#but because marriage fraud would have reflected a low character and dishonor

[46ten]

Do you think Eliza and Ham had a healthy relationship?

I was just reading Hamilton’s letter to his wife dated 8Sept1786 to add this little note to anecdotes of AH’s forgetfulness/carelessness: “I wrote to you My beloved Betsey at Philadelphia; but through mistake brought off the letter with me; which I did not discover till my arrival here.” 

But it sort of addresses the question, in 18th century companionate marriage terms:

Happy, however I cannot be, absent from you and my darling little ones. I feel that nothing can ever compensate for the loss of the enjoyments I leave at home, or can ever put my heart at tolerable ease. In the bosom of my family alone must my happiness be sought, and in that of my Betsey is every thing that is charming to me. Would to heaven I were there! Does not your heart re-echo the wish? 

In reality my attachments to home disqualify me for either business or pleasure abroad; and the prospect of a detention here for Eight or ten days perhaps a fortnight fills me with an anxiety which will best be conceived by my Betseys own impatience. I am straitened for time & must conclude. I presume this will find you at Albany. Kiss my little ones a thousand times for me. Remember me affectionately to Your Parents, to Peggy, to all. Think of me with as much tenderness as I do of you and we cannot fail to be always happy

Adieu My beloved

A Hamilton

Brief version: my initial reaction is that I don't know how one would go about judging it (by today's standards or the period standards; her "voice" throughout their married years is almost entirely missing, I wrote a post about some of the things we DO know), but let's define "healthy relationship" in the simplest terms:

1) Were they satisfied with each other in the relationship- did whatever they had going on work for them? I think that's a "yes." He seemed satisfied with her: "You are my good genius; of that kind which the ancient Philosophers called a familiar; and you know very well that I am glad to be in every way as familiar as possible with you" (AH to EH, 19Nov1798). And she referred to him as the tenderest, best, virtuous husband, writing stuff about him like this: "I have had a double share of blessings...for such a husband, his spirit is in heaven and his form in the Earth and I am nowhere any part of him is." (EH to Pendleton, 20Sept1804)

2) Does it seem like there was reciprocity? I'd say so - I don't think, from his letters to her, or her letters to others, that he was stepping all over her/taking advantage of her. And he would have been not only a bad husband, but not a gentleman, if he had. 

3) Was part of their dynamic to engage in destructive/harmful actions towards others? Could they have rated their satisfaction highly, while a feature of it was unity in causing harm? Other than that they laughed together at the 'poorly written' letters Eliza's friends sent her, I don't think they were causing MORE harm to others within their relationship than any other wealthy white Anglo-American couple of the time period.

Long version: They lived in a time period at nearly polar opposite of how hetero couples are supposed to publicly relate - if today's image is that long-time hetero couples are supposed to barely tolerate each other, couples of that time period were supposed to affirm this deep romance and adoration. Check out my 18th century marriage tag if want to read more, or this on the qualifications for a wife or another post on the responsibilities of a wife.

As I've stated elsewhere (see links above), a lot of AH's language in his letters to EH is period-typical - he's expressing sentiments (and in similar language) that a lot of men expressed to their wives. Being an excellent husband was also a crucial part of being considered a good man, so to the extent that AH felt his honor and character were important - and he most certainly did - he also wanted to be a devoted husband to a happy and satisfied wife who delivered tender proofs of their affection - their children. (They were serious about satisfying their wives - there were pamphlets! -  in all the ways one can imagine - a satisfied, happy wife was proof of one’s own masculinity.) To summarize, I don’t necessarily think that just because he wrote to her in a lovey-dovey way that they had a good relationship, but I think we have enough other evidence that whatever they had worked for them, their children, and the functioning of their household and secured them a reputable place in society.

EH played the role of caretaker/helpmate to his genius, providing him not only with the stable home-life he seemed to want - and need - but also supported him through her role in the Republican Court and the social life of Philadelphia and NY. What becomes more interesting is that she also provided him feedback on his writing/speeches, may have transcribed for him (perhaps when he got tired of writing), and copied some of his letters/essays for him. So "Hamilton's genius" was very much a joint venture for both of them, as was their home-life and children, and everything else. In other words, theirs was definitely a partnership. Folks also noted that he was a different person/personality (kinder, gentler, tender, playful) at home, perhaps reflective of the kind of environment EH nurtured. 

I have also thought that perhaps he was borderline emotionally dependent on her. There's something about her appearance in his life in winter 1780, when he seems to nearly have his head underwater, where he sort of grasps on to her as some type of salvation (and will cling on for nearly the next quarter of a century). Check out all the times he refers to her as "Angel," a bit unusual for this time period. And he was at times - it's reported by others - anxious when he's apart from her (she's anxious apart from him, too).

The other thing - a bit unusual - is that EH likely had a lot of power in that relationship - he was marrying up, not the other way around, and her family could have crushed him. I wrote this before, but she’s more connected to power than he is. I think that’s something he treasured - being accepted and ensconced in this powerful family. I think he got a thrill over his successful marriage to this Schuyler-van Rensselaer-Livingston scion - again, it demonstrated what a gentleman he was.  

Nearly a century later but dealing with some of the same families in NY society, Edith Wharton provides examples of all the subtle ways women wielded power with their husbands, and I think the well-bred and educated Elizabeth Schuyler would have been excellent at that. And we can see from letters how much he left up to her to negotiate and solve all sorts of things.

A few other things that I find striking about their relationship, in the positive:

Other than her laziness in writing to him (and evidence she did write him), they likely were good communicators. I base that on their clear family planning - their children are very well spaced out, and I doubt they practiced abstinence, which means they were likely practitioners of the most common contraceptive activity between married couples at the time, requiring not only discipline but communication. Even deciding to engage in family planning reflects communication of shared goals and plans, etc. 

Although he always intended to leave the cabinet position after his goals were accomplished, and wrote GW of his intentions in spring 1793, I think the timing of sending his resignation letter after their child was stillborn in his absence is a good indication that he did prioritize her needs (and felt guilt about it, as he expressed to Angelica S. Church). And then when he leaves, he hunkers down with her and their children for a few months.

Striking things, in the negative:

He either had a lot of influence over her, or she trusted his judgment a lot - though the flip side is that he had established that she could trust his judgment; I don’t see indications that she was naturally gullible. He's very confident (twice!) about arranging a duel and not telling her. The 1795 letter where he notes that he could handle his own family situation without causing distress is interesting. 

Of course, there’s the matter of the affair with Maria Reynolds, but I’ve written about that a lot, and that he chose not to just lie to her, but instead pay James Reynolds quite a lot of money, with “I’ll tell Mrs. Hamilton” as the only threat. That’s either very rash or shows he was honestly concerned about how upsetting it might be to her. There has to be some truth to his phrasing at several different points in their lives of not wanting to “hazard [her] esteem” for him or make himself unworthy of her esteem/her love. It is an “inestimable jewel” to him, and he also calls her “a precious jewel.” One can add all of the weight of everything above into one’s reading of that.