#johan lavien

[aswithasunbeam]

Some photos from my incredible trip to St. Croix, where Alexander Hamilton grew up!

The first four photos are of the Fort where Rachel Hamilton was held during her incarceration for refusing to live with her first husband, Johan Lavien. The barred window is in what is believed to be the cell where she was held.

The photo with the steps is the front of the house where Edward Stevens lived - he was one of Hamilton's closest, life-long friends.

Rachel's storefront and house on Company Street no longer stand, but the gated property is where the house would have been.

Most interestingly, from getting to talk with locals in St. Croix, I learned Rachel's store and home where Hamilton lived were on the edge of an area of Christiansted known as the "free gut." This area is where the free Black population of St. Croix lived. Also of interest, nearly directly across the street was where the enslaved and plantation laborers held their Sunday Market (a plaque commemorating the space is on the central well pictured above).

There's an interesting article about freed Black population on St. Croix in the 1700s and 1800s, if anyone is interested:

The last two photos are of the plaque on the building where Hamilton clerked (it's now a government office) and then just a shot to show how absolutely gorgeous the island is.

Hope everyone celebrating has a safe and happy Independence Day! 🎆

[yr-obedt-cicero]

Was it true that Hamilton's mother was a whore?

If yes, how did he feel about it? Did his political enemies use it against him?

If not, who started the rumor?

Thank you and have a nice day!

The only informational and reliable source material I can find in regards to Rachel are; Ron Chernow's biography, and Micheal E. Newton's blog. If by whore, you mean she didn't let herself get restrained by bitch ass men; then yeah. The truthful rumors originated from Rachel's first husband, Johann Lavien. 

Lavien peddled household goods and was a slave holder. He owned at least sixteen slaves, including five to seven children. He was possibly a Jewish man, but if he was; he hid it greatly. The Carribean region was treated as a sideline international trade center, especially for the British and Americans. Lavien attempted to utilize the system to make himself wealthy, and spent all his fortune on a plantation and pompous attire.

According to Hamilton; despite Rachel's disinterest in Lavien, her mother, Mary Uppington Faucette, encouraged Lavien to marry her. Because she was captivated by his expensive clothes and rich appeal, and had to push Rachel into reluctantly agreeing to what became a hated marriage. And in 1745, they married — Rachel was sixteen at the time. The couple moved to a plantation called Contentment. The coming year, in 1746; they had their son, Peter Lavien. Although it appears the marriage quickly became an unhappy one. Hamilton claims that Lavien only married Rachel for the wealth that she inherited from her late father;

“A Dane a fortune-hunter of the name of Lavine came to Nevis bedizzened with gold, and paid his addresses to my mother then a handsome young woman having a snug fortune.”

(source — Alexander Hamilton to William Jackson, [August 26, 1800])

Likely due to the disheartening conditions of their marriage, Rachael soughted out a romantic relationship with a man named Johan Jacob Cronenberg. According to Newton's records findings;

“Johan Michael Lawin [...] had been obliged to experience that his wedded wife, Rachel, who for a long time had absented herself from him, was residing with a bachelor Johan Cronenberg.”

“Johan Michael Lawin, whose wedded wife the aforesaid Cronenberg accuses of having resided with him for a long time in fornication.”

(source — Discovering Hamilton)

Apparently Lavien heard somehow of Rachel's residing with Cronenberg, and “found” her in Cronenberg's “lodging, well hidden behind locked doors, wherefrom her husband fetched her and drove her home.” Due to this being an act of infidelity since Rachel and Lavien were not divorced; Cronenberg was “not only…seriously warned to keep away from this woman of loose morals but also punished with some days’ incarceration.” Despite this, Rachel soon returned to live with Cronenberg. And Cronenberg “again had sexual relations with this woman and without feeling shame publicly kept her with him in his house and lived there with her.”

October 8, 1749, John Lavien; “requested the court’s assistance to repair with him to Cronenberg’s plantation house to seize and arrest Cronenberg and Rachel for further legal prosecution.” Which did eventually lead to the arrest of Rachel and Cronenberg;

“‘This the agent of the court complied with, and at night at about 12 o’clock had come to said plantation and […] the 2 accused persons were found in the bedroom taking their usual night’s rest.’

‘The agents of the court […] seized them both in their bedroom, undressed and with more debauched circumstances that sufficiently demonstrated their shameless intercourse and scandalous life’ and ‘declared them both to be under arrest and had them brought…to Fort Christiansvaern’ to be imprisoned.”

