#burr/everyone

[rosetta-draws]

♪ MAN, THE MAN IS NONSTOP! ♪

[x-fag]

got way too carried away on this one. sorry if its bad i was under The Influence

even the reynolds got something to say

part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 8

[ourtalechara]

I did not know how much I needed this in my life.

I mean, I didn't know how much I needed all of the gifs taken from The Reynolds Pamphlet. I cannot get enough of the look of regret and despair on Lin-Manuel Miranda's face as he stands in the middle of his political career's farewell party. But I expect to see that. What I did NOT expect to see was his son crawl under Thomas Jefferson's legs, pop up like a gopher , and begin to examine the pamphlet as if it's a letter from a lover off at war who you haven't heard from in months.

[icarusbetide]

my favorite thing in the world is reasonable delusion? or honest delusion, i suppose?

one of my acquaintances is a history professor. a few weeks ago i asked him about hamburr, and this man looked me straight in the eye and said "aaron burr and alexander hamilton were products of their time. they both went into the duel not knowing what to expect, and burr especially did not anticipate the aftermath of that outcome." only to immediately follow it up with "but FAWK aaron burr, he's a little shit and he burns in hell for all i care."

i spent ten minutes trying to wheedle out the logic behind this and he goes "of course, burr did not deserve all the vitriol he received. but he also 100% deserved it, because he's aaron burr."

this is the person historians should strive to be. don't try to make yourself sound convincing if you know what you're saying isn't convincing. don't manipulate quotes or context to justify your misleading claims. just lay out all the evidence, acknowledge the reasonable take, and only after you have done your ethical duty, express your true feelings happily and proudly. no one can blame you then.

[ovrarches]

i'd like one order of that good hamburr juice please. i need them soft not toasted.

I give you soft Alex and Aaron being a lil flustered about it 😳🙈🥰

[spaghettiosnumber1rated1997]

more headcanons

I tried to make the hc thing more visible

[hoofpeet]

Muzzle tactic. is not working well so far but it will eventually; I'm going to choke this thing out and make it shut up

[valend]

how it feels to start posting about toxic old man yaoi again

[rain-on-wax-feathers]

reincarnation au doodles

(bases under cut)

[gumy-shark]

oh yeah btw hey guys im back from hamilton i had fun at the hamilton

[inamindfarfaraway]

"The Schuyler Sisters" rewritten to be about DuckTales 2017's Duck triplets.

[moose-driving]

Take some magma doodles of the hamilton fuckers! I like drawing them w/ the few wrinkles I can give them in my style. Drawing wrinkled old man is very fun out of my style though,

[swirlzberry]

I cant wait for the day when people talk about historical figures without mentioning another person who has more popularity than them.

[ourtalechara]

So I was thinking the other day. Hamilton is a popular musical, right? Like, ask anyone to list "popular" musicals, or ask someone who's not into theater to list some musicals, and Hamilton will honestly probably be the first or second one on there. Heck, just list popular stuff. It'll probably come up somewhere.

But like. The general population isn't into Hamilton. It seems like, to most people, it's popular in the sense that a lot of other people are really into it. And the general consensus is that it's, like, good. It got 16 Tony nominations, it's gotta be at least alright.

But like. Really, I'm curious. What does the general population know about Hamilton? From what I can tell, the only parts that people know are the first:

-9 words of the show

-4 lines of My Shot

-of King George III's songs

And that's about it. Like maybe a little more but. Like seriously. As someone who's into Hamilton I want to know what people who aren't into Hamilton think of it. Do they. Do they know who John Laurens is. I've never heard someone who's not extremely interested in Hamilton ever mention the show's John Laurens. Do they. Do they know that he exists? I asked my dad, who has seen the first act of Hamilton. And he doesn't remember Laurens. He remembers Mulligan and Lafayette, but. I. I could not get him to remember John Laurens. Is he like. Some sort of. Like, idk, a cryptid of some sort?? Is he only visible to those of us who actually got into Hamilton? Is there a perception filter on him otherwise? Does he not exist until you start being emotionally invested in Alexander Hamilton's interpersonal relationships? Is he. Is he really just that forgettable.

