Title: Jacob Mark and Company to John B. Church, Alexander Hamilton, and John Laurance, 30 May 1797
From: Jacob Mark and Company
To: Church, John B.,Hamilton, Alexander,Laurance, John

New York 30 May 1797
Gentlemen,
We are sorry to find that owing to the embarrassed situation of the Land You purchased from us last Year so great an inconvenience and loss shou’d arise to You as well as ourselves in being retarded in the settlement; and as we are particularly anxious to remove the most distant hard thought from You towards us, we think it proper to make You such proposals as are not only founded on fair and honorable principals but which will certainly be for Your Particular interest to accept. Should You not think proper to come into the measures proposed, then be kind enough to set a price on Your Part of the Land at which You will sell, as the persons to whom we may Sell it, will not take short of the whole.
Do neither of the proposed measures meet Your ideas we then beg You will not take it amiss in us to act in Such manner as circumstances may require.
We propose
1. To sell You our one fourth undivided Interest in Townships No. 21 & 15 which according to the surveyors return (together 42314¼ acres) contains 10578 ½ acres at 2 dollars and 25 cents per acre.
2. The Amount thereof being Drs. 23801. 62/100 to be given in endorsed Notes payable on the

1st. July next D
8000

1st. October “
8500

1st. December “
7301.62

3. The two Notes which we hold Signed by Messrs. Laurance & Hamilton payable in December 1797 & 1798 to be made payable to J Mark & Co. or order.
4. The notes not to be delivered to us till a discharge of the mortgage on the two townships is fully produced.
You will oblige us by signifying to us Your decision on the above as speedily as possible.
We are with the greatest esteem   Gentlemen   Your most obedt. servts
J. Mark & Co.

Alexr. Hamilton
}
Esqrs
John Lawrance

J: B. Church


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John Laurance, 1 June 1797
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Laurance, John

[New York, June 1, 1797. On June 3, 1797, Laurance wrote to Hamilton: “I have received your letter of the first Instant.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Morris, 2 June 1797
From: Morris, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philada. June 2d. 1797
Dear Sir
Your letter of yesterday is this moment recd and I take my pen upon the first impulse to tell you not to be uneasy, I will pay you every farthing principal & interest, have patience for my measures to operate & rely yourself with Confidence. The Nature of your debt ties me at all events & it shall be paid. As to Mr Church’s Security how can it be doubted. I told you before that Mr Marshall is in treaty for the Land at Two Dollrs ⅌ Acre & writes for the Papers I wrote to you for. I beg you to send them as Speedily as possible. I think they will enab⟨le⟩ me to pay him off long before the time stipulated.
I am to be sure disagreeably situated, but my affairs are retrievable if I could get the Common aid of Common times and I will struggle hard. Keep All this to Yourself. I will address you again by & by. But send me the Papers written for.
Yours Sincerely
Robt Morris
Alexr. Hamilton Esqr


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Laurance, 3 June 1797
From: Laurance, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia June 3d 1797
My dear Sir
I have received your letter of the first Instant, with a Copy of a Letter from J Mark & Co. We gave for the Land about one dollar and seventy eight Cents per acre, since which, we have paid for surveying it, into Lots, near 2 Cents per Acre, to these sums must be added the Interest on the Money we have paid, which, I suppose, will make the price, at present, near 2 dollars per acre.
Township No 21, exclusive of its situation for large compact settlements, is a very valuable tract of Land, with regard to its Soil and Timbers, and must command a very good Price, whenever we deem it adviseable to commence Settlements. The Country about it, is settling very fast, and it must soon be, much in demand. The other Township, although the quality, in general, is not so good as the first, is well situated, for Settlement, and the great road to Oswego, will pass through it, in the course of this Summer.
What they mean by acting as Circumstances may require I know not, but I should be on my guard respecting them—J Mark at least. I cannot buy at present, and I am not willing to sell, but should I be induced to sell the money must be paid, immediately, and the price greater than they mention. If J Mark had made his payment on the Mortgage to Mr. Gilchrist, at the time he was to have done it, We should not have been embarrassed; but it is difficult to go on and settle, when we are liable to be disturbed by the proprietors of the Mortgage. It may be well to converse with them to know what their Views are. I conjecture part of the Money, they ought to have paid Gilchrist in December last, comes due, in this Month, and the residue in November next and they must raise money to meet those new Engagements, being negotiable ones—That the offer to us is to obtain our Notes for this purpose.
This is a Letter on business. For Intelligence I refer you to the public Prints. They detail what has passed in the Legislature.
Yours, very sincerely
John Laurance
Colonel A Hamilton


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Wolcott, Junior, 6 June 1797
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, June 6, 1797. On June 8, 1797, Hamilton wrote to Wolcott: “I have received your two letters of the 6th and 7.” Letter of June 6 not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Williams, 7 June 1797
From: Williams, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia 7th June 1797
Sr.
We shall be this day be engaged on the Subject of Regulating the Arming of Merchantmen. A dificualty ariseth with me respecting the Construction of our Treaty with France. Our Vessels will Claim a right as the Treaty with France expresseth. The French will exact the Decree of 2d March last—hence both will be Authorized by their respective Nations and which will be diametrically Oposite each other.
Again: Victor Hughs has declared all American Vessels Taken Armed shall be treated as Pirates.
Thus while on the One hand our Commerce Suffers—and on the other its Susceptible of commencing a misunderstanding which will probably lead to a War—which ought to be avoided. No talk of Embargo—only giving the Executive the Power in case of Emergency.
We shall direct the completion of Fortification but believe will only order the Frigates finished and probably Manned.
Do not believe we shall purchase Vessels for War or Order Convoys.
As it (in my Opinion) behoves us to Act with caution til we learn the Event of the Negociation, I am at present for pursuing the same measures as in the year 1794. Should the Negociation fail and France not be Satisfied with being put on an Equal footing with Other Nations—We shall be Unanimous in our Opposition.

Any remarks on these subjects or any other will be thankfully received   By Your Humble Servt
John Williams
Colo. Hamilton.
I am told the Lt. Governor is in New York and Mrs. Van Rensselaer is very unwell if so please make my Complts. respectful to them.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Wolcott, Junior, 7 June 1797
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, June 7, 1797. On June 8, 1797, Hamilton wrote to Wolcott: “I have received your two letters of the 6th and 7.” Letter of June 7 not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Rufus King, [8 June 1797]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: King, Rufus

[New York, June 8, 1797]
I thank, you My Dear Sir, for two letters lately received from you the last by Mr. Church. I feel very guilty for my negligence. But how can I help it?

The public prints will inform you of the course of public proceedings hitherto. You will perceive that the general plan is analogous to what was done in the case of Great Britain, though there are faults in the detail. Some people cannot learn that the only force which befits a Government is in the thought and action not in the words and many reverse this golden rule. I fear we shall do ourselves no honor in the result and we shall remain at the mercy of events without those efficient preparations which are demanded by so precarious a situation and which not provoking war would put us in condition to meet it. All the consolation I can give is that the public temper of this Country mends dayly & that there is no final danger of our submitting tamely to the yoke of France
Yrs. Affecly
A. H.June 8. 1797
The bearer of this is Mr. Fleming a young American of good connection & as far as I have learnt good character.