(source — Discovering Hamilton)

By the 10th, or 20th, the court case of Cronenberg and Rachel was brought before the municipal court. And both Rachael and Cronenberg were charged and found guilty, they were sentenced to be imprisoned at Fort Christiansvaern.

US National Park Service marker for the Christiansted National Historic Site

“Rachel spent several months in a dark, cramped cell that measured ten by thirteen feet, and she must have gone through infernal torments of fear and loneliness. Through a small, deeply inset window, she could stare across sharpened spikes that encircled the outer wall and gaze at the blue-green water that sparkled in the fierce tropical sunlight. She could also eavesdrop on the busy wharf, stacked with hogsheads of sugar [...] All the while, she had to choke down a nauseating diet of salted herring, codfish, and boiled yellow cornmeal mush.”

(source — Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow)

Nearly eight months after having his wife and her paramour imprisoned; Lavien requested to the municipal court to free Rachel, and expressed his belief that she had been sufficiently punished. On the 4th of May, 1750, the court agreed and decided that Rachel, “in consideration of her long incarceration,” was to be released so that she “might again betake herself to her husband and with him lead a better life.”

But instead of submitting to the disgusting patriarchal system, and her cruel husband; Rachel left in 1750, after five years of unhappy marriage. She moved to St. Kitts early of that year, where she met James Hamilton (There are a few theories they had met previously, but there are no official records to support such). They had both been struggling with the taints involving their names, and had likely been drawn together. Hamilton claims his parents married, but in any legal sense they had not;

“My mother afterwards went to St. Kitts, became acquainted with my father and a marriage between them ensued, followed by many years cohabitation and several children.” 

(source — Alexander Hamilton to William Jackson, [August 26, 1800])

In 1753, they had James Hamilton Jr., and on January 11, 1757 (Or 1755), they had Alexander Hamilton. Some sources claim (Including Hamilton himself) they had more children, but if they did; they are unknown, and there are no surviving records to prove such. Rachel inherited a property in the capital Charlestown, also three enslaved servants from her mother — who were; Rebecca, Flora, and Esther, one of them had a son named Ajax, and he was assigned to care for James Jr and Hamilton.

Fast forward to 1759 - nine years after Rachel fled - Lavien has found himself in a lot of debt. He had to sell most of his plantation, and rent out his few slaves to make enough. A dutiful woman was living with, and cleaning for Lavien. It is likely that he wished to marry her, which lead to him wishing to obtain a divorce summons on February 26, 1759.

Lavien claimed Rachel had;

“absented herself from [Lavien] for nine years and gone elsewhere, where she has begotten several illegitimate children, so that such action is believed to be more sufficient for him to obtain a divorce from her.”

(source — Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow)

Lavien also said he “had taken care of Rachel's legitimate child [Peter Lavien] from what little he has been able to earn,” while she had, “completely forgotten her duty and let husband and child alone and instead given herself up to whoring with everyone, which things the plantiff are so well known that her own family and friends must hate her for it.”

Even after this merciless allegation, Lavien demanded that Rachel be denied all legal rights to his property. He warned that if he died before her, Rachel, “as a widow would possibly seek to take possession of the estate and there- fore not only acquire what she ought not to have but also take this away from his child and give it to her whore-children.”

Mistakenly, Rachel didn't even try to refute the allegations, or show up to court; which meant on the 25th of June, Lavien recieved a divorce that permitted him to remarry — but on the other hand, Rachel couldn't. To make matters worse, in April 1765; James Sr. got a business assignment located in Christiansted. And brought his family with him to St. Croix, although Lavien was far from there he was still on the island. Even more unfortunately, Rachel was no longer allowed the liberty of calling herself “Mrs. Hamilton”, due to how close the Fort - that she was once imprisoned at - was in the area, Rachel would have had to renter her infamous identity as a notorious woman of misdeeds. As records from this time only title her as correct, or mispronunciated, forms of “Faucette” and “Lavien”.

James would then also adruptly leave and abandon his family, after a victory with the Moir case. His motives or intentions are unknown. Hamilton generously claims his father could no longer support his family, and others claim Rachel's smeared name was likely rubbing off on his own.

-

Anyway, that's the tale of Rachel's many marriages and love lives; I think it unfair judgement to call her such derogatory names when considering everything she was dealing with, and additionally from such a young age. It is clear she committed infidelity while married, and they are not only rumors — but I don't think it's a fair assessment to fault her for such, when she was trapped in an unhappy marriage.