I don't. I just don't know. And I'm being consumed by this desire to know what people think. It feels so weird to me to not have Hamilton ruling your life, so the fact that people can just. Know what Hamilton is. But not know about like. Most of the stuff? That happens?? I just. Someone help me please.

[icarusbetide]

#save elizabeth schuyler hamilton from male biographers 2024

Just got pissed off so bad. I'm in the middle of reading Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson: A Study in Character, which presents an intriguing argument that Burr deserves to be put back into the Founding Father Pantheon, so to speak. The author doesn't shy away from hitting hard against the idea that Jeff & Ham were morally superior to Burr, and I was on board! Ready to go!

But then. During the discussion of the women in each of their lives, the author decides the best way to further promote Burr's attitude towards women compared to Jefferson and Hamilton is to disparage Martha Jefferson & Elizabeth Hamilton?

On Martha Jefferson:

Martha Wayles Skelton had been a widow, and none of Jefferson's biographers, even the resourceful Fawn Brodie, has been able to tell us much about her—from the solitary letter remaining to us in her hand or the accounts of their contemporaries—beyond the general impression that she was handsome, musical, and frail.

On Elizabeth Hamilton:

Hamilton's Elizabeth was an heiress, the daughter of an upstate squire, Philip Schuyler, with Livingston and van Rensselaer connections. She was plain, straightforward, loyal, and neurasthenic, endured his flagrant and frequent infidelities, and lived to the brink of the Civil War.

I'm sorry, I don't know enough about Martha J. to protest to her characterization, but I think I can say something about Eliza. Plain? Neurasthenic? And once again, annoyed at the lack of citation or evidence for flagrant and frequent infidelities - but putting that aside, even if it were true, I don't like how her staying in her marriage is subtly implied to be some failure or at least less interesting than a woman who didn't "endure" them. There's a lack of consideration of both her own strength & the societal circumstances of that time that would have influenced her actions.

On Theodosia:

Her character emerges from their large and fervent correspondence. She was confident, well connected, well read, beautiful even after a burn scarred her face, witty, worldly, and full of expectations of him.

Okay. The author saw the point and it sailed over his head. "From their large and fervent correspondence" is key here. Like I said earlier, I don't know enough about Martha Jefferson, but I bet that "handsome, musical, frail" is probably not an all-encompassing picture of her. The similarity between her and Eliza? We don't have the letters that they wrote to their husbands. It's unfair to judge Theodosia (don't get me wrong! she was well read and intelligent, that's not what i'm denying) from her correspondence with Burr, but then not acknowledge that the lack of that perspective would impact how we view the other two women.

And to top it all off:

Unlike Jefferson's and Hamilton's, Burr's character was molded by the love of a woman of immense force and intelligence.

Neither Hamilton nor Jefferson married a woman who evidenced such force of character and independence of view.

Jesus Christ. There's plenty to criticize about Jefferson & Hamilton, and I really wanted to see a well-reasoned argument about Burr's character and whatnot but this lacks nuance and is unnecessarily dismissive. It pisses me off that a book that seems determined to break down the idolized version of Hamilton, somehow ends up using his wife to further their angle, just like biased Hamiltonian biographies. In both cases, Eliza is the plain, unintelligent, steadfast wife. For sympathetic authors like Chernow, that's somehow justification for the Reynolds affair. For Roger G. Kennedy, that's used in an argument against her husband. "Let's talk attitude towards women! Hamilton & Jefferson didn't have intellectual wives! Point for Burr!"

I don't know nearly enough about Martha Jefferson to say anything of merit, but really?

To give credit where credit is due, I think Kennedy is trying to make the point here that Theodosia Bartow Burr was a major influence on Burr, as "Burr's character blossomed in the radiance of his wife and mentor". He also goes on to talk about various genuine reasons why Burr's attitude towards women is noteworthy. But I still don't like the way he dismissed the other two women as what? Not smart enough to help their husbands' characters blossom? Maybe there's merit to this book outside of this one section, The Women, but right now I'm not in the mood. Am I being dramatic? Idk.

[frommybookbook]

I am going to watch this over and over and over on bad days from now on.