#ron chernow

[ourtalechara]

Occasionally, I think about Lin-Manuel Miranda's thought process behind why he made Hamilton, and every single time I imagine him in like a stereotypical teenage girl room, with posters of his favorite boy bands on the wall and a big closet with shoes and cutesy clothing, and he's laying, stomach down, on his bed, over the white bed cover with pink hearts, reading his copy of Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow, eating ruffles, and going, "he's just like me, fr fr."

[icarusbetide]

aham is not "lowkey hot". he is magnificent. his orbs are violet-blue, his hair is smooth like silk, his body is effiminate in all the right places and his curves enchant even the straightest of men, when he talks angel saunter vaguely from the sky and start singing, his words are what keeps all of us from being doomed forever in the eyes of god. have some respect for the king of gingers...

[valend]

GET HIS ASS NANCY

[pub-lius]

hiiii :3

i just read your response to an ask about your reason for disliking ron chernow’s alexander hamilton book, and i wanted to ask if i can still use it as source for some info. i’ve done my fair share of research on various topics and my opinions/what i’ve read differentiated strongly sometimes from what he wrote, but some things are just hard to come by (as somebody not from the US who doesn’t have local resources and has to rely on stuff i can find online). what do you suggest i do if i want more accurate info? i know the founders archive but other than that i haven’t found a lot of trustworthy sources concerning the amrev that aren’t $300 textbooks?

idk- sorry this is really long :,) i’m not sure in im making any sense haha

Girl have you seen the length of my posts? This is not long at all, and you make perfect sense.

And if you have seen my posts, you may notice that Chernow is my most frequent citation because of how valuable his biographies are as sources. He does intensely thorough research and his index and bibliography are so extensive, I can’t even make a joke about getting them as a tramp stamp.

Chernow is a great source and I do recommend any starting Hamilton scholar to get a copy, if you have the means and patience. The downfalls of it are its a hard read and his personal interpretations are heavily skewed and biased in various directions, which is only different from other historians because he doesn’t give proper evidence and substantiation to these claims. All you need to have in order to recognize this is basic critical thinking skills. Tl;dr: Chernow is a great source, he’s just fucking annoying and I hate him.

One very good thing about Chernow is that his book is so (painfully) extensive, that it can serve as a source for more than just Hamilton, so there’s no shame in using him as a source for *checks notes* how the island of St. Kitts and Nevis was formed from a volcano, if you’re into that.

I see your inability to access US propaganda and I raise you youtube documentaries. That may sound crazy, but you can put it on in the background and cross reference between them (usually repeated details are closest to the truth). They can also be entertaining, especially if they’re from the 80s (i love the 80s). Additionally, if you’re looking for archives, @maip--macrothorax can tell you all the benefits of Internet Archive (if they aren’t too busy borrowing all of the books on there /lh). You can also find a lot of things on the Library of Congress’s website, and also my favorite governmental department:

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE!!

Go to the national park service, it includes all the battlefields, important buildings, where important buildings used to be, the houses of historical figures, and really pretty parks (also like mount gaymore (rushmore) and shit but wtvr). They have tons of information and great archivists and librarians and i long for their jobs. Also, American Battlefield Trust, Mount Vernon, The Museum of the American Revolution, etc. also have great sources and tons of information- along with wonderful reenactments that they have on youtube!!

I also do my best to make these sources as accessible as possible, so if you do some perusing you might be able to find some of this stuff here, but I am always happy to answer asks with links or research though I am very slow (sorry). And of course, my dms are open and I probably wouldn’t be totally infuriated if you found me at my local library and asked for directions to the non-fiction section. I am the personal librarian of tumblr.com, so ask away and I’ll be there!!

[lanfykins]

From Ron Chernow's biography of Hamilton:

'The night before the duel, Burr lost no sleep and dozed off quickly on the couch in his library. His slumber was neither fitful nor agitated. “Mr. Van Ness told me that the morning of the duel when he went to Colonel Burr, he found him in a very sound sleep,” reported Charles Biddle. “He was obliged to hurry on his clothes to be ready at the time appointed for the meeting.” '

IMNSHO, this just shows how pervasive is the historical portrayal of Burr as a cold-blooded murderer. Because in what world is being found oversleeping on the couch a sign that someone has slept *well*?