As for people using it against Hamilton; they did. As mentioned previously, Lavien called James Jr and Hamilton “whore-children”, and according to Chernow; journalist nemeses called Hamilton “the son of a camp girl”.

Hope this helped!

[46ten]

Rachel Faucette and James Hamilton

"A Dane a fortune-hunter of the name of Lavine came to Nevis bedizzened with gold, and paid his addresses to my mother then a handsome young woman having a snug fortune. In compliance with the wishes of her mother who was captivated by the glitter of the [unknown] but against her own inclination she married Lavine. The marriage was unhappy and ended in a separation by divorce. My mother afterwards went to St Kitts, became acquainted with my father and a marriage between them ensued, followed by many years cohabitation and several children.

"But unluckily it turned out that the divorce was not absolute but qualified, and thence the second marriage was not lawful. Hence when my mother died the small property which she left went to my half brother Mr Lavine who lived in South Carolina and was for a time partner with Mr Kane. He is now dead." AH to McHenry 27Aug1800

These are the only surviving lines (yet found) where AH describes his mother, Rachel (or Rachael) Faucette (or Fawcett, Faucet) Lavine (or Lavien, Lewine, there are many ways this name is spelled in historic documents from the West Indies. So much for careful record-keeping.)  [There’s only one document in which her name is given as “Rachel;” otherwise she’s always “Rachael.” To be consistent with the spelling of her name with almost every biography of AH, I just use Rachel here.]*

JCH provides a longer description, stating that "traces of her character remained vividly impressed on [Alexander's] memory. He recollected her with great fondness and often spoke of her as a woman of superior intellect, highly cultivated, of generous sentiments, and of unusual elegance of person and manner."

Born sometime between 1725 and 1729 on Nevis, Rachel inherited her father (John Faucette’s) fortune in 1745. After having married that same year, by early 1750, Rachel Lavien left her husband, John, and child, Peter (likely born 1746), moving with her mother in the fall of 1750 to St. Kitts. The events prior to her move that biographers like to dwell on: the accusations of 'improper' behavior, her imprisonment in the Christiansted jail, are not recorded in any document from the 1749-1750 period (or the document has yet to be found). Rather, these events are described in a divorce petition filed by John Lavien in 1759 that Rachel does not respond to.  The court documents describing Rachel Lavien’s affair with Johan Jacob Cronenberg, a cartographer with the Danish West India Company, have been discovered by Michael E. Newton, though it’s still important to note that prior to this discovery in 2018, all biographies are basing their discussions of Rachel Lavien’s behavior on the 1759 documents. 

We know that at some point on St. Kitts, Rachel met James Hamilton. Traveling back and forth between St. Kitts and Nevis, they had at least two children (birthdates anywhere from 1753 to 1757). She and her mother also separated, as they are living apart by 1756.

Did AH not know that his mother had not obtained a divorce prior to cohabitation with James? Is he lying to make his birth appear better? Is there a document that we are missing from the mess of Danish records in the West Indies that might attest to Rachel attempting a divorce, regardless of cost? All seem plausible. 

However, Rachel Faucette is listed in all legal documents (taxes, census) either under that name or her married name. She appears as "Rachel Hamilton" in only one document - a baptismal record of October 1, 1758 at St. Eustatius, where she and James served as godparents and are noted as "James Hamilton and Rachel Hamilton his wife."

In February 1759, John Lavien petitioned to be granted a divorce from Rachel.  (Based on other records, it looks like he had also been living with another woman for some time and had fathered a daughter with her; he would marry the woman.) This is where all the allegations of Rachel's misconduct come from. According to the summons, addressed to "You, Rachael Lavien", Rachel had at a prior date refused to live with him any longer as husband and wife, and so John took advantage of a Danish law to have her imprisoned, hoping that "everything would change for the better and that she, as a wedded wife, [would] change her unholy way of life and as is meet and proper live with him.” Surprise, she instead fled with her mother. 

The divorce summons continues: "Instead, now for nine years [Rachel] has been absent from him and gone to another place, where she is said to have begotten several illegitimate children, so that this is thought to be more than enough to obtain a divorce.” Lavien "who has in this manner been insulted" took care of Peter "from what little he was able to earn, whereas she has shown herself to be shameless, rude and ungodly...and instead given herself up to whoring with everyone." Her deeds were "so well known that her own family and friends must hate her for it." If Lavien died before her, she could claim her share of property, and "therefore not only acquire what she ought not to have, but also take this away from [Peter] and give it to her whorechildren what to such a legitimate child alone is due." If found in St. Croix, she is to surrender herself to be further punished. The summons for her to appear was proclaimed at the jail and the plantation of the town captain, supposedly her last known residences in St. Croix, along with “for all the here mentioned persons.” The names of corroborating witnesses to Rachel's adultery were presented, but the witnesses were never examined in court proceedings.