R King Esq


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Oliver Wolcott, Junior, [8 June 1797]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.

[New York, June 8, 1797]
Dr. Sir
I have received your two letters of the 6th & 7. The last announces to me no more than I feared. Nor do I believe any sufficient external impulse can be given to save us from disgrace. This however will be thought of.
I regret that you appear remote from the idea of a house tax simply without combining the land. I do not differ from your general principle. The truth is a solid one, that the sound state of the political œconomy depends in a great degree on a general repartition of taxes on taxable property by some equal rule. But it is very important to relax in theory so as to accomplish as much as may be practicable. I despair of a general land tax without actual war. I fear the idea of it keeps men back from the augmentation of revenue by other means which they might be willing to adopt. The idea of a house tax alone is not so formidable. If placed upon a footing which would evince practicability & moderation in the sum I think it might succeed. Now 1000000 of Dollars computing the number of houses at 600 000 would be an average of about a dollar & a half. The tax would be very low on the worst houses & could not be high on the best. This idea would smooth a great deal.
As to the circumstance of the habitations of the Southern negroes, I see no insuperable difficulty in applying ratios to them which would tend to individual Equity. As between the states the quotaprinciple would make this point unimportance.
As to the inequality in certain states, I believe on the plan suggested there could be no general tax which in fact would operate more equally. The idea of equalization by embracing lands does not much engage my confidence. Besides that this may be an after object & we are to gain points successively.
As to the productiveness of the stamp tax with the items I suggest it is difficult in the first instance to judge. But I am persuaded it would go far towards the point aimed. There cannot be much fewer than 3000000 of hats consumed in a Year in this Country; at an average of 8 Cents ⅌ hat this would be 240 000 Dollars—a large proportion of the 500 000. If law proceedings can be included directly or indirectly the produce will be very considerable. I think you mistake when you say these taxes in England are inconsiderable in proportion. According to my recollection the reverse is the truth.
Adieu   Yrs.
A H


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Morris, 10 June 1797
From: Morris, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philada. June 10 1797
Alexander Hamilton Esqre n york
Dear Sir
I hold ten Shares in the Western Canal Navigation of new york on which there has been paid $1070, and a Call of $25 ⅌ Share was due the 1st May last & remains to be paid with 6 ⅌ Ct Interest from that time. I don’t know what State of Credit these Shares stand at present, but am confident they will be a most productive property hereafter. If you will take these Shares credit me for the amot I have paid & you make the Payment now due & answer such other Calls as the managers may make, you shall have them in part Payment of what I owe you. Mr Church begins already to threaten me with harsh measures but I hope to disarm him.
With great Esteem   I am Dr Sir   Yrs
RM


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Elihu Chauncey Goodrich, 12 June 1797
From: Goodrich, Elihu Chauncey
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Claverack [New York] June 12, 1797. “Scarcity of Money (at this time) is such that I cannot without a very material Injury to my property and Credit raise the amount which you as attorney for Mr. James Bryson have received against Me as Endorser of a Note.… However previous to the first day of November next it will undoubtedly be in my power without much inconvenience to make the full payment—request you therefore to delay issuing any Execution untill the said 1st day of November.…”


Title: Account with John Barker Church, [15 June 1797]
From: Hamilton, Alexander,Church, John Barker
To:

[New York, June 15, 1797]

    Dr.
    John B Church Esquire in Account with Alexander Hamilton
    Cr

    1796
    1796

    June
    6
    To Cash paid expences of my Clerk to Philadelphia to attend to execution of your Mortgage by Robert Morris

    10. 16—
    April
    8
    By Ballance of Account rendered this day
    £570. 2. 8

    20
    To paid J Laurance your proportion of expence of surveys

    113. 8—
    Aug
    22
    By this sum received of A Woodruff on account of Carney’s debt
    420——

    July
    7
    To your half the purchase money of Eight lots in the City of N York bought of

    October
    11
    By this sum received on account of Kinlocks Bond
    340. 4. 6

    I. Riley

    Dolls. 1000

    Nov.
    26
    By this sum received of Doctor Romayne
    354. 8. 10

    half expence of searching records for mortgages and Judgments
    }
       8. 12—

    Decr.
    13
    By this sum received of R Morris
    400——

    1008. 12 =
    403. 5—
    1797

    By this sum received of Wm Cooper in two payments on account of Holkers Debt
        600——

    August
    8
    To paid City tax on your lot broad Way

    4. 16. 8

    1797

    To paid for cleaning whitewashing & painting your house

    34. 5. 6

    March
    7.
    To paid Robinson Carpenter for fencing your lot

    11. 11—

    May
    17
    To Cash paid yourself

    200——

    29
    To ditto paid price of Negro Woman

    90——

    June
    5
    To paid for coal per Order

    120——

    7
    To Cash paid yourself

    200——

    Ballance due J: B Church

     1496.13.10

    £2684.16—

    £2684.16—

    From the above Ballance deductions are to be made on two Accounts

    House Rent paid more than received about

    300

    Interest creditted from the supposition of a ballance which did not exist owing to a double credit of a sum received from Wadsworth, whole sum creditted £329.9.04—excess about
    }
    300

    600—

E. E. New York June 15. 1797
A Hamilton


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Jeremiah Wadsworth, 16 June 1797
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Wadsworth, Jeremiah

New York June 16. 1797
My Dear Sir
This will be delivered to you by Mr. John Lytton a kinsman of mine. He was born to a handsome fortune—but adversity in Trade has ruined him, insomuch that he is under the necessity of endeavouring to protect himself from too severe creditors by taking whatever benefit the laws of Connecticut will allow him. As he is a worthy man (besides being my relation) I recommend him to your advice and good offices. He will be glad to find employment as a Clerk, till he can obtain a discharge, and as he has been regularly bred to business and writes a good hand I have no doubt he would give satisfaction. If you can recommend him to employment you will oblige me. I am under obligations to a part of his family which interest me the more in his affairs. When discharged I must endeavour to bring him forward into some line of business to which he is adapted.
Yrs. truly
A Hamilton


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from James Thompson, [22 June 1797]
From: Thompson, James
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Bombay, June 22, 1797]
Dear Sir
Neither remoteness of Situation, nor lapse of time can efface from my Recollection the Obligations which I was under to you in the earlier part of my Life. That I have not before acknowledged them you are freely at liberty to attribute to any Cause—but want of Gratitude—for whatever may be my Vices Ingratitude cannot be included in the Catalogue. You may believe me when I assure you that wherever I have been Situated or whatever had been my prospects I have uniformly entertained the same grateful Sense of your liberality.
No Occurrence in life could afford me a more sensible pleasure than that of having it in my power to make you a suitable Return. This however I can never expect, as the most I can hope for is to have an opportunity of Reimbursing you such pecuniary Advances as you have made or ought to have received on my Account. To effect this Object I have anxiously looked for an opportunity from this side of India, but without Success; there being little intercourse with America direct from hence and the Communication via China has been by the diabolical Treaty of Commerce put an end to, and the ignorance of your Correspondent in England has prevented me from availing myself of that Channel.
I have embraced the present opportunity of Addressing you, as I am led to hope the Ship may again return to Bombay; but even if she should not, you will particularly oblige me by informing me of the Amount which I am in your Debt—Upon the Receipt of which I will find means of making an adequate Remittance. It matters not to what part of India the Ship is bound by which you write. If the Captain sends the letter to the Post Office, it will come safe to hand if address’d to me in Bombay.
I am   Sir   with profound Respect   Your most Obedt. Humble Servant
James Thompson
Bombay22d. June 1797.
Alexander Hamilton Esqr:


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Simeon DeWitt, 28 June 1797
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: DeWitt, Simeon

New York, June 28, 1797. “I am applied to, to examine the Title to a tract of land described in the extract A, which is inclosed. It appears from the papers put into my hands, that a Map of the intire tract patented to John W Watkins the 25 of June 1794 as surveyed is on file in your office. By the extract from the patent, which is also herewith, it is found that a number of tracts comprehended within the exterior lines of the tract patented to Watkins are excepted and reserved. The Question is whether the North West quarter or section of township No. 8 is wholly free from these exceptions and reservations or is affected by them. It is presumed that the map and survey in your Office will enable you to answer it.… Give me leave also to trouble you with an Inquiry concerning the Class rights described in the Extract B. These class rights appear to have been conveyed by John Carpenter of Goshen to one Benjamin Barton and by the latter to Elisha Boudinot of New Ark, but the Evidences of the Class rights, whatever they are, do not accompany the Conveyances. You will perhaps be able to inform me from the files of your Office how the matter is situated.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Oliver Mann and Isaac Parker, 28 June 1797
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Mann, Oliver,Parker, Isaac

New York, June 28, 1797. “Your letter of the 6th of May last by making a circuit to Albany did not reach me in due time—which is the principal cause of this late reply. The idea of there having been property lodged in my hands towards satisfaction of the notes surprized me, as nothing of the kind ever took place, nor do I recollect or believe that the expectation of it was ever suggested to me. My memory of what passed with Mr. Isaac Parker amounts simply to this—that he desired me to stay proceedings until further order and such further order I never received. Mr. Lowel, who sent me the notes, some time after this direction had been given me by Mr. Parker passed through this City. I mentioned to him the direction received and how the affair then stood; but he gave no further direction.… Since the receipt of your last I have inquired concerning Messrs Edward & Elias Parker. The answer I get is that one of those Gentleman is dead and that the other some time since quitted this City having left no property behind. Concluding that all further pursuit here would be useless I shall send this letter with the Notes under cover to Mr. Lowel who will do with them as he finds right.”


Title: Tract Granted by Robert Morris within the Genesee Lands, [June 1797]
From: Morris, Robert
To:

[New York, June, 1797]

A
27 February 1793
Deed from R Morris & Wife to Herman LeRoy & others called 1000000 (but by bounds)

A2
20 of July 1793
Ditto to ditto (called 800000 as before)

A3No.
24 Decr. 1792

                    Do. to do
                    Two adjoining Tracts

                    1000
                    }
                    The most Western & bounding on thelakes with a meridian line for the Eastern boundary

                    500

A6
28 Decr. 1796
do. to do    40000

Mortgage
Eastern & extendg Westward to the point of triangle of Le Roy & Bayard

A7
31 of Decr. 1796
Mortgage of same tract for a further purpose

20 of July 1793
for three Tracts the one the SouthEastern Corner of the whole Dutch tracts—

another  for 54.000 acres

called
another  for 46 000

500 000
     100 000 acres

B
11 Jan 1793
From R M to Le Roy & Bayard their own  80 000

5 of April 1797
From Cottringer to R Morris adjoining to Watson

33 750.

6 of April 1797—
From Morris to Craigie Same tract except the Genessee flats

1 May 1796—
From Morris to S Ogden adjoining the lake (granted or to be granted) 50000 acres except Genessee Flats with covenant to give equal quantity of upland.

From

May 31. 1796
to A Hamilton 100 000May 4, 1797

May 4. 1797
from Morris to Harrison


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Morris, 2 July 1797
From: Morris, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philada July 2d. 1797
Dear Sir
I cannot account for your not having Answered the letter of which the preceeding is a Copy, in any other way than by supposing it did not get to your hands, it was written so long since as the 23d of May last & sent by Post, and is of so important a nature that I waited with Anxiety supposing however that the papers were preparing and that you delayed writing untill they were ready. I am become more Anxious now from the rigour of Mr Church. I pray of you for that Justice to which I am on this occasion entitled, & beg that you will comply with the requests contained in that letter. As I suppose it would not be agreable to you to appear against Mr Church I must apply to other Counsel to oppose his proceedings untill I can pay him the interests which I will do as soon as possible.
I am Dr Sir   Your Obedt Servt
Robt Morris
Alexr Hamilton EsqrNew York


Title: Introductory Note: From Oliver Wolcott, Junior, [3 July 1797]
From:
To:

[Philadelphia, July 3, 1797]
The events described in this letter precipitated the final phase of what has come to be known as the “Reynolds Affair.” In pamphlets appearing in June and July, 1797, James Thomson Callender stated that Hamilton, while Secretary of the Treasury, had joined with James Reynolds in a series of speculative ventures that were at best improper and at worst illegal. Two months later Hamilton published the so-called “Reynolds Pamphlet,” in which he wrote: “The charge against me is a connection with one James Reynolds for purposes of improper pecuniary speculation. My real crime is an amorous connection with his wife [Maria], for a considerable time with his privity and connivance, if not originally brought on by a combination between the husband and wife with the design to extort money from me.” According to Hamilton, Reynolds had blackmailed him throughout 1792 under the threat of making the affair public.

