 1987. This omission may partially explain why generations of historians have failed to consider the significance of Knox\u2019s June 8 letter. Moreover, the letter may have sailed under the radar because Knox was neither a delegate to the Constitutional Convention nor a member of Congress.\u00a0 The June 8th letter was published in 1894 by Charles R. King, M.D., Rufus King’s grandson. Charles R. King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King<\/em> (1894), 221-222.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In a letter to Washington dated May 29, Knox indicated that \u201cpublic business\u201d required him to return to Philadelphia \u201cfor a few days.\u201d Farrand, 3:30.\u00a0 According to Knox:<\/p>\n

I hope to be able so to arrange my business as to accompany Miss Knox to Trenton in the course of the next week, and thence to Philadelphia for a few days, at which some public business requires me to be present.\u201d<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 While Knox\u2019s intent to travel to Philly is evidenced in his correspondence in May and June, it remains unclear whether he actually traveled to Philadelphia. Scholars are invited to assist with this investigation.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The minutes of the Society of the Cincinnati indicate that Knox attended the General Session from May 12 to May 17, 1787. Proceedings of the General Society of the Cincinnati<\/em>, ed. John C. David (1925), 1:21-27. Other Convention delegates at the Cincinnati meeting were David Brearley from New Jersey, Thomas Mifflin from Pennsylvania, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney from South Carolina, Nicholas Gilman from New Hampshire, and Alexander Hamilton from New York.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Prior to Washington\u2019s entry into Philadelphia on May 13, he dined with several high-ranking military officers, including Knox, General Mifflin (who was a Pennsylvania delegate to the Convention) and William Jackson (who would be elected as the Convention\u2019s Secretary). At the entrance into the city Washington received a military escort and a thirteen-gun artillery salute. The excitement of Washington\u2019s arrival continued with ringing church bells and cheering crowds. Pennsylvania Gazette<\/em>, 17 May 1787.<\/p>\n

It is also likely that Knox attended a dinner with Washington and other members of the Society of the Cincinnati on May 15. Washington\u2019s May 15 diary entry confirms that he \u201cDined with the Society of the Cincinnati.\u201d https:\/\/founders.archives.gov\/documents\/Washington\/01-05-02-0003-0002<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Virginians and Pennsylvanians made good use of the eleven-day delay between May 14 and May 25. For historian Richard Beeman, this period was \u201cwonderful, serendipitous gift,\u201d nothing less than the \u201cdelay that produced a revolution.\u201d Beeman at 57.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 While Hamilton biographers routinely describe Hamilton\u2019s arrival in Philadelphia on May 18th<\/sup>, the Cincinnati minutes establish that he was in town no later than May 17th<\/sup>. Research by Statutesandstories.com argues that Hamilton was in Philadelphia no later than May 16, as suggested by the Pennsylvania Packet<\/em> on 16 May 1787.<\/p>\n

As will be discussed in a pending book, if indeed Hamilton was in town on May 16 he may have attended an important dinner at Benjamin Franklin\u2019s house with the Virginia and Pennsylvania delegations.\u00a0 https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/hamiltons-arrival-in-philadelphia-new-discoveries\/<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Knox was a \u201ctrusted confidant\u201d of Washington, who would be appointed by Washington to his cabinet in 1789. Beeman at p. 16. In the months leading up to the Convention Washington consulted with Knox, Madison, and John Jay. Their frank correspondence makes clear that all four concurred that the Articles of Confederation were defective for lack of an \u201cenergetic\u201d federal government. Beeman at 31. While there is no record of any correspondence between Washington and Hamilton during this period, there is no doubt that they were kindred spirits with regard to the need for a stronger federal government.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The close relationship between Knox and Washington is evidenced by twenty-two letters written by Knox to Washington in 1787. Washington replied with ten letters to Knox during the year, including letters written during the Convention.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Rufus King to Henry Knox, 3 June 1787, Letters of Delegates to Congress<\/em>, 24:301. Based on King\u2019s June 3 letter, it is possible to infer that King was either notified of the trip while Knox was in Philadelphia in May or was otherwise notified by mail. As the trip from New York to Philadelphia generally took three days, it is foreseeable that Knox wrote to King at the same time that he wrote to Washington, on May 29th<\/sup>. Unfortunately, a copy of such a letter has not been found.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Henry Knox to George Washington, 29 May 1787, Farrand<\/em>, 3:30.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 George Washington to Henry Knox, 31 May 1787, Hutson<\/em> at 38-39.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sotheby\u2019s agrees that the lover letter was written between April 1786 and May 1788. Moreover, unlike the Hamilton Papers, Sotheby\u2019s felt confident opining that the letter may have been written during the Constitutional Convention:<\/p>\n

Given Hamilton\u2019s reference to a potentially long absence from home, it is entirely possible that the letter was written during his attendance at the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Harold C. Syrett, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton<\/em> (Columbia University Press, 1962), 3:673.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Hamilton\u2019s prior letter is missing, as is Eliza\u2019s response.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because these letters are not included in the Hamilton Papers it is unclear when Eliza was sick, when she recovered, and whether this prevented her from traveling to Philadelphia. Hamilton\u2019s love letter nonetheless contemplates a trip by Eliza during their long separation “however inconvenient it may be to incur the expense\u201d which would attend Eliza\u2019s trip.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The use of the phrase \u201cour stay here\u201d suggests that Hamilton is part of a large group.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 One could speculate that one source of frustration for Hamilton was the makeup of the New York delegation at the Convention. As described in a prior post on StatutesandStories.com, Hamilton encountered fierce resistance from his New York colleagues on the internally conflicted New York delegation. https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/new-yorks-plan-to-sabotage-alexander-hamilton-at-the-constitutional-convention\/<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Hamilton, the \u201cmost prominent advocate\u201d for the union, was opposed at every step by the union\u2019s \u201cmost prominent\u201d adversaries, New York delegates Robert Yates and John Lansing. Indeed, Lansing\u2019s delayed arrival in Philadelphia on June 2nd <\/sup>would likely become a growing source of frustration for Hamilton. Farrand, III:588.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The third Hamilton child, Alexander, was born on May 16, 1786. The fourth child, James Alexander, was born on April 14, 1788. Thus, the Hamilton Papers conclude that the letter was dated between May, 1786\u2013April, 1788. As indicated above, the discovery of Knox\u2019s June 8th<\/sup> letter helps further pinpoint the date of Hamilton\u2019s love letter.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Constitutional Convention satisfies both circumstances set forth in the love letter: 1) it was impossible to predict how long it would last; and 2) it would be a long separation. Indeed, the Constitutional Convention lasted four months from May through September of 1787. Over these four months Hamilton took no less than three trips to Philadelphia in May, August and September.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alexander Jr. was born on 16 May 1786. Syrett, 3:673.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Rensselaer family manor, Rensselaerswyck, was located up the Hudson River near Albany. It would be very interesting to determine if Stephen was visiting New York City in May or June of 1787. It would also be interesting to determine whether any clues might be found in his records relating to the \u00a3100 payment to Eliza.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Click here for a discussion of delegate compensation in 1787: https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/delegate-compensation-at-the-constitutional-convention-part-i\/<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 There were other Hamilton families living in Philadelphia in 1787 who were unrelated to Alexander and Eliza Hamilton. For example, Washington\u2019s diary entry for June 1 indicates that he dined with John Penn and spent the evening at a \u201csuperb entertainment at Bush-Hill given by Mr. Hamilton.\u201d The festivities at Bush-Hill were attended by more than 100 guests. https:\/\/founders.archives.gov\/documents\/Washington\/01-05-02-0002-0006<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

William Hamilton inherited Bush-Hill from his uncle, James Hamilton, a famous attorney. William Hamilton was a wealthy Philadelphia philanthropist and patron of the arts. https:\/\/founders.archives.gov\/documents\/Washington\/01-05-02-0002-0005-0023<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

[32]<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Hutson<\/em>, 163.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In a letter to Washington dated 14 August 1787 Knox indicated that his eleven-month-old daughter died on August 11 \u201cof a disease incident to children cutting their teeth in the summer season.\u201d https:\/\/founders.archives.gov\/documents\/Washington\/04-05-02-0269<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Knox\u2019s correspondence with George Washington indicates that his other daughter, Lucy, had been suffering from an eye condition when he was in Philadelphia earlier in the month. In a letter to Washington dated May 29th<\/sup>, Knox indicates that Lucy\u2019s eye had improved. https:\/\/founders.archives.gov\/documents\/Washington\/04-05-02-0185<\/a><\/strong><\/span> Washington replied on May 31 that it gave him great pleasure to learn that Miss Lucy\u2019s eye had improved giving rise to \u201cthe expectation of seeing Mrs. Knox & you at this place.\u201d https:\/\/founders.archives.gov\/documents\/Washington\/04-05-02-0191<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Eliza Hamilton\u2019s Visit to the Constitutional Convention A recently \u201cdiscovered\u201d letter suggests that Elizabeth Hamilton (\u201cEliza\u201d also known as “Betsy”)…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16341"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16341"}],"version-history":[{"count":29,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16341\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18124,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16341\/revisions\/18124"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16341"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16341"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16341"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}