#this reminded me I have to finish the federalist papers

[tick-tick-moo]

The most important thing of what I'm saying here is what LMM says in this video, where he talks about the EduHam program. He explains it really well and I'm begging asking you to watch it when you have time, please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rhRFFnsTk&list=WL&index=2

(and these are just my thoughts and views, and I went on a bit of a tangent soooooo, feel free to ignore this heh)

"I was and still am not interested in American history, and the only reason I did research was because of the musical."

But you did research! This musical wasn't meant to be completely accurate, it was meant to be a gateway. You learned and you are better for it.

For classic theater lovers, it's a gateway to hip hop. For hip hop lovers, it's a gateway to classic musical theater.

It's also a gateway to learning. You went through the effort of educating yourself so you would be able to recognize the inaccuracies in the first place. Hamilton inspired me to read (most of) the Federalist Papers, to read that pamphlet by Thomas Paine(and more, that guy wrote quite a bit), to read letters of the era, to learn about the French revolution, to learn about Sally Hemmings, to learn about Rachel Fawcett.

The musical is meant to have people ask questions, not to make them think they know all the answers. There are definitely people that think they know it all after watching/listening to this, but I don't see how the fault is one the musical itself.

LMM has talked about his changes he made, saying himself that he "conveniently forgot" that the Schuyler Sisters also had brothers, but didn't change it because it upped the stakes in terms of Angelica's position as older sister. He also talked about how he completely changed a lot of aspects of the timeline, such as when he meets Burr and Angelica. (He talks about this in some interviews and mentions them quite often in the Hamilton: The Revolution book). No one would care in the first place if they didn't get invested.

Also, I haven't seen this ever marketed as historically accurate? It is historical, in the sense that it has made history in terms of music and performers on a Broadway stage. But definitely not even close to 100% historically accurate (reminds me of this tweet I saw that said "Warning: Many of the musical numbers in Hamilton never actually happened").

"But this messiness in its portrayal and narrative is how it managed to spawn a whole generation of fans who have trouble separating fact and fiction."

There's no denying that there is a generation of fans that have trouble separating fact from fiction, but I don't think the narrative or portrayal that has done that. I'm thinking of RPF and the swaths of speculation that develop in almost every fandom. How you interpret the musical is up to you and your experience with it, but I don't it's fair to say that the narrative alone is the cause of this. This stuff happens in nearly every fandom and I don't think it should be isolated to portrayal alone.

And obviously Jefferson wasn't a jazz loving Black man in a purple suit, or Eliza a beatboxing Chinese-America in blue. But that's the beauty of Hamilton, "The Story of America then, told by America now".

Of course they didn't get it all, and they didn't get it all right, but how they portrayed the stories they did tell is what it's all about. That's what inspires me about it.

So I have some thoughts on Hamilton. This was made 1st October 2021, my thoughts could change in the future.

I was and still am not interested in American history, and the only reason I did research was because of the musical.

Can I ask how in the hell did this get marketed as a piece of history when the inaccuracies outweigh the accuries?

When I wanted to go look up professional opinions and articles, I thought 'historically inaccurate' meant a little bit of changes here and there, you know, exaggeration on some parts.

No, that wasn't it. Whole plot points and lyrics that supposedly hinge on character motivation or circumstances are completely different from actual history.

Burr's regret in killing Hamilton was muddy at best, and he had clear written beliefs. Angelica had brothers. The 1800 election wasn't a 'landslide'. There was no evidence that Mulligan and Lafayette even met. Naturally there are some things that Miranda got right but musical character beliefs sometimes entirely contradict the real historical figure documentations.

So many tiny details that make up the events and lyrics in the musical we know are just so wrong. You could look at it narratively, like it's a tragic meta commentary on the glorification of history from a country's perspective, or something like that. But this messiness in its portrayal and narrative is how it managed to spawn a whole generation of fans who have trouble seperating fact and fiction.

I don't know what the intention was for this musical, honestly. I've said it before I've said it again, it's like the world's most expensive fanfiction novel very loosely based on what the author thinks the history was. I have no clue.

Maybe if it were marketed as some very fictional alternate universe version of events, it would still sell really well, but I saw it was shown over and over again to basically 'tell the history of what happened', which is kind of yikes to me.

My respect for Miranda went from 8/10 to 5/10, would be lower if not for his musical talent.

[pub-lius]

A Debunking and, in my Humble Opinion, Superior Version of Weird History’s “Hardcore Facts About Alexander Hamilton”

I haven’t updated my blog in quite some time, and that is due to my schedule being primarily dominated by school. So, I decided my first step into posting semi-regularly once more shall be a more casual, more fun endeavor. 

If you have not heard of the Weird History youtube channel, good for you. It is yet another social media platform that misconstrues history to appeal to the public’s enjoyment of extremes and strangeness. I saw The Historical Fashion Queens make a video responding to their highly misinformed documentary on corsetry on Miss Abby Cox’s youtube channel, which I highly recommend. This intrigued me, and I decided to find a video I could dissect off my expertise, at first only for fun in my own time. This resulted in the production in a very long bullet list in the notes app of my phone. So here is my informal destruction of this godforsaken video.

Disclaimer: I am not at all excusing any of the awful things Alexander Hamilton did during his lifetime. I am absolutely the last person who would even come near to claiming that many of the things he did were justifiable in the slightest. Although, he might be the only historical figure which I have a very strong interest in the life of, as he was incredibly complex, and the part of me with a love of psychology finds him absolutely fascinating. There is also something to be said about the way we consider moral standards of historical figures. We are quite lucky to believe in the time that we do, and not all of our standards can apply to historical figures. This does not mean they should not be held accountable. I find that a way to criticize people while also praising them where it is due is by judging them based upon their intentions. In my opinion, Hamilton’s intentions were not to harm anyone in most situations, so I don’t think he was a terrible person, nor do I think he was a particularly good one. Then again, I don’t think either of those things about a mass majority of people, so let us proceed without further delay. (Note: I will also be referring to the collective Weird History channel as the Narrator to avoid any mental gymnastics, and all of my knowledge is coming from my memory of Hamilton’s writing and some biographies.)

Automatically, the video starts with mention of the musical, but that just reminds me that many use Ron Chernow’s biography of Hamilton as a basis of their statements about him without utilizing much critical thinking, so I am slightly nervous. 

The Narrator then refers to Hammy Ham man as “...one of America’s most undervalued founding fathers...” Now, it is debatable whether or not Mr. Hamilton is undervalued per se, but when it comes to the founding fathers, they are usually undervalued or overvalued. At this point, Hamilton is both.

I shall not subscribe, thank you for the offer though, Mr. Narrator.

Now for the first fact: “Historians don’t know when Hamilton was born.” Yes, this is correct, but I don’t believe this should be labeled as “hardcore”, but perhaps that is just me. One early document indicates that Hamilton was born in 1755, while all later ones point to 1757 as his year of birth. We know Hamilton was not always a completely honest man, so it is possible that he lied.

Also, they show an image of a baby, and I do not know if this is actually Hamilton, but they use a lot of strange imagery, which I found humorous.

“A self-made man born out of wedlock.” Now, this fact could indeed be “hardcore”, if this was not colonial America we are discussing. Hamilton actually wasn’t really special in this regard. Yes, his rise to fame was impressive considering his circumstances, but this wasn’t unheard of.

The Narrator then says that Hamilton’s mother, Rachel Faucette, was “estranged from her husband.” This caused me some confusion as it is a vast understatement. Her ex-husband was absolutely awful to her. 

Additionally, they claim that James Hamilton left his family behind for some reason that I did not write in my notes, but the most likely reason that he actually left was because of his awesome debt. James Hamilton also had a history of ambitious pursuits for money, so it would not be extreme to claim that he moved to another island to attempt to make a fortune in some trading endeavor.

They also cease to mention the Stevens family, who housed young Alexander while he was working for Beekman and Cruger, and had a great influence on him, but I digress.

“A college dropout who joined the Revolution.” Once again, this isn’t special. Many rowdy young Whigs left behind their careers and educations for pursuit of military fame in the Continental Army. They also do not mention anything of Hamilton’s expansive military career, which aside from being indicative of primitive research, but would produce more “hardcore facts.”

Although, they do discuss his application to Princeton college, which is interesting enough I suppose, although everyone who has heard the first two songs of the musical knows this story. His proposal for an “accelerated course of study” was likely inspired by Aaron Burr, as claimed by Chernow and Miranda, or James Madison, as supported by evidence provided by author Noah Feldman in his novel, The Three Lives of James Madison, which is an excellent read. Young Madison, having already completed a course, decided to do so again, but compacting a usually three year course into a shorter period of time. He hardly slept during this period, which was stressful upon his health, making Princeton more disinclined to allow a similar course to be taken.

The Narrator then claims that Hamilton “formed his own militia of 25 men.” Technically, yes? But not exactly. Hamilton joined a paramilitary group called the Hearts of Oak, and they drilled in Trinity Churchyard. This became ironic later. He then became a captain in the New York Artillery Company, and enlisted his own men, which was at one time around thirty or so, if my memory serves me correctly.

“Founded a bank that existed for over two centuries.” Ah, yes, a very hardcore fact indeed. Yes, Hamilton did establish the Bank of America, but Robert Morris was the one who inspired him to do so. Though, I do think the financial plan is a product of his own genius, but I will get into that much later.

I got an ad. :(

The Narrator also says that the misfortunes done to the New York shipping industry by the Articles of Confederation were the most prominent, if not sole, motivation for Hamilton to concoct his financial plan. He first recognized the need for a sound financial plan when he was in the army. You know, when he was watching men die of inadequate supplies because the government couldn’t tax the states.

This video, like Chernow’s biography and Miranda’s musical, claims that Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr were friends when, in actuality, they weren’t really. Yes, they knew each other, and they didn’t hate each other until the end of Hamilton’s life, but they really didn’t think about each other much before the Election of 1800.

“Hamilton authored over half of the Federalist Papers.” Indeed, he did! I enjoy this fact. It isn’t very “hardcore” but it is very impressive. The Federalist Papers were arguably Hamilton’s greatest accomplishment, as he organized the entire thing and, as previously stated, authored much of them. I very much enjoy the Federalist Papers, as they give some insight as to Hamilton’s political and philosophical theories, as well as how he thought of the world. It makes for an interesting read if you have something you’re looking for.

Now, this may be a hot take, but Madison’s essays are by far more effective, as they were better organized. Hamilton and I share a common flaw, and that is the lack of brevity. 

“Involved in America’s first sex scandal.” Yes, we all know. I’ll get into the Reynold’s affair later because it’s its own beast to conquer. Basically what you need to understand information I shall provide later in this post is that James Reynolds extorted money from Hamilton, and if Hamilton failed to pay, Reynolds would expose the affair Hamilton was having with his wife, Maria. Hamilton paid, but when Reynolds was arrested for something else, he exposed Hamilton anyway.

“He worked with Aaron Burr to defend a man.” Once again, this isn’t very surprising. They were both capable lawyers in the same area, so it was basically inevitable. Though there was this one instance where Hamilton and Burr were working on a case together and Hamilton, being himself, insisted upon having the last word. Well, Burr was tired of him, and I can’t say I blame him, so he made every possible argument in his finishing speech, leaving Hamilton with virtually nothing. 

The Narrator also mentions Hamilton’s opposition to slavery, but he didn’t really outwardly oppose it as much as you would think listening to the musical or reading Chernow’s biography. Far from being the “fervent abolitionist” Chernow and Miranda glorify, Hamilton didn’t really do much for the enslaved. He helped John Laurens in his Black Plan and joined the Manumission Society, but other than that, he never made any attempt to progress the abolition of slavery. He also “purchased” slaves for his in-laws, and some argue that he “owned” some himself, but there is no contemporary evidence to support this that I have seen. The enslaved and servants that were in his household likely belonged to his wife.

“Founded a newspaper that still exists.” Ok.

“Died by duel.” I swear, this fact is by far the most unnecessary. They mention the duel so many times that it is already redundant. I completely skipped over this part, and the video ended, so I was thoroughly underwhelmed.

Well, seeing as this post is already longer than my attention span, I shall save you the pains of having to read any more in just one post. I shall make a follow-up to this where I give my own facts, which I believe are far more hardcore than “he founded a newspaper.” I hope you have enjoyed and this isn’t too terribly boring. I hope to get back to posting soon.

[aswithasunbeam]

July 1812

“I feel indecent,” Eliza complained, frowning at her reflection in the mirror.

Alexander was on the other side of their bedroom, and he answered distantly in a manner that suggested he was only half listening as he finished dressing himself. “Your gloves are long. You’ll be more covered once you add them.”

“My arms aren’t what I’m concerned about,” she parried.

The new dress was cut in the latest fashion, a rich blue satin fabric with a high waist and capped sleeves designed to fit in amongst the finery of Mrs. Madison’s Wednesday night drawing room at the Executive Mansion. Mrs. Madison had apparently done away with the traditional kerchief that hid ladies’ collarbones, shoulders, and cleavage. Combined with the high waist, the overall result was to put each woman’s breasts on ample display, it seemed to Eliza.

“You look ravishing.” He still wasn’t looking at her.

“Look at this,” she said, turning for him to see and gesturing to her bosom. “It’s not right. I’m a grandmother.”

He finished affixing the diamond studded medal from the Society of the Cincinnati to his chest, the same that Martha Washington had sent him after the General’s death, and finally looked up at her. A lascivious smile slowly crept up at the corners of his mouth. “Well, I don’t see a thing wrong.”

“That look in your eyes says you see exactly what’s wrong. How can I go out like this, at my age?”

“You’re the most attractive grandmother I’ve ever laid eyes on.”

She blushed a little, feeling a combination of flattered and ridiculous as she shook her head at him. He looked dashing as ever in his crisp General’s uniform, of course, his gold braid and brass buttons gleaming. Even with his gray hair and deep-set laugh lines around his eyes and mouth, he was as handsome as the day they’d met.

Moving to the bureau, she pulled on her long white gloves and affixed the bracelet she’d selected for the occasion over her wrist. The last touch was the tall feathered headpiece, a familiar fashion that had been all the rage in her younger days.

“You look beautiful,” he said, his eyes raking over her figure appreciatively.

“Thank you,” she sighed, even as she tugged the dress up again, still uncomfortable. “Are you ready?”

“As I’ll ever be.”

Resignation overwrote the flirtation in his expression. She clasped at the handles of his chair, one hand reaching out to rub his shoulder consolingly, and pushed him out into the front room of their Washington boarding house. After Robert assisted Alexander into the coach, they set off the short distance to the Executive Mansion.

The entryway was crowded with people, so many Eliza didn’t quite understand how they’d all fit inside. The nickname “Wednesday Night Squeeze” made sudden sense. Pushing Alexander inside, she felt like she’d stepped through a wall of heat.

A dazzling spectacle of light and noise greeted them. Music floated through the rooms. People were talking and laughing in tight circles in the bright lamplight, touches neoclassical furnishings and fine fabrics far as the eye could see. Men in fine suits and military uniforms mingled amongst ladies in dresses of every color, jewels sparkling on their headdresses and turbans.

In the center of the spectacle stood James and Dolley Madison; James in his customary black, a tight expression on his bloodless face that was reminiscent of someone undergoing light torture, and Dolley in a rose pink gown with cheeks to match and customary turban in place, looking utterly at ease.

“Well, we’re certainly in the vipers’ nest now,” Alexander remarked, sotto voce, as she tried to maneuver him through the press of the crowd.

“General Hamilton!” Dolley spotted them immediately, and rushed towards them, Madison being pulled in tow. “And Mrs. Hamilton. What a pleasure!”

Dolley leaned down to embrace Alexander, kissing him on each cheek, then came around to do the same to Eliza, kissing her as though they’d been friends for years. They had been friendly in their few months of acquaintance before Alexander had resigned from the Treasury, but certainly nothing to this level. And she was fairly certain Alexander and Dolley had never even met.

Pasting on a bright smile, Eliza said dutifully, “Thank you for the invitation, Mrs. Madison.”

“Of course, honey, of course. I know you and the General are still getting settled here in the capital, and I thought, what better chance will you have to meet every one of consequence in one place? All those introductions can be so tedious. As you can see, I make it a point to invite everyone to these “squeezes,” as they call them. Fighting belongs in the field, I say, not in my drawing room.”

“I’m sure I’ll be paying plenty of calls, nonetheless. I didn’t miss this part of public life,” Eliza confided. “How’s Payne?”

“Just marvelous.”

Dolley was inquiring after their children when Alexander seemed to lose patience with Madison, who was still standing where Dolley had left him some paces away.

“No kiss from you, Jemmy?” Alexander teased.

Dolley burst out laughing, her hand tapping Alexander’s shoulder affectionately.

A little smile formed on Madison’s lips as he came closer and reached out a hand. “Thank you for attending, General. I think we’ll have a lot to discuss in the coming days.”

“I believe that’s an understatement.” A serious note had entered Alexander’s voice.

Dolley held a finger out to her husband. “Uh uh, no business tonight. This is a time for socializing.”  

“Of course, my dear,” Madison said dutifully.

“Mr. President,” a young man greeted as he paused beside Madison, bowing formally. He was impeccably dressed in a fine, dark suit, with penetrating eyes and long sideburns despite his slightly receding hairline.

“Mr. Clay,” Madison responded, nodding his head in acknowledgement. “I don’t believe you’ve met General Hamilton?”

“We haven’t had the pleasure,” Clay agreed, thrusting his hand out towards Alexander. “Henry Clay. Speaker of the House.”

Alexander hesitated a beat before shaking Clay’s hand.

“We’ll be glad to have your input, General, though I’m not sure we’ll need it. Word arrived today that General Hull reached Detroit at the beginning of the month. I’d lay odds the damned Red Coats are on the run as we speak.”

“You think victory will come that easily?”

Clay grinned boyishly. “We whipped ‘em once, didn’t we?”  

“Yes, we did,” Alexander said, voice tight, with a particular emphasis on “we”, as if to remind Clay that he had been little more than a child during the last conflict. “But it wasn’t exactly easy.”

“Well, we’ve grown as a nation since then.”

“We have no standing army. Only the same untested militia we had at the beginning of the revolution, and very few leaders left to us from that conflict.”

Clay carried on as if he hadn’t heard Alexander. “And the Canadian’s aren’t any more enthralled to the British then we were. As Mr. Jefferson said, taking Canada will be a mere matter of marching.”

Alexander’s displeased hum bespoke disagreement.  

“Oh, don’t tell me you agree with those traitors, who’d see us cowering in the face of insult after insult? You ought to understand the importance of national honor.” Clay’s eyes flickered to Alexander’s chair.

“I can’t say I’m thrilled at the prospect of another war. And those who express reservations are hardly traitors. Honestly, I’d expected you to use more care with your language after the news of what happened in Baltimore.”

Eliza winced and laid a hand on her husband’s shoulder, even as she gave Dolley an apologetic side-glance. Dolley patted at her arm in a gesture of understanding.

The story of the Democratic mob overtaking Alexander Hanson in his jail cell and beating him to within an inch of his life had hit Alexander hard. Hanson edited the “Federal Republican” in Baltimore and had run an editorial earlier questioning the wisdom of war with England. The incensed mob had killed two of his Federalist companions and inflicted grave wounds to Harry Lee’s head in the mayhem. Alexander had thrown the paper across the room, sick at the news, and demanded, “Why should I help these people?”

“Not standing beside your countrymen in a time of war sounds like treason to me.”

“What exactly is the point of a free press if expressing very reasonable concerns about the disruption and destruction of war is grounds for execution?” Alexanders’ voice was rising in pitch now.

“Honey,” Eliza whispered.

“It’s not as if the government is the one who carried out the executions,” Clay parried. “It hardly bears on the first amendment, if that’s what you’re getting at.”

“Hardly bears…” Alexander’s jaw was working, a red flush coming over his cheeks that Eliza suspected had little to do with the warmth of the room.

“I don’t think this is a very good topic of conversation for a party,” Dolley interrupted. “Now, Mr. Clay, why don’t you come with me. I’ve a few people I’d like to introduce you to. Oh, do come by for tea tomorrow, Mrs. Hamilton?”

Eliza nodded. “I will, Mrs. Madison, thank you.”

Dolley winked at her before she deftly took Clay’s arm and began to steer him away.

“It was a pleasure to meet you, General,” Clay said, glancing back over his shoulder with a wide grin. “We’ll continue our conversation soon, I’m sure.”

“You know this isn’t right, Jemmy.”

“The Baltimore incident was inexcusable, I agree,” Madison said softly.

“This whole war is inexcusable.”

“Britain left us no choice,” Madison argued.

“Your War Hawks left you no choice,” Alexander shot back, nodding in the direction Clay had disappeared.

“The war is already declared. If you came to Washington merely to argue against the fighting of it, I’m afraid you’ll find little success.”

“I came to serve my country, as I always will if I can be of service. It doesn’t mean I have to agree with you.”

Madison nodded. “We’ll meet and discuss everything fully in the next few days. For now, do try to enjoy the party. Mrs. Hamilton, lovely to see you.”

When Madison had turned away, Eliza heard Alexander say softly, “Betsey?”

“Yes, my love?”

“Can you take me outside? I need some air.”

“Of course, honey.”

She steered him through the crowd back towards the entrance, pausing only when she’d found unoccupied corner of the garden outside.

“Well, that was rousing,” she teased.

“I’m too old for this.”

“You didn’t sound it in there.”

“Betsey,” he sighed, his eyes bright as he looked up at her. “How am I supposed to fight this war again? Clay has no idea of the hardships, the sacrifices. These Freshman Congressmen, these War Hawks, they’re children. They don’t understand. It took seven years to drive the British away last time. Seven years. I don’t even believe in the cause this time around.”

“They were testing us. You said so yourself.”

“They were treating us the same as they treat every second-class nation. And that’s what we are, in their eyes. It’s an issue that calls for diplomacy. Not war.”

“We could always go home.” A flutter of hope rushed through her, even though she knew his answer.

“No.” He pressed the heel of his hands to his eyes. “I’m just…exhausted. And I’ve barely even begun. I don’t even know what is going to be asked of me.”

“You won’t need to ride out with the army, right?” she pressed. “Surely Madison won’t ask that of you, at least.”

“I don’t know. I’m in as much condition to ride out as most of the other Generals. Did you see Dearborn in there? I’d very much doubt that he can even mount a horse. Those of us with enough experience to lead are too old, too crippled with rheumatism, gout, whatever else, too fat--”

“Well, you’re not fat,” she teased. “And the gout hasn’t gotten you too badly.”

“I wouldn’t know,” he said, tapping his knees.

“I trust you,” she said, settling herself onto his lap and pressing her lips to his. “Far more than any one in that room. Far more than anyone in this country. No matter how old you think you are.”

His expression softened as he gazed at her.

He turned his head to look around their surroundings, examining the flowering plants that surrounded them. “This is a nice garden,” he remarked. “I might not mind sitting out here of an evening. What do you think?”

“Don’t even tease about that, Alexander,” she scolded.

He raised his brow, smirked, then stole another kiss.

[my-dear-hammy]

Basking in Firelight:Jamilton Sequel

Masterpost

Chapter Sixty One:

Check

Warnings below

----

"-concluding, outwardly homosexual affections as been totally outlawed," Hamilton finished reading the draft of the Bill Adams was trying to get passed.

"It's not outlawing homosexuals completely, but it's still disgusting," Thomas stated. He was lying on the couch, head propped up on an armrest as Hamilton lie on top of him, reading the bill from Jefferson's phone. Burr had texted it to him.

"It sounds like King George," Hamilton spat, tossing Jefferson's phone on the floor by the couch.

"Are you still going on with your theories?" Jefferson asked.

"Yes. If anything this only confirmed them."

"Remember the Sedition Acts he passed during his first presidency? These are the modern version of those."

"What? No, I agreed with those."

"They took away freedom of speech, of press. Not to mention making it harder for people to become free citizens of the United States," Jefferson reminded him.

"All necessary precautions for the upcoming war with France."

"Unnecessary precautions. They were refugees fleeing from the bloody streets of the French Revolution, not spies."

"I thought you liked the French Revolution?" Hamilton smirked. Goddamnit, Jefferson hated getting into these into these arguments with Hamilton, only because he loved them so much. They usually turned into heated, passionate debates and then paired with the fact that Hamilton was on top of him...

Not fair.

"I liked the idea behind it. I don't like what it turned into," Jefferson answered.

"They may have been refugees, but the acts were put in place to prevent spies and terrorists and the lot. If they weren't guilty, they had nothing to worry about."

"You just like them because if anyone refuted anything the government, they'd get arrested and thrown in jail. Which gave your party a massive edge since Adams was a Federalist too," Jefferson pointed out as he absentmindedly ran his fingers lightly over the strip of Hamilton's exposed skin where his shirt had ridden up slightly.

"Not true!" Hamilton shot back, shifting slightly, accidentally exposing more skin.

"It is true and you know it," Jefferson hummed.

"Despite the consequences, it was helpful."

"All it did was just make the lives of hundreds of people even more brutal. Do you know how many people fled across the border in fear of being deported back to France? Do you really think they were spies?"

"The ones that stayed probably were."

"Alexander, you thought I was a spy."

"And how much sensitive information did you accidentally give the French Ambassador in casual conversation while complaining about me?"

Damn it, he had a point. "And what about everything you accidentally told the English ambassador that was always stuck to your hip while complaining about me, darling?"

Damn it, Jefferson had a point. "This has nothing to do with what's happening today," Hamilton redirected the conversation. Jefferson smirked.

"Let's not do this right now," Jefferson hummed in response, lightly kissing Hamilton's neck and gently sucking. That's the precise moment Hamilton noticed Jefferson fingers lightly grazing along his skin, tracing his scars, sending shivers up his spine, and the growing hardness pressing against his back. So Hamilton did what anyone would do in this situation. He carried on the conversation like nothing was happening, shifting his weight ever so slightly so it settled right between Jefferson's legs, just to drive him crazy. Jefferson hissed slightly but just continued working at Hamilton's neck.

"-and if you think about, it all fits together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle," Hamilton finished reciting another conspiracy theory.

"You know what else fits together like a jig-saw puzzle?" Jefferson asked.

"What's that?"

"Us," Jefferson hissed in his ear, wrapping his arms around Hamilton's body and tightening them together. Hamilton could definitely feel the bulge underneath him now. Hamilton really wanted to see how long Jefferson could hold out, Jefferson was an extremely patient man. In fact, Hamilton wanted to see who would wait longer for something, Jefferson or Burr.

"And Lincoln Logs," Hamilton said.

"What?" Jefferson asked, stopping for a moment at the confusing comment.

"Lincoln Logs. They fit together like a puzzle too." Jefferson rolled his eyes and ran his fingers along Hamilton's ribs. Hamilton suppressed a shudder, "And Legos too, I suppose."

"Alexander," Jefferson said, pulling away from Hamilton's neck, "you're crazy."

"You know who's crazy? Mulligan. I love the guy. He's great."

Jefferson was beginning to wonder if Hamilton even had a train of thought and not just a cannoning shooting random thoughts into his mind. "That's nice, darling," Jefferson hummed.

"And when you get Lafayette drunk. Jesus Christ."

Jefferson knew exactly what Hamilton was doing and he was so not going to play his game.

Fairly.

***

"I'm surprised you weren't more upset about what Adams is trying to do," Hamilton said. They were lying together in bed while Hamilton traced circles on Jefferson dark skin.

Jefferson sat up and swung his legs over the edge of the bed, stretching out his arms before standing. "I'm pissed."

Hamilton rolled on his side and watched Jefferson pull on a robe, "You don't seem like it."

"That's because I don't start screaming in people's faces when I'm pissed like someone I know."

"Shut the fuck up."

Jefferson turned toward him and grinned, closed the distance between them with one long stride, and planted a kiss right on Hamilton's lips. "Make me," he growled and pulled away, going back to what he was doing.

"So what're you going to do about it?"

"We've gotta stop this bill in its tracks. I don't think Burr will allow it to pass but you never know. There's only one course of action that's guaranteed to get us somewhere."

"Oh? And what's that?"

"We run for president again."

Hamilton smiled, "I thought you retired."

"I did. And now I'm going to spend my retirement making sure no one screws up this country before I die."

"Presidents then."

***

Of course, they still had a while before they could actually do that. Adams' term had to end and elections to take place. Until then, Jefferson focused on rebuilding his fortune and Hamilton got a job as a lawyer. Jefferson would have as well, but his business took him out of state a lot and he couldn't juggle cases along with it.

Hamilton ended up proving himself as an excellent lawyer once again and raked in a good income, enough for them to keep Jefferson's house and for Hamilton to book a hotel room, at a discounted price, of course, he was a war hero and ex-president after all.

As time passed, Jefferson slowly got his investments smoothed out and his income grew as well, allowing him to eventually rebuy all the land he had sold. Hamilton was extremely tempted to write to Congress and just ask for a reimbursement for Jefferson's lost money, so tempted in fact, that at one point he had a pen in hand and paper on the desk before him. He knew that Jefferson would be upset if he did and they had a livable income now. If it had been Hamilton's money, he would have done it ages ago, but it wasn't, so he set down his pen with a sigh.

That's when someone pounded on Hamilton's door. When he opened it, he was shocked to find a breathless Laurens bent over his knees, trying to catch his breath after running so hard.

"Alex!" he half yelled, half gasped for air, "Thank God you're home!"

"What is it, John?" Hamilton knew something was wrong, Laurens was pale and sweaty, shaking slightly. He wouldn't have run if there wasn't something wrong.

"The Manor. Trouble."

"Breathe, John. Tell me what happened." Hamilton was already dialing Jefferson.

"Goveys at the Manor. Adams, Burr and everyone else in trouble. Don't know how it happened," he said slightly more clearly, still breathing hard.

"Fuck."

----

Warnings: Bickering, and sexual actions- kinda, not really.

[robonomics]

Appropriations Clause and Standing of One Branch to Sue Another

I posted this on Facebook earlier this week. One update I’d give: the court only cites to the Federalist Papers once, citing to Federalist Paper 51. This, along with Federalist Paper 10, is the most famous of the collection. These papers are the primary source of “legislative” history accompanying the text of the Constitution. If an argument is ever made about what the constitution means, especially on an area that has not been questioned before, there must be good reason not to speak at length on this source. Within Federalist Paper 51, the judge states how the separate branches are to be independent of each other without interference, but ignores the general philosophy that this structure is intended to prevent concentrations of power within any of the branches. That’s the problem with the standing argument here: standing has nothing to do with Federalist Paper 51. At best, this article presents an argument that the judiciary, in fulfilling its role as the sometimes arbiter between the two political branches over constitutional disputes, is directly tasked with keeping encroachments of power in check. By keeping power separate, it prevents one branch from overstepping. There is nothing in Federalist 51 that says one branch does not have the power to sue another. Federalism prevents the federal government from suing a state, and vice versa, but each branch of the federal government is not sovereign unto themselves within the federal government. At least, not sovereign in the sense that they can claim immunity from their illegal actions against the other. The rule of law reigns supreme in this country, not the rule of force. The Constitution is the ultimate source of law. The Judiciary is tasked with interpreting the Constitution. It is therefore the judiciary’s job to rule on claims of encroachment against rival branches of government in violation of the Constitution. If this principle is not upheld, the rule of law is nothing but a mere social norm with the only true power lying in the sword. Federalist 51 might say that each branch is independent, but it does not say that each branch gets to determine the extent of its lawful powers. Otherwise each would determine that it carries both the purse and the sword, so screw what any other branch tells it to do. Federalist Paper 78 says that Judicial Review is a power vested in the judiciary. It doesn’t say judicial review is a power to be side stepped because no case like it has been brought to them before.

Here’s my Facebook post:

It's June, which means I will be posting regularly on notable SCOTUS cases as they are released. But before that, I felt the urge to discuss a district court case that was released today, US House of Representatives v. Mnuchin, the Approriations Clause case. Heads up, this is a verrrrry legalistic discussion for constitutional law nerds- STANDING is a topic that will never be sexy, no matter how important it is for the general public, like in this case.

TLDR: the court was wrong that Congress does not have standing to sue the president if it alleges a direct usurpation of its Appropriations power. This is not a political question since the issue is specifically enumerated and described in the Constitution. Interpretation of the statutes implicated is possible if the facts of the case are allowed to reach the merits, and more importantly, injury can be resolved via mandamus (stop spending). Practically, if this case can't go forward past the standing stage, it says that the president can unilaterally determine how to spend money without needing to resort to congressional approval; that the only real resort for Congress is impeachment or a random individual suing the government.

Facts: The president determined that certain government funds would be spent differently than how Congress directly appropriated them after invoking various emergency power acts. The dispute on the merits is whether the president was actually given the authority by Congress to spend the money as he currently directs it to be spent.

Case outcome: The case cannot reach the merits because the House of Representatives lacks standing to sue the Executive Branch. In essence, if the Executive usurps the Legislature's power of the purse, the court can't do anything about it.

In law, one cannot sue without standing, or the legal ability to sue someone. After reading the case, I found multiple issues with the court's analysis. First, and most importantly, the court held that the House (and possibly the entire Legislative Branch) does not have standing under the Constitution to sue under the Appropriations Clause. Article 1's Appropriations clause says "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law." What this means is that a spending bill must be passed by both the Legislature and president delineating how the money will be spent before the president may spend it. The court basically says that this provision of the Constitution doesn’t provide an avenue for the legislature to claim injury, and therefore standing, to sue in court.

To prove this, the court relies on a few faulty legal arguments. The first, and primary one, is that this has never happened before (or at least not until recently in a 2015 district court case). Since there are several historical incidences where the legislature could have sued the executive but didn't, practice says that this is not a provision that provides standing for the Legislature. Why courts ever rely on this argument is mind blowing. Political norms are not law, and therefore should not be given the effect of legal precedent in court. The absence of a past suit does not necessarily mean one cannot sue.

Then the court relies on a "last resort" argument, saying that because there are non-judicial political means available to the the plaintiff-House of Representatives, the court can't intervene under the Appropriations provision. The court is correct that Congress can pass specific spending bills preventing the president from taking such action, can override a potential veto with a 2/3 majority in both houses, can create additional remedies for harm done by the executive for private parties, and can hold hearings about the matter, among other things. However, each one of these other political remedies fails because it requires executive assent (save the extreme super majority situation). Why would the executive assent to something that is against what it wants to do, and the legislature doesn't have standing to challenge them for doing anyways? Therefore, in practice, the executive has every ability to spend how they wish without reprimand because the courts will never tell them they legally can't, even if the executive truly lacks the legal authority to do so. The court puts up its hands and essentially says that spending and expenditure issues are a political issue; that the Appropriations Clause is merely a provision in the Constitution whose interpretation is up to whoever wants to enforce it, but not the court's.

The court also said that individual citizens who are directly harmed as a result of usurped appropriations powers have the ability to sue, just not the legislature. Don't worry though, because if the House wanted to it could file an amicus brief in support of what they think the law or outcome of that private individual's case should be. Yeah, that's what the court said the house could do when its power is being usurped- voice its opinion in a random citizen's private civil suit. That's absurd, since the House is the one who's power is being directly usurped- a cognizable injury- just like the individual who is bringing suit for injury from the constitutional violation.

Finishing its reasoning off, the court believes that this case is merely the House trying to usurp the executive into executing the law the way the House wants it to be carried out. A ha! How the tables have turned. If that were the case, then it is true that the house lacks standing: the legislature cannot tell the executive how to execute its laws. But I believe the House is genuine in its claim here about what's going on: the president, without a bill appropriated from the legislature, is going into the Treasury and spending government money. Whether money was truly appropriated via one provision or another, I haven't looked into specifically. That's because this court isn't allowing the case to get to the merits, because it sees usurpations of power by the executive over the legislature as lacking standing in court under the Constitution.

This reminds me somewhat of the founders fears of England's Glorious Revolution. There, Parliament started raising its own armies, and passing bills without the approval of the king. It eventually lead to the decapitation of the king, and authoritarian rule by the legislature (hey, authoritarianism is okay if it's approved democratically, right?- gulp). If what the court is saying is true, that the legislature lacks standing to challenge an alleged usurpation of its specific constitutional authority, then what's to stop the legislature from raising it's own army under the command of the legislature separate from the armed forces under the command of the executive? Would the executive have standing to sue? Would the court think that instance is a "last resort" magically conferring standing? That situation is literally what happened in the English Glorious Revolution, a time before the idea of a separate judicial branch even existed. Its the exact thing the founders feared and why the power of the purse resides with Congress and management of the army and other executive offices with the president. Splitting spending decisions from the person who spends is the ultimate way to stop the spender from doing literally whatever they want.

Here, the court seems to have lost why the judiciary is the third branch: to step in to prevent encroachments of power between the two political branches. Some things are not directly in the constitution, and it is therefore of questionable authority whether the court can step in (hypothetical challenges to purchases of land from foreign states). But when the power is directly laid out as belonging to one branch and not the other, like here, the court must step in.

Or at least reach the merits based on the justified claim.

***If the court said that the House lacked standing because it is a single chamber of the legislature, not representing the unified legislative branch as a whole, the court would probably have a better leg to stand on for its standing arguments. But since that's not what the court held ((it specifically did not address that argument) and I do not know enough about that topic, I refrain from discussing it here.