From Burr's correspondence and journals, we know that he suffered from godawful insomnia. When he slept late it was often because he'd been awake for most of the night. His being sound asleep on the sofa when Van Ness arrives would be consistent with such a night, although obviously that's far from conclusive.

So I would very much like to know where Chernow gets the idea, stated as fact, that Burr dozed off quickly and slept well. Who was there watching?

[ev4ikcasswife]

Was watching a video and got jumpscared never again

[themintiris]

how does one read the ron chernow hamilton biography and go “hmm, yes. a rap/hiphop musical would be perfect for this guy”

[pythiaswine]

thinking about how difficult it must have been for Rachel Fawcette [Hamilton] to leave her firstborn behind in order to safely remove herself from Lavien's house. how much it must have eaten her up inside and how there was nothing she could do because her husband owned her and he owned their son and he owned everything that was hers and if she stayed, there's no telling what could have happened to her. And she lost her firstborn son over it, fuck the rest of everything she lost and how people treated her, she had no claims to her son who clearly grew up to resent her for what she, if we think critically for a moment and look at the context and the subtext and hey, let's face it, the TEXT, likely had to do. how women were constantly pitted in the most volatile of situations in those days and how she did the difficult thing and saved herself.

but yeah sure let's reduce her to Whore because that is so much more impactful through a modern lens, like sure let's give her disgusting husband, and every other fucking man throughout history, the glory of successfully making the women they hurt out to be cheating whores. let's tell her son's story by calling his mother a whore every other fuckin song. let's act like "son of a whore" at the end of all things is more of an insult to him than it is to his mother, the so-called whore who clearly had it so bad at Lavien's that she fucking left. do we not realize that by reducing her to that, we let Johann Michael Lavien fucking WIN? i'm sick. so fucking sick to my stomach I hate it here

[taxmacabre]

Chernow: A Bad Historian?

Though better historians/researchers than myself have posted aplenty on the speculative nonsense Ron Chernow gets up to in his biographies, he sometimes still gets praise for his work. Yes, sure, he's bad at his conclusions, but he's a good historian.

Right?

I would argue, no. Not even close.

His sources seem extensive, and can certainly serve as a jumping board for the budding historian - but he cannot be trusted. Even his sources are sometimes either lied about (directly or through subterfuge), edited, or plain untrue. Let me take two pages as an example in his biography of Alexander Hamilton, page 74-75.

Midway through the first page, he states,

"Hamilton had already informed his distant St. Croix readers, "This city is at present evacuated by above one half of its inhabitants under the influence of a general panic.""

He then gives a source - a source, however, which has not proven to be Hamilton at all. This is a similar mistake he made on p.68, 69 and 72 (that he drew wild assumptions about Hamilton's disposition and opinions on, unsubstantiated as his source is dubious). It wouldn't be this harmful of a thing to do, if the exact same source which he blatantly pretends must be Hamilton, just because it was printed in the Royal Danish Gazette, addressed from an anonymous New York soldier, wasn't used again and again and again.

Michael Newton does a better job than I do in proving that these were not, in fact, written by Hamilton. In his book (Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years, Ch.13), he explains that the anonymous letter attributed to Hamilton by Chernow had been published previously in London newspapers, and just reprinted for the Danish Gazette. Chernow's entire argument for why it obviously must be H, falls through.

Then, Chernow states that in April 1776 (where the current narrative of the book is at) that Washington stayed at a Hudson River mansion called Richmond Hill. Fair enough. But then follows a wild assumption; that Burr visited Washington in that house, quit it in disgust, and wrote this letter (this is the one Chernow cites here!) - a letter which was written more than a full year later, and has no mention or reference to Burr visiting him at Headquarters.

We do know that Burr was appointed aide-de-camp of Genl Putnam on June 22, 1776, as seen in this General Order. He later joins Col. William Malcom's regiment, as seen here. This appointment is what the above letter was in reference to - not, as Chernow assumes, about Burr potentially meeting Washington in New York.

Not only that, but Chernow continues,

"Something about Aaron Burr - his penchant for intrigue, a lack of sufficient deference, perhaps his insatiable chasing after women - grated on George Washington."

What? Where does he get any of this information? From the fact that this letter - the same letter that happens a year after Chernow alleges it took place - went unanswered? As usual, this speculative nonsense goes unsourced. Chernow wants Burr to be the antithesis of Hamilton, the villain of this sordid tale - and he is willing to make up facts and bend the truth to make this happen.

[If anyone can find the source for Burr's supposed few week sojourn at Washington's headquarters as ADC and subsequent firing by the Genl, please, let me know. I can find plenty of other sites and books repeating this, but no source is ever given.]

At the top of page 75, he mentions (assuredly) that in June, 1776;

"Hamilton gallantly led a nighttime attack of one hundred men against the Sandy Hook lighthouse outside New York harbor."

No one but Chernow has ever asserted that Hamilton led this attack. Neither Hamilton himself nor any of his contemporaries mention his involvement, let alone his leadership.

Instead, this attack was led by Lieutenant Colonel Benjamin Tupper. (Who, a year prior, had already led a mission against this same lighthouse). He wrote what happened after the attack on the lighthouse to Washington on June 21st,

"I advanced within 150 yards of the light-house in so secret a manner that my party was undiscovered, I advanced with an officer and desired to speak with the commanding officer, and after a few words he fired several shots at me, but as God would have it, he mist me. I returned to my party and ordered the artillery to play, which continued for about an hour, but found the walls so thick as to make no impression."

Here's some more information on this.

Yes, he sources a great many things - but clearly, that does not make it a reliable piece of work. And remind you - this is barely 1,5 page of closer scrutiny.

So, sure, read his work, as his is one of the few complete cradle-to-grave biographies out there on the subject (for now). But oh god, be careful. Don't trust a thing coming out of this man's mouth. Don't trust the Pulitzer he won. Do your homework, and stay vigilant.

[therealadothamilton]

RON CHERNOW

Are there inaccuracies in Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton? Of course.

Does he kiss Hamilton's ass? Sure, the book is totally hagiographic... except when he's criticizing Hamilton for...

Cheating on his wife

The Newburgh Conspiracy

The John Adams burn letter

The Reynolds Pamphlet

The Whiskey Rebellion

Defending the Jay Treaty

Getting killed in a duel

Leaving his widow and children destitute

Duel challenges

Bitching anonymously in the press

Being too thin skinned

Lusting after pretty much everyone including his sisters in law

Etc., etc.

Oh, and btw, he doesn't cite his sources at all.... Except, these:

[haveyoureadthisbook-poll]

[almaprincess66]

Guess who FUCKING KILLED the Hamilton presentation?

I'TS A ME!!!

[icarusbetide]

but most importantly how is ron chernow doing

[valend]

These are making me giggle out loud

[specificpollsaboutbooks]

Famous Authors, Lesser Known Works

Round 1

Grant :

Ron Chernow is better known for Alexander Hamilton

This is a biography and I do understand if you determine it too popular on it's own but I needed to submit it just in case:

Thanks to the need for a book at an airport, we have had one of the biggest American history musicals! But the same level of detail which inspired a cultural phenomena has also been paid to the 18th President: U S Grant, the man who won the American Civil War.

The Art of Being a Grandfather :

Victor Hugo is better known for Les Misérables and The Hunchback of Notre-Dame

[lanfykins]

Literally every time I look something up in Chernow’s biography of Hamilton I end up shouting at my Kindle.

“But now, banished to the political wilderness, Burr was no longer immune to criticism, and he flew into a rage. Like many people who hide hostility behind charming facades, Burr was, at bottom, a captive of his temper.”

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK CHERNOW. Yes, clearly the guy who literally never argued with anyone, ever, had anger issues. Unlike the guy who challenged AN ENTIRE POLITICAL PARTY to a duel.