The divorce granted in June 1759 noted her failure to appear. "Not only has the plaintiff legally proved that Rachael Lawin has been absent from him and lived on an English island for seven or eight years, but also that she during that time has begotten two illegitimate children. ..Rachael Lewin shall have no rights whatsoever as wife to either John Michael Lewin’s person or means which now owns or will come to own. Also, Rachael Lewin’s illegitimate children are forfeited all rights or pretentions to the plaintiff’s possessions and means.” She was refused her the right to re-marry. **

Considering the ages of James Jr and Alexander, these would be the only two children Rachel and James had at the time. Alexander notes "several children," and if Rachel and James had other children, they must have died in infancy or early childhood.

In spring 1765, the Hamiltons traveled from St. Kitts to St. Croix, James Hamilton having been sent by his employer to collect a debt. The judgment is handed down in January 1766; James can still be placed in St. Croix on June 19, 1766. At some point, he leaves. James Hamilton appears on no property ownership or tax registers in St. Croix, while Rachel appears as Rachael Faucette, Rachael Fatzieth (1765-67) and then as Rachel Lewine and Rachael Lewin, along with her children.  After leaving, James returned to Nevis for a while, is in Bequia, Grenadines, in 1774, eventually making his way to St. Vincent, where AH states that he lived in indigence. (There's no certainty that the "James Hamilton" injured in the 1771 slave uprising in Tobago is our James Hamilton). According to his 1793 letter to AH, James had resolved his debts and was ready to move to Philadelphia to live with his son - war, and then concerns about ill-health in a different climate, made him decide against it.

Rachel supported her family by running a small store selling plantation supplies; she sold food including pork, beef, salted fish, rice, flour, and apples, bought wholesale from her landlord, Thomas Dipnall, and from the import-export firm of David Beekman and Nicholas Cruger. Alexander may have begun working for them in some capacity as early as 1766. Rachel dies in February 1768.

And that concludes (besides the probate record, burial record and a few additional items about property) everything we can firmly state about Rachel Faucette’s adult life. The only place where she is alleged to have a reputation for ‘whoring’ is in the divorce summons and decree against her, which she never responds to. There’s never corroboration of who she committed adultery with (besides, obviously, James Hamilton). It has been confirmed by Newton (in 2018) that in 1749 Rachel Faucette Lavien was accused and found guilty of an affair with Johan Jacob Cronenberg, with whom she was living. Though there is still no evidence of anything sleazy with her landlord, or Beekman, or Cruger, or Thomas Stevens (who lived in St. Croix and Antigua while she lived in St. Kitts and Nevis), or (haha!) George Washington. 

If we had any letters from AH to Ann Mitchell, we might have more of AH's thoughts on his mother. But that correspondence, including his final letter to her in 1804, has been lost. See the one surviving letter from her to him, with some additional bio details. We don’t know how frequently AH spoke of his mother - JCH provides the only account (I do not trust Allan McLane Hamilton). 

Flexner, Brooke, Rogow, and Chernow all allege that AH buried deep hostility towards his mother, and found her actions embarrassing and pitiable. (Cue numerous paragraphs about how Rachel and Maria Reynolds are the same person in AH's psyche.)

Both Flexner and Chernow see this hostility in his failure to name either of his daughters "Rachel." But AH and EH seemed to be following a pattern in their naming, and happened to have several more sons (6) than daughters (2).

Rogow offers yet another piece of evidence of AH’s supposed hostility: In a bill before New York’s Council of Revision in spring 1787, AH voted to disregard the Council’s objection that a person guilty of adultery in divorce be allowed to marry again. I think it says more about AH’s ideas of marriage and social order. 

____________________________________________________

We have more letters where AH discusses his father; that of course is part of the nature of the correspondence - his father was still living for most of AH’s life, and his father's relatives contact him.      