The pamphlets by Callender and Hamilton are more akin to trial briefs than factual reports, and at several critical points they present evidence that is flatly contradictory. Although it is possible in a general fashion to reconcile the major contentions of Callender and Hamilton (that is, that Hamilton was guilty of official misconduct and of having an affair with Maria Reynolds), most historians and biographers, including those hostile to the first Secretary of the Treasury, have accepted Hamilton’s version of his involvement with the Reynoldses. Of those scholars who have more or less taken Hamilton at his word, Broadus Mitchell not only presents the most balanced summary of what he thinks happened but also acknowledges that there remain several key questions to which he has found no satisfactory answers. Recently, however, Julian P. Boyd in a lengthy essay concludes that Hamilton’s account may well be a fabrication and that at the very least the Secretary of the Treasury knowingly permitted certain individuals to use inside information to speculate in Government securities.
Despite the fact that the role of both James and Maria Reynolds is central to any interpretation of Hamilton’s lapses in official or personal morality, until recently surprisingly little has been known about the background of either of them. Some historians have accused Maria Reynolds of lying about her past, but she accurately described herself to Hamilton as the “daughter of a Mr. Lewis … [and] sister to a Mrs. G—— Livingston of the State of New York.” She was equally accurate in reporting to Jeremiah Wadsworth that she was the “sister of Col DuBois.” Born on March 30, 1768, she was the daughter of Susanna (or Susannah) Van Der Burgh and her second husband, Richard Lewis, both of whom were residents of Dutchess County, New York. Maria’s sister, Susannah, married Gilbert Livingston, while her half-brother was Lewis DuBois, the son of Susanna (or Susannah) Van Der Burgh and her first husband, Elias DuBois. On July 28, 1783, Maria married James Reynolds, and on August 18, 1785, their daughter Susan was born. Whatever else may be said about Maria Reynolds—and, of course, both contemporaries and historians have said a great deal about her—she had what in a more genteel age was called respectable family connections.
James Reynolds was the oldest child of David and Mary Reynolds of Orange County, New York. Both the father and son appear to have been dedicated to the principle that public policy provided the greatest opportunity for private gain. Both, moreover, were singularly unsuccessful in their endeavors. During the American Revolution, David Reynolds, as an assistant commissary of purchases under Jeremiah Wadsworth, procured supplies for the army in Orange County. But by 1780 “his credit [had] fail’d,” and three years later he was in prison for “publick Debts.”

Like his father, James Reynolds worked in the Commissary Department, for on June 26, 1789, when he was attempting to secure an appointment as a “Tide or Land Waiter,” he wrote that he had been “employed in the Service of the United States in the late War with his Sloop in the North River upwards of two years, that he afterwards was employ’d in the Commissarys Department to the close of the war, which duty he discharged to the entire approbation of his employers.”

In 1790 James Reynolds turned to speculation, for in that year he was hired by William J. Vredenburgh, a New York City merchant, as an agent to buy up the claims to arrears of pay from soldiers and officers in Virginia and North Carolina. In the same year Theodorick Bland of Virginia introduced in the House of Representatives a series of resolutions that were designed to protect the interests of the veterans. Following the adoption of these resolutions, Hamilton made an unsuccessful effort to have them vetoed by George Washington. Hamilton’s opposition to these resolutions, which stands in marked contrast to the support given them by Thomas Jefferson, lends credence to the charge that the Secretary of the Treasury supplied speculators with the names of veterans and the amounts of the arrearages to which each veteran was entitled.
Reynolds’s difficulties with the United States Government—difficulties that would eventually land him in jail—arose not from his activities in Virginia and North Carolina but from an entirely different speculative venture. On November 16, 1792, Oliver Wolcott, Jr., who was then comptroller of the Treasury, initiated two suits against Reynolds and Jacob Clingman, who had been the clerk of Frederick A. C. Muhlenberg, a Pennsylvania Republican and Speaker of the House of Representatives in the First Congress. Reynolds and Clingman were charged with subornation of perjury and attempting to defraud the United States Government. Specifically they were accused of persuading John Delabar to commit perjury so that they could pose as the executors of the estate of Ephraim Goodenough of Massachusetts, an allegedly deceased soldier, who was a claimant against the United States. On November 13, 1792— or three days before the Government’s suit against Reynolds and Clingman—Wolcott had initiated proceedings against Delabar for perjury and fraud.
Clingman secured his release on bail on the same day on which he had been arrested, but both Reynolds and Delabar went to jail in Philadelphia. During his imprisonment Reynolds “threatened to make disclosures injurious to the character of some head of a Department.” Hamilton then advised Wolcott “to take no step towards a liberation of Reynolds, while such a report existed and remained unexplained.” Shortly after Reynolds’s imprisonment, Maria Reynolds appealed to Governor Thomas Mifflin of Pennsylvania for assistance in securing her husband’s release. At the direction of Mifflin, Alexander J. Dallas, secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on December 12, 1792, wrote to Jared Ingersoll, attorney general of Pennsylvania, “that in the case of Clingman and Reynolds the Governor leaves it entirely in his [Ingersoll’s] discretion to enter a Nolle Prosequi should the secretary of the treasury concur in thinking it proper.” Hamilton apparently concurred. In any event, on the same day on which Dallas wrote to Ingersoll, the suits against Reynolds and Clingman were dismissed. In return for a promise by Wolcott to drop the prosecution against them, Reynolds and Clingman turned over to him a list of the creditors of the United States which they had obtained from the Treasury Department. In describing these negotiations almost five years after they had taken place, Wolcott wrote that Clingman and Reynolds agreed “to surrender the lists, to restore the balance which had been fraudulently obtained, and to reveal the name of the person, by whom they had been furnished.” Wolcott then informed Ingersoll “that an important discovery had been made, and the condition by which it could be rendered useful to the public in preventing future frauds; in consequence of which, the prosecutions against Clingman and Reynolds were dismissed.”
Among the many unanswered questions concerning the “Reynolds Affair” is the identity of the individual who made the list of creditors available to Reynolds and Clingman. Reynolds insisted that William Duer, who had been Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury from September, 1789, to the spring of the following year, was the culprit. But Wolcott, again writing some years after the event, stated: “… nothing occurred at any time to my knowledge, which could give colour to a suspicion, that Mr. Duer, was in any manner directly or indirectly concerned with or privy to the transaction. The infidelity was committed by a clerk in the office of the Register. Mr. Duer resigned his office in March, 1790 while the Treasury was at New-York—the Clerk who furnished the lists was first employed in Philadelphia in January 1791. The Accounts from which the lists were taken, were all settled at the Treasury subsequent to the time last mentioned; on the discovery above stated the Clerk was dismissed, and has not since been employed in the public offices.” Wolcott refused to divulge the name of the clerk, but Callender suspected that the lists had been furnished by Andrew G. Fraunces, who had been dismissed from the Treasury Department in March, 1793. Recently Boyd has argued—and argued convincingly—that the dismissed clerk was Simeon Reynolds, “who was almost certainly a kinsman of James Reynolds” and who worked in 1791 and 1792 in the office of Joseph Nourse, the register of the Treasury.
In the interval between his arrest and the dismissal of his case, Clingman turned to Muhlenberg, as a friend and former employee, for assistance. According to Muhlenberg, “Clingman, unasked, frequently dropped hints to me, that Reynolds had it in his power, very materially to injure the secretary of the treasury, and that Reynolds knew several very improper transactions of his.” On December 12, 1792, Muhlenberg shared his suspicions about Hamilton’s conduct with two Virginians, Senator James Monroe and Representative Abraham B. Venable. Monroe and Venable immediately visited Reynolds in prison, where he repeated the accusations against Hamilton. Monroe and Venable agreed to meet Reynolds again on the morning of December 13, but at that time they were told that “he had absconded, or concealed himself.” On the evening of December 12, 1792, in a meeting with Monroe and Muhlenberg, Mrs. Reynolds corroborated her husband’s story. According to the account of this meeting made by Monroe and Muhlenberg, Mrs. Reynolds “also mentioned, that Mr. Clingman had several anonymous notes addressed to her husband, which, she believed, were from Mr. Hamilton (which we have) with an endorsement ‘from secretary Hamilton, Esq.’ in Mr. Reynolds’s hand writing.…”
On December 15, 1792 (three days after the cases against Reynolds and Clingman had been dismissed), Muhlenberg, Monroe, and Venable called on Hamilton and, in Hamilton’s words, explained that “information had been given them of an improper pecuniary connection between Mr. Reynolds and myself; that they had thought it their duty to pursue it and had become possessed of some documents of a suspicious complexion—that they had contemplated the laying the matter before the President, but before they did this, they thought it right to apprise me of the affair and to afford an opportunity of explanation.…” After Muhlenberg, Monroe, and Venable had shown Hamilton the documents in their possession, the four men agreed to meet again that evening at Hamilton’s house. At the evening meeting, which Wolcott attended at Hamilton’s request, Hamilton defended himself by stating that he had had an affair with Maria Reynolds and had paid blackmail to her husband. As evidence, he presented several letters and receipts, which he subsequently published in the appendix to the “Reynolds Pamphlet.” Hamilton requested and was granted permission to make copies of the incriminating documents which Muhlenberg, Monroe, and Venable had shown him earlier in the day. Monroe retained the originals.
At the conclusion of his meeting with Muhlenberg, Monroe, and Venable on the evening of December 15, 1792, Hamilton had reason to believe that he had convinced them that their suspicions concerning his public conduct were groundless. He also thought that they had agreed not to reveal either their original charges against him or his own account of his less than exemplary behavior as a husband. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that he could have seriously thought that his secret—whatever it was—could have been kept indefinitely. Certainly Hamilton’s friends and enemies suspected, if they did not know, that he had been charged with official misconduct. On May 6, 1793, Henry Lee wrote to Hamilton from Richmond, Virginia: “Was I with you I would talk an hour with doors bolted & windows shut, as my heart is much afflicted by some whispers which I have heard.” Far more explicit—and from Hamilton’s point of view, far more threatening—than whispers was a letter “From a Correspondent,” which was printed in the [Philadelphia] Aurora. General Advertiser, October 23, 1795. The “Correspondent” wrote: “Quere—Whether a certain head of a department was not in the month of December 1792, privy and party in the circumstances of a certain enquiry of a very suspicious aspect, respecting real mal-conduct on the part of his friend, patron and predecessor in office, which ought to make him extremely circumspect on the subject of investigation and enquiry into supposed guilt?
“Would a publication of the circumstances of that transaction redound to the honor or reputation of the parties, and why has the subject been so long and carefully smothered up?”
The rumors concerning Hamilton became public knowledge in June and July of 1797, when Callender revived and published James Reynolds’s earlier charges against Hamilton. Stating that Federalist criticism of Monroe’s ministry to France had motivated his publication, Callender wrote: “Attacks on Mr. Monroe have been frequently repeated from the stock-holding presses. They are cowardly, because he is absent. They are unjust, because his conduct will bear the strictest enquiry. They are ungrateful, because he displayed, on an occasion that will be mentioned immediately, the greatest lenity to Mr. Alexander Hamilton, the prime mover of the federal party.” In chapter VI Callender hinted that Hamilton’s relationship with the Reynoldses involved more than a “volunteer acknowledgement of seduction” and implied that the Secretary of the Treasury had speculated in public funds. In chapter VII Callender charged that Hamilton, fearful of the disclosures which James and Maria Reynolds might have made, had “packed them off.” In the same chapter Callender stated that if Reynolds “was one agent for the purchase of certificates, it may well be conceived, though it cannot yet be proved, that our secretary had twenty others.…” In both chapters Callender included documents to support his accusations against Hamilton. In a letter dated July 6, 1797, to John Fenno, which was printed in Fenno’s Gazette of the United States, and Philadelphia Daily Advertiser on July 8, 1797, Hamilton denied the accusations made by Callender in pamphlet “No. V.”
Like almost every other aspect of the “Reynolds Affair,” the authorship of Callender’s public charges against Hamilton was—and remains—a subject of controversy. Theodore Sedgwick was certain that the author was John Beckley of Virginia, clerk of the House of Representatives and the individual usually given major credit for organizing the Republican party in Pennsylvania, and on June 24, 1797, he wrote to Rufus King: “The House of Representatives did not re-elect Mr. Beckley as their Clerk. This was resented not only by himself but the whole party, and they were rendered furious by it. To revenge, Beckley has been writing a pamphlet mentioned in the enclosed advertisement. The ‘authentic papers’ there mentioned are those of which you perfectly know the history, formerly in the possession of Messrs. Monroe, Muhlenberg & Venable. The conduct is mean, base and infamous. It may destroy the peace of a respectable family, and so gratify the diabolical malice of a detestable faction, but I trust it cannot produce the intended effect of injuring the cause of government.” But in the preface to his History, Callender wrote: “A report has been circulated, that Mr. John Beckley is the author of this volume. He did not frame a single sentence of it. He is unacquainted with my hand writing, and I could not be sure to distinguish his.” This disclaimer does not, however, preclude the possibility that Beckley had supplied Callender with copies of the James Reynolds correspondence, and Monroe, for one, thought that Beckley had done just that. On December 1, 1797, Monroe wrote to Aaron Burr: “You know I presume that Beckley published the papers in question. By his clerk they were copied for us. It was his clerk who carried a copy to H. who asked (as B. says) whether others were privy to the affr. The clerk replied that B. was, upon wh. H. desired him to tell B. he considered him bound not to disclose it. B. replied by the same clerk that he considered himself under no injunction whatever—that if H. had any thing to say to him it must be in writing. This from B.—most certain however it is that after our interviews with H. I requested B. to say nothing abt. it & keep it secret—& most certain it is that I never heard of it afterwards till my arrival when it was published. This if necessary will be declared by all.
“It was also intended by Muhlenberg & Venable to take copies, & copies were by them requested of B. If they omitted taking them it was their fault. This however is not material. I mention it for yr. own information.”

Both Venable and Muhlenberg insisted that they had never made copies of any documents used by Callender and that they therefore could not have given these materials to him. On July 11, 1797, Monroe stated that after the meeting on the evening of December 15, 1792, he had “sealed up his copy of the papers mentioned and sent or delivered them to his Friend in Virginia.…” Then on July 17 Monroe and Muhlenberg informed Hamilton that the original papers were placed “in the hands of a respectable character in Virga. soon after the transaction took place,” and on July 21 Monroe wrote to Hamilton that he “deposited the papers with a friend when I left my country, in whose hands they still are.” Richard Hildreth, in The History of the United States of America, suggests that this “respectable character” was Thomas Jefferson, and W. P. Cresson, in his biography of Monroe, states that Monroe’s “friend” was “almost certainly Jefferson.” This view is supported by Callender’s assertion in 1798 that “Mr. Jefferson had received a copy of these documents,” but Callender also insisted that Jefferson “never shewed them, nor ever spoke of them, to any person.” Jefferson did indeed know of the charges against Hamilton, for on December 17, 1792 (which was two days after Hamilton’s two meetings with Monroe, Muhlenberg, and Venable), Jefferson wrote the following memorandum: “The affair of Reynolds and his wife.—Clingham Muhlenb’s clerk, testifies to F. A. Muhl. Monroe Venable.—also Wolcott at (and?) Wadsworth. Known to J(ames) M(adison). E(dmund) R(andolph). (John) Beckley and (Bernard) Webb.
“Reynolds was speculating agent in the speculations of Govt. arrearages. He was furnished by Duer with a list of the claims of arreages due to the Virga. and Carola. lines and brought them up, against which the Resolutions of Congress of June 4. 1790. were levelled. Hamilton advised the President to give his negative to those resolutions.”

Far more important to Hamilton than the way in which Callender had obtained the material for his pamphlets was the need to convince Monroe, Muhlenberg, and Venable that they should state publicly that they had believed—and that they still believed—the story which he had told them on the evening of December 15, 1792. On July 5, 1797, he accordingly wrote to Monroe and asked him for “a declaration equivalent to that which was made to me at the time in the presence of Mr. Wolcott by yourself and the two other Gentlemen.” To refresh Monroe’s memory, he enclosed a document which he described as a “copy of a memorandum of the substance of your declaration made by me the morning after our Interview.” According to this document, Monroe, Muhlenberg, and Venable “regretted the trouble and uneasiness which they had occassionned to me in consequence of the Representations made to them … they were perfectly satisfied with the explanation I had given and … there was nothing in the transaction which ought to affect my character as a public Officer or lessen the public Confidence in my Integrity.”
When Hamilton wrote to Monroe, he had not seen Callender’s second pamphlet. He therefore did not know that it included a memorandum by Monroe, Muhlenberg, and Venable, dated December 16, 1792, which stated: “… We left him [on the evening of December 15, 1792] under an impression our suspicions were removed.” Nor did he know that the same pamphlet contained a note by Monroe recounting a meeting he had had with Clingman on January 2, 1793. According to Monroe’s account of this meeting, “Mr. Clingman called on me this evening and mentioned that he had been apprized of Mr Hamilton’s vindication by Mr. Wolcott the day or two after our interview with him. He further observed to me that he communicated the same to Mrs. Reynolds, who appeared much shocked at it & wept immoderately. That she denied the Imputation & declared that it had been a fabrication of Colonel Hamilton and that her Husband had joined in it, who had told her so, & that he had given him rects. for Money & written letters, so as to give countenance to the pretence—that he was with Colo. H. the day after he left the jail when we supposed he was in Jersey. He was of opinion she was innocent and that the defense was an imposition.”
The publication of Monroe’s version of his conversation with Clingman made it more imperative than ever for Hamilton to secure from Monroe a clear-cut avowal of the Virginian’s belief in the explanation which Hamilton had given on the evening of December 15, 1792. With this in mind Hamilton arranged a meeting with Monroe, and on July 11, 1797, he and John Barker Church called on Monroe, who was visiting relatives in New York. David Gelston, a New York City merchant and Republican politician, was also present, and his detailed account of the proceedings makes it clear how unsatisfactory the conference was to Hamilton. Monroe’s estimate of the interview was much the same, for on July 12 he wrote to Jefferson: “… Here I have had an interview with the friend of Mr. & Mrs R. each of us having a friend present & wh. furnished no result, the business being adjourned over to Phila. where we meet the day after my return, there in compy. with the other gentn. Muhg. & Venable. The details of this interview are reserved till I see you. You may have some idea of them however when you recollect the previous good disposition of some of the parties for each other. The issue is quite uncertain as to the mode of adjusting what is personal in the business.”
Following the July 11 meeting, Hamilton began what proved to be a protracted correspondence with Monroe, who repeatedly refused to make the kind of categorical statement that Hamilton demanded. On July 22, 1797, in a letter that was tantamount to a challenge, Hamilton wrote to Monroe: “On the contrary by the affected reference of the matter to a defence which I am to make, and by which you profess your opinion is to be decided—you imply that your suspicions are still alive. And as nothing appears to have shaken your original conviction but the wretched tale of Clingman, which you have thought fit to record it follows that you are pleased to attach a degree of weight to that communication which cannot be accounted for on any fair principle. The result in my mind is that you have been and are actuated by motives towards me malignant and dishonorable; nor can I doubt that this will be the universal opinion when the publication of the whole affair which I am about to make shall be seen.” On July 31, 1797, Monroe accepted Hamilton’s challenge in a letter in which he wrote: “I have always stated to you that I had no wish to do you a personal injury. The several explanations wh. I have made accorded with truth & my ideas of propriety. Therefore I need not repeat them. If these do not yield you satisfaction I can give no other unless called on in a way which always for the illustration of truth, I wish to avoid, but which I am ever ready to meet.” The duel, however, was averted on August 9, when Hamilton wrote to Monroe: “The intention of my letter of the 4th instant, as itself imports, was to meet and close with an advance towards a personal interview, which it appeared to me had been made by you. From the tenor of your reply of the 6th, which disavows the inference I had drawn, any further step on my part, as being inconsistent with the ground I have heretofore taken, would be improper.” Still the matter was not settled, for the letters continued to go back and forth between the two antagonists. Monroe with considerable justification complained that he did not know whether Hamilton did or did not want a duel, and finally, in early December, 1797, Monroe asked Aaron Burr and John Dawson either to conclude the arrangements for the duel or, if the dispute had been amicably settled, to publish an item in the newspapers to that effect. In a letter to Monroe, which presumably was never sent, Hamilton accepted the challenge. Although no evidence exists concerning how this dispute was settled, the fact remains that Hamilton and Monroe never did fight a duel.
Soon after the publication of Callender’s charges and long before the conclusion of his correspondence with Monroe, Hamilton decided that he had no alternative but to “place before the public an exact detail of the affair in all its circumstances.” Although Muhlenberg and Venable indicated a willingness to accept the explanation given by Hamilton on the evening of December 15, 1792, Monroe remained what can at best be called equivocal. Monroe’s view of the entire matter is perhaps best exemplified by his statement to Hamilton on July 21, 1797, that “Whether the imputations against you as to speculation, are well or ill founded, depends upon the facts & circumstances which appear agnst you & upon yr. defense.” Hamilton replied to Monroe on July 22: “… there appears a design at all events to drive me to the necessity of a formal defence—while you know that the extreme delicacy of its nature might be very disagreeable to me.”
For several weeks Hamilton worked at preparing his defense and collecting the documents he needed to support it. Finally, an advertisement dated August 25, 1797, in a Philadelphia newspaper announced: “This day published … Observations on certain Documents Contained in No. V and VI of ‘The History of the United States for the year 1796,’ In which the charge of speculation against Alexander Hamilton, Late Secretary of the Treasury, is Fully refuted. written by himself.”

Republicans greeted the “Reynolds Pamphlet”Alexander Hamilton, Observations on Certain Documents Contained in No. V and VI of “The History of the United States for the Year 1796,” in which the Charge of Speculation against Alexander Hamilton, Late Secretary of the Treasury, is Fully Refuted. Written by Himself (Philadelphia: Printed for John Fenno, by John Bioren, 1797). with understandable joy and wonderment, for it seemed to them that Hamilton had gone to extreme lengths to document a sordid affair while at the same time he had done nothing to discredit the charges of official misconduct. John Barnes, a Philadelphia merchant, wrote to Jefferson on October 3, 1797: “Very fortunately the inclosed pamphlett (which you request) was some few days since, left with me—in the state you find it. Mr H——has assuredly, reduced his Consequence, to the most degrading & Contemptable point of view; And I am much pleased to find Mr Monroe would not, humour his restless, unreasonable & foolish Vanity, for under all circumstances, the several Gentlemens treatment towards him was, thro: polite, & respectfull. Such another piece of ridiculous folly: sure, never Man was guilty of—first, in Committing himself via his Dear (dear indeed,) Maria; and then, to publish it, himself: as if, it were possible—by that means to justify his public Conduct, by a simple confession of his private ridiculous Amour, at the expence of both—his Reputation and future peace of mind: how it must on Reflection, torture him, on poor Mrs. H. Accot: whose feelings on the Occasion must be severely injured. if not expressed: how you came (innocently) to be luged in—at the latter end of the fray, is yet to be explained; it seems, this poor Frauncis—to whom you addressed the two letters in question—was met by Mr H. on the Battery NewYork. and questioned respecting his situation & Circumstances—and withal asked, who was his friend, and if he stood in Need of Assistance—his look, and condition plainly evinced the supposition—and Mr H. afforded him a present relief, in the course of conversation F informed Mr H. he had waited upon you—in Philada—and to confirm it, produced your two letters. & withal added your promise of employmt. (at least so he expressed himself to me). Mr H——immediately requested the perusal of them, with promise of returning them. imprudently F. Assented—and they still rest, with Mr H. And by this sorry means made Use of to Grace—as he supposes, his ingracious defence—in pity to F——s immediate wants (rather than his Merits) I could not but Assist him; After a short breakft. he left me, and I have not seen him since, nothing but his extreme want, & expectation of seeing a worthless Brother of his Here (Absent) brought him at this Crisis to Town and it is more than probable he will pay you another Visit on your Return to Philada. I intimated too him the improbability of your employing him—and added, the very imprudent disclosure of your letter to Mr H. could not but displease you.”
On October 20, 1797, James Madison wrote to Jefferson: “… The publication under all its characters is a curious specimen of the ingenious folly of its author. Next to the error of publishing at all, is that of forgetting that simplicity & candor are the only dress which prudence would put on innocence. Here we see every rhetorical artifice employed to excite the spirit of party to prop up his sinking reputation and whilst the most exaggerated complaints are uttered agst. the unfair & virulent persecution of himself, he deals out in every page the most malignant insinuations agst. others. The one agst. you is a masterpiece of folly, because its importance is in exact proportion to its venom.” After reading the “Reynolds Pamphlet,”Alexander Hamilton, Observations on Certain Documents Contained in No. V and VI of “The History of the United States for the Year 1796,” in which the Charge of Speculation against Alexander Hamilton, Late Secretary of the Treasury, is Fully Refuted. Written by Himself (Philadelphia: Printed for John Fenno, by John Bioren, 1797). Callender also wrote to Jefferson: “… If you have not seen it, no anticipation can equal the infamy of this piece. It is worth all that fifty of the best pens in America could have said agt. him, and the most pitiful part of the whole is his notice of you.”
The Republican charges against Hamilton were made more plausible by his refusal to make public the originals of the documents that he had printed in the appendix to the “Reynolds Pamphlet.” When Callender wrote to him on October 29, 1797, asking for permission to “inspect” these documents, Hamilton did not reply and endorsed Callender’s letter: “Impudent Experiment NO Notice.” Callender concluded that at least some of the documents in question did not exist and never had existed. In his Sketches, published in 1798, he wrote: “… Clingman and the lady [Maria Reynolds] have been married. They reside now at Alexandria [Virginia]. Reynolds himself lives, it is said, in New-York. If the letters published by Mr. Hamilton in the name of Maria are genuine, it would be very easy to obtain her attestation of the fact. A justice of the peace, at Alexandria, could dispatch the business in half an hour. She could be directed to give a sample of her hand; and, by comparing this with the letters, it would be ascertained whether or not they really came from her pen. But Camillus dares not to meet this test.
“Instead of such an obvious and decisive elucidation, Mr. Hamilton brings forward Mary Williams, keeper of a boarding house in Philadelphia. This woman swears, that she is well acquainted with the hand writing of Mrs. Reynolds, and that she is well satisfied of the letters being genuine. She gives no particulars of her acquaintance with Mrs. Reynolds, except the declining to admit of her as a lodger. This is as lame a kind of evidence as can well be conceived. Why not appeal to the lady herself, in place of such a circuitous method?
“… Send for the lady, or pay her a visit. Take her before a magistrate, and let us hear what she has to say. Your avoiding a public meeting with her, holds out a strong presumption of her innocence. Try, also, to find out Reynolds. Never pretend that you scorn to confront accusers. The world will believe that you dare not.”
Callender was correct in his assertion that both Maria and James Reynolds were available for questioning in the years after 1792. On May 14, 1793, Maria Reynolds filed a bill in the New York Court of Chancery requesting a divorce from her husband on the ground that he had committed adultery with Eliza Flavinier, and almost two years later the court issued the final decree granting the divorce. In the early stages of the divorce proceedings John Beckley wrote to an unnamed correspondent: “Clingman … informs me, that Mrs. Reynolds has obtained a divorce from her husband, in consequence of his intrigue with Hamilton to her prejudice, and that Colonel Burr obtained it for her: he adds too, that she is thoroughly disposed to attest all she knows of the connection between Hamilton and Reynolds.…” There is no record, however, that she ever attested to “all she knows.” On the other hand, it may or may not be significant that she and Clingman were subsequently married, that they were living in Virginia in 1798, and that at a later time they moved to England.
James Reynolds, like his wife, returned to the obscurity from which he had emerged. Before doing so, however, he did write a note to Hamilton on the night of his release from prison, and he visited the Secretary of the Treasury on the following morning. Boyd suggests that Reynolds subsequently became a sea captain, but the evidence to support this conclusion is at best tenuous. On the other hand, in 1798 in the course of a suit to recover two hundred dollars Reynolds described himself as a New York City grocer, and in another case in 1803 he stated that he was forty-four years old and a laborer in Harlem in the Seventh Ward of New York City. These facts tend to deepen rather than dispel one of the many mysteries surrounding the “Reynolds Affair,” for they indicate that although Reynolds was available for questioning, either he was not asked or he did not wish to state for the record his version of what had happened.
In his attack on Hamilton’s veracity in his Sketches, Callender also maintained that internal evidence indicated that the letters ascribed to Maria Reynolds in the “Reynolds Pamphlet”Alexander Hamilton, Observations on Certain Documents Contained in No. V and VI of “The History of the United States for the Year 1796,” in which the Charge of Speculation against Alexander Hamilton, Late Secretary of the Treasury, is Fully Refuted. Written by Himself (Philadelphia: Printed for John Fenno, by John Bioren, 1797). were in fact written by Hamilton. “These letters from Mrs. Reynolds,” Callender wrote, “are badly spelt and pointed. Capitals, also, occur even in the midst of words. But waving such excrescences, the stile is pathetic and even elegant. It does not bear the marks of an illiterate writer. The construction of the periods disagrees with this apparent incapacity of spelling. The officer who can marshall a regiment, must know how to level a musquet. A few gross blunders are interspersed, and these could readily be devised; but, when stript of such a veil, the body of the composition is pure and correct. In the literary world, fabrications of this nature have been frequent. Our ex-secretary admits that he has been in the habit of writing to this family in a feigned character. The transition was easy to the writing in a feigned stile.” Callender then addressed himself directly to Hamilton: “You speak as if it was impossible to invent a few letters.”
In his recent reassessment of the “Reynolds Affair,” Boyd agrees with Callender’s conclusion and flatly asserts that the letters are fabrications: “… They are the palpably contrived documents of a brilliant and daring man who, writing under much stress in the two or three days available to him in 1792, tried to imitate what he conceived to be the style of less literate persons. The result was inexpert to the point of naivete, but its character is beyond doubt. The purported letters of James and Maria Reynolds as published in Hamilton’s Observations cannot be accepted as genuine.”

If one assumes, as most historians have, that the documents used by Hamilton in the appendix to the “Reynolds Pamphlet”Alexander Hamilton, Observations on Certain Documents Contained in No. V and VI of “The History of the United States for the Year 1796,” in which the Charge of Speculation against Alexander Hamilton, Late Secretary of the Treasury, is Fully Refuted. Written by Himself (Philadelphia: Printed for John Fenno, by John Bioren, 1797). were authentic, the question of the final disposition of the originals of these documents has remained—and seems likely to remain—unanswered. On the one hand, Wolcott stated on July 12, 1797, that he had retained “certain letters and documents” pertaining to the “Reynolds Affair,” but generations of scholars have been unable to find them in Wolcott’s extant papers. On the other hand, in the “Reynolds Pamphlet”Alexander Hamilton, Observations on Certain Documents Contained in No. V and VI of “The History of the United States for the Year 1796,” in which the Charge of Speculation against Alexander Hamilton, Late Secretary of the Treasury, is Fully Refuted. Written by Himself (Philadelphia: Printed for John Fenno, by John Bioren, 1797). Hamilton wrote that he had deposited the original papers with William Bingham, and at the conclusion of the appendix he referred to “the gentleman with whom the papers are deposited.” But on November 18, 1799, James McHenry wrote to Hamilton: “I recd two hours ago your letter of the 14th, begging me to call upon and send you certain papers you had lodged with Mr Bingham. As he has not returned to this City I dispatched my servant with a note to which I have received the following answer inclosed. I do not remember to have seen the papers aluded to.” In the enclosure mentioned by McHenry, Bingham wrote: “It Surely must have escaped Genl Hamilton’s recollection that the Papers he alluded to, never were deposited with me.
“After reading the publication in which he mentioned this deposit being made, I was Surprized at the omission of which in Case I had been applied to for a View of them, I Should certainly have reminded him—under any other Circumstances, it would not have been delicate to have addressed him on the Subject.”
It is, however, difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile Bingham’s disclaimer in 1799 with the following statement he made to Hamilton in a letter dated July 21, 1801: “Having a Packet of Papers which by your Desire, were deposited with me, & which have long lain dormant in my Possession, & being about embarking in a Short time for Europe, permit me to return them to you.”
If Bingham did return the originals of the Reynolds-Hamilton correspondence, no evidence has been found that Hamilton subsequently showed the documents in question to even his closest associates. In 1795, when Hamilton thought that he was going to fight a duel with James Nicholson, he entrusted the disposition of his estate to Robert Troup. At the time he wrote to Troup: “In my leather Trunk … is also a bundle inscribed thus—J R To be forwarded to Oliver Wolcott Junr. Esq. I entreat that this may be early done by a careful hand.” Hamilton then added: “This trunk contains all my interesting papers.” In going through her husband’s papers after his death, Elizabeth Hamilton wrote under Hamilton’s letter to Troup: “to be retained by myself.” If Broadus Mitchell is correct in assuming that the initials “J R” refer to the Reynolds correspondence, it may not be too wild a leap of the imagination to conclude that Elizabeth Hamilton inherited and then destroyed the documents describing her husband’s affair with Maria Reynolds. In this connection it may be relevant to point out that Joseph Sabin states that Hamilton’s edition of the “Reynolds Pamphlet”Alexander Hamilton, Observations on Certain Documents Contained in No. V and VI of “The History of the United States for the Year 1796,” in which the Charge of Speculation against Alexander Hamilton, Late Secretary of the Treasury, is Fully Refuted. Written by Himself (Philadelphia: Printed for John Fenno, by John Bioren, 1797). was bought up and destroyed by Hamilton’s family.
Many historians like to view themselves as experts, and as such they are reluctant to admit that at times they encounter questions for which they can find no satisfactory answers. But such questions exist, and the “Reynolds Affair” poses not one such question but a host of them. Despite the most rigorous scholarship and the best intentions, historians have been forced to leave the “Reynolds Affair” in essentially the same enigmatic state in which they have found it. Over the years they have discovered bits and pieces of new information, but no one has as yet devised a way to put together an account that not only answers all the questions that have been asked but also even meets the standards that are usually required for research papers submitted by college seniors. In this respect historians, both past and present, are little better than Hamilton’s contemporaries, for what they have been wont to call conclusions are in reality little more than acts of faith. Perhaps those who in the future wish to analyze the “Reynolds Affair” should be advised to read Frank R. Stockton’s short story The Lady or the Tiger?


Title: Théophile Cazenove to Egbert Benson and Alexander Hamilton, 5 July 1797
From: Cazenove, Théophile
To: Benson, Egbert,Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia, July 5, 1797. States: “Mr. Benson’s absence retarding the answer upon my letter of the 29 May, which answer I have sollicited from your friendship, permit me to add to that letter some observations relative to the same Subject.” Asks if the Holland Land Company “is allowed to sell at 10 & 12 years credit;… will She be allowed to hold the mortgage upon the Land as a pledge for the payment?” Also asks: “What will be the consequences if the purchasers are not able to pay at the expiration of 10 or 12 years—and if then, the mortgaged lands, Sold under execution, does not produce the amount due? Will the Holland Compy. in such a case, be authorised to retake the land, & to hold that property—or must the land be sold at cash for any price and the Holld. Compy. loose the defficit, having only for that defficit, a claim against a purchaser not able to fulfill his engagements?”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to James Monroe, 5 July 1797
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Monroe, James

New York July 5th 1797
Sir
In a pamphlet lately published entitled “No V of the History of the United States for 1796 &c” are sundry papers respecting the affair of Reynolds, in which you once had an agency, accompanied with these among other comments—“They (certain attacks on Mr Monroe) are ungrateful, because he displayed on an occasