A new study by Jessie Serfilippi, a historical interpreter at the Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site in Albany, New York, details Alexander Hamilton’s “Hidden History as an Enslaver.”
Philip Schuyler was the father of Eliza Hamilton, Hamilton’s wife, and one of the largest slaveholders in New York State when the new nation was founded.
In her report, Serfilippi disputes the version of Hamilton as an opponent of slavery presented in the Broadway musical, which was based on a biography of Hamilton by Ron Chernow.
Serfilippi argues that Hamilton took different positions on slavery based on political expediency, had no moral opposition to the practice, in his work acted as a slave trader, and used enslaved Africans he and his wife owned or rented as household servants. Serfilippi’s report is based on careful study or letters, datebooks, and ledgers deposited at the Schuyler Mansion and digitized by the Library of Congress.
Hamilton, along with John Jay and Aaron Burr, was a founder of the New York Manumission Society in 1785. The society supported gradual manumission rather than immediate emancipation of enslaved Africans in New York State. Gradual manumission, which became law in 1799, meant that enslaved Africans would continue to work for slave owners until 1827, essentially working off their value before being freed.
In 1781, after Hamilton’s marriage to Elizabeth Schuyler, a letter shows he was involved in the purchase of an enslaved woman, probably as a household servant for his wife. Hamilton recorded the purchase of another enslaved woman and her child in 1796. The Hamiltons also occasionally hired, from their owners, enslaved servants.
In 1784, a year before he helped establish the New York Manumission Society, Hamilton brokered the purchase of an enslaved teenage girl named Peggy for Malachi Treat, the Surgeon General for the American forces during the Revolutionary War. Hamilton made the actual purchase and then resold her to Treat. According to Serfilippi’s research, Hamilton repeatedly acted as a middleman for the purchase of enslaved Africans by his brother-in-law John Barker Church and Angelica Schuyler Church, his wife’s sister.
In addition to serving as a middleman for family members who purchased enslaved Africans, Hamilton provided legal advice to prominent clients, including Lewis Ogden and Jean Juhel on slave purchases in a period when New York was implementing gradual manumission and the United States was preparing to outlaw the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and represented other clients accused of being involved in the slave trade.
Serfilippi concludes “We may never know what became of the people the Hamiltons enslaved, but we know they existed. Alexander Hamilton’s cash books offer a history of his connections to and relationship with the institution of slavery. He was trusted by legal clients to know the ins and outs of the slave trade for certain cases. He was selected by friends and family to act as a financier and to purchase enslaved people for them. He purchased multiple enslaved people for his own family and did not leave instructions for them to be freed upon his death.” She recommends that “In light of these primary sources, the majority of which are in Hamilton’s own hand, it is vital that the myth of Hamilton as the “Abolitionist Founding Father” end.”
You can read Serfilippi’s study here.
Illustrations, from above: Watercolor drawing of the Schuyler Mansion made by Philip Hooker in 1818; Hamilton statue in New York’s Central park; and Hamilton grave at Trinity Church in Manhattan.
Wow!
That’s earth-shattering, or at least Broadway-shattering, research!
Alan, you had mentioned this in class when the play came out. Kids, young adults, and probably more than a few older ones as well will remember the play and regard it as a documentary rather than informed entertainment. I agree that history should be a “warts and all” approach, especially in educating our nation’s youth, to avoid deifying flawed people (they’re human too!). I think at the same time it is important to remember context, that these were people of their time, and beware the dangers of presentism and “cancel culture” where anyone that ever did anything wrong according to popular and modern culture should be shunned and their achievements forgotten. By the way, I loved the show, but also at the same time tell anyone who cares what you have said here as well.
It’s not presentism if people oppose your policies on moral grounds in your lifetime. It’s just immorality you got away with.
By your standard, we shouldn’t point out that Nazis hating Jews was terrible, because everyone was doing it.
Test your opinions by comparing them across other examples, in which you are the victim. If there was a movement that said we should enslave all people named Thacker and your family was destroyed and sold into slavery would you want us to remember who did that? If everyone who wasn’t named Thacker thought it was perfectly fine, should we just pretend it didn’t happen. Should we write books and produce a play about what a great person your enslavers were? Should we argue in internet forums that we should just leave the people who enslaved the Thackers alone?
Perhaps consider for a moment the people who opposed slavery – like the slaves themselves – looking down on you now, arguing that we shouldn’t talk about slavery. How many people by your standard have to oppose something before it’s no longer “presentism” in your mind? How many opposed slavery in Hamilton’s time?
Let’s try your presentism claim in other contexts – how does it work for Apartheid? The Civil Rights movement? Current child slavery in Africa? Sex trafficking?
Why you think it’s appropriate that of all the arguments you could make here – you decided it was ok to defend a slaver?
Why do you think this essay is in any way connected to making it so “anyone that ever did anything wrong according to popular and modern culture should be shunned and their achievements forgotten.”
Excellent article, Alan – Thank you! I loved the show Hamilton as a musical and as a conduit for further research. After watching Hamilton, I did a ‘deep dive’ into the other characters – John Laurens, Hercules Mulligan, the Schuyler family, and General Marquis De Lafayette. It was very enlightening; it also gave me further insight into my African American walking tours.
I’m no scholar or educator, but I’m sure the profession appreciated the play because it provides a memorable starting point on that subject matter. Albeit, it’s “informed education,” it piques curiosity that could lead to an accurate view of history.
The play also gives way to a healthy and needed dialogue. For example, the discussion on this tread is impressive and much appreciated. I think being aware of both sides of an issue is a start to combating the erroneous perspectives taught in history and our homes.
I disagree with the “founding fathers” views and actions towards enslaved Africans, but I understand them. That in no way excuses them, but I understand their fears, insecurities, privilege, and ignorance.
Thank you for getting the truth out about Alexander Hamiltin, Dr. Singer. I knew some of Hamilton’s history & was surprised when the play received so much notoriety with Hamilton being portrayed as an abolitionist. Thanks for supplying the evidence.