“I wrote you, my dear, in one of my letters that I had written to our father, but had not heard of him since, that the operations in the islands hitherto cannot affect him, that I had pressed him to come to America after the peace. A gentleman going to the island where he is, will in a few days afford me a safe opportunity to write again. I shall again present him with his black-eyed daughter, and tell him how much her attention deserves his affection and will make the blessing of his gray hairs.” AH to ES, 1780

“But what has become of our dear father? It is an age since I have heard from him or of him, though I have written him several letters. Perhaps, alas! he is no more, and I shall not have the pleasing opportunity of contributing to render the close of his life more happy than the progress of it. My heart bleeds at the recollection of his misfortunes and embarrassments. Sometimes I flatter myself his brothers have extended their support to him, and that he now enjoys tranquillity and ease. At other times I fear he is suffering in indigence. I entreat you, if you can, to relieve me from my doubts, and let me know how or where he is, if alive, if dead, how and where he died. Should he be alive inform him of my inquiries, beg him to write to me, and tell him how ready I shall be to devote myself and all I have to his accommodation and happiness.” AH to James Hamilton, Jr 22Jun1785

“[my] father, who, from a series of misfortunes, was reduced to great distress. You will perceive from this, that I must be anxious for the safe conveyance of this letter.” AH to William Seton 17Aug 1792.

“I hesitated whether I would not also secure a preference to the drafts of my father—but these as far as I am concerned being a merely voluntary engagement, I doubted the justice of the measure and I have done nothing. I regret it lest they should return upon him and increase his distress. Though as I am informed a man of respectable connections in Scotland he became bankrupt as a Merchant at an early day in the West Indies and is now in indigence. I have pressed him to come to me but his great age & infirmity have deterred him from the change of climate.“ AH to Robert Troup 25July1795 (part of AH’s 1795 will)

“You no doubt have understood that my fathers affairs at a very early day went to wreck; so as to have rendered his situation during the greatest part of his life far from eligible. This state of things occasionned a separation between him and me, when I was very young, and threw me upon the bounty of my mothers relations, some of whom were then wealthy, though by vicissitudes to which human affairs are so liable, they have been since much reduced and broken up. 

..It is now several months since I have heared from my father who continued at the Island of St Vincents. My anxiety at this silence would be greater than it is, were it not for the considerable interruption and precariousness of intercourse, which is produced by the War. I have strongly pressed the old Gentleman to come to reside with me, which would afford him every enjoyment of which his advanced age is capable. But he has declined it on the ground that the advice of his Physicians leads him to fear that the change of Climate would be fatal to him. The next thing for me is, in proportion to my means to endeavour to increase his comforts where he is.”  AH to William Hamilton, 2May1797

“Himself being a younger son of a numerous family was bred to trade. In capacity of merchant he went to St Kitts, where from too generous and too easy a temper he failed in business, and at length fell into indigent circumstances. For some time he was supported by his friends in Scotland, and for several years before his death by me. It was his fault to have had too much pride and too large a portion of indolence but his character was otherwise without reproach and his manners those of a Gentleman.” AH to McHenry, 27Aug1800

Why did Rachel and James separate? The following are speculations proposed by biographers and historians:

Rachel Faucette, upon arriving in St. Croix, received support from her relatives (the Lyttons) and decided to end her relationship with lazy James. [See AH to ES Aug1780: “Do you soberly relish the pleasure of being a poor mans wife?...If you cannot my Dear we are playing a comedy of all in the wrong, and you should correct the mistake before we begin to act the tragedy of the unhappy couple.”]

Rachel, after spending some time in St. Croix, realized she could support herself and sons better than James, and the proximity to her relatives led her to stay.

Because of the divorce restrictions, Rachel and James could not live together in St. Croix (we have no evidence of this). After a time spent apart, the relationship naturally ended.

James thought he could legitimize his union with Rachel and their children at some point, and after arrival in St. Croix, discovered the legal impossibility of this. James, being a proud gentleman, then ended the relationship.

James and Rachel had a marriage ceremony, or at least a common-law marriage, that James thought was legal. Upon moving to St. Croix, he realized Rachel lied to him about her divorce and left her.

James and Rachel were "disparate" tempers who had an unhappy relationship, and took the first opportunity (Rachel being settled in St. Croix) to split up. [Flexner uses AH's letter to MS in 1781 as evidence for this.]

James figured out Rachel's "whorechildren" weren’t his and left her.

I speculate that some combination of 1-4 were the reasons that James and Rachel ended their relationship. But the question remains: why did he seemingly abandon his kids?  Well, in one sense, we don't know that he did. He doesn’t appear on the St. Croix registers , but we know he's there from May 1765 to at least June 1766. AH is very vague on this point, "[my father's affairs going to wreck] occasionned a separation between him and me, when I was very young...”

There's no indication that James thought Alexander was not his son. He greets him as "Dear Alexander" and closes his one surviving letter with "your very affectionate Father," a similar closing to what Alexander uses in a letter to his own sons.

Likewise, there's no evidence that Alexander thought James was not his father. He writes of James as "our father" to ES to present her as James' "black-eyed daughter", as he writes of Catharine Schuyler as "Mama." He is enthusiastic about contact with his Scottish Hamilton relatives, and even has Robert W. Hamilton, a cousin, stay with him.

Really, there's no evidence that James ISN'T his father. Timothy Pickering, who upon seeing AH and Edward Stevens, was amazed by how much they looked alike and suggested they were brothers. James Yard, Stevens' brother-in-law, told Pickering that “the remark has been made a thousand times.” But Yard also told Pickering that he believed AH was the natural (read: illegitimate) son of a Scotch gentleman of the name of Hamilton. 

The "immaculate daddy" satire in the 1787 New York-Journal that Chernow states refers to George Washington is much more likely a reference to Philip Schuyler. The article, about the NY gubernatorial race, has AH asking the people of New York to replace Governor George Clinton with “me or my immaculate daddy...” - his father-in-law, Schuyler. 

Biographers assert that James never saw either if his sons again after 1766 and had minimal contact with them, but we really have no evidence one way or the other on that. We know James left at some point, but then the trail goes cold. It seems possible that he did try to retain contact with them both; but he also likely knew their future prospects were better where they were (Alexander as a clerk for a NY-St. Croix shipping firm, which promised a future as a merchant; James as an apprentice to a carpenter) learning trades than following him around on unsuccessful business schemes. One piece of evidence that points to at least an attempt at continued correspondence is that AH's "Hurricane" essay printed in The Royal Danish Gazette was from a letter addressed to his father. 

AH was either enormously forgiving of his father (others noted his forgiving nature once fault was admitted), had a greater understanding of his father’s situation and sympathy towards it, or repressed his sense of betrayal and abandonment from James. The only hint of animosity he can be said to show is in refusing to not permit creditors to go after his father (having loaned his father money) in the event of his death (1795 will). Chernow uses this to speculate that AH had mixed feelings about James - or suspected James wasn’t his father - but I don’t really see indication of that. This is also the crazy will where AH asserts that John B. Church will pay off all of his debts. AH wants James to come live with him, he wants to make sure James lives in comfort in his old age, he sends James money fairly regularly. His references to his father are always affectionate and sympathetic. And someone somewhere instilled in AH an emphasis on behaving like a gentleman - his parents should at least be looked to as a likely source. 

AH may have also had some sympathy with his father’s financial difficulties. He admits that "an indifference to property enters into my character too much" [to ES, Aug1780], so perhaps this was a family trait, although AH acknowledges that his father was lazy and not a good businessman. There’s also a subtle hint,  from Allan McLane Hamilton, that he was not the brightest of gentlemen - AH got his “genius” from his mother -  though he probably would have said something like James didn’t have the talents and industry for success. 

For a pretty fantastic article about AH and his family in the West Indies, see here. The footnotes are great! 

*No one recorded the name and identity of AH’s mother until Gertrude Atherton and H.U. Ramsing go to the West Indies and begin examining records in the early 20th century. Atherton discovered that her name was “Rachel Fawcett.” Warning, warning, that does not mean no one KNEW her name, just that they didn’t record it. 

**I’m depending on several different biographies for the text of the 1759 divorce summons and grant. The original is in Danish. 

MIsc:

Rachel’s parents (John Faucette and Mary Uppington) had “diverse disputes and controversies” and legally separated in 1740 and lived separately for the remainder of their lives (well, John only lives another 5 years). Broken homes all over the place! 

James Hamilton was likely born in 1718. Going with a 1757 birth year for AH, that makes James 39 in the year AH is born, around 50 when he leaves the family, and 62 when AH writes to ES about him in 1780. He's 75 when he's trying to attempt travel to Philadelphia to live with AH. James lives to a fairly impressive age of 81 (1799). My point: he’s not a spring chicken, and I wonder what part infirmity played in the course of his life.

Chernow and Newton both provide good overviews of what we know about the family backgrounds of Rachel Faucette and James Hamilton. If you’d like me to share that, just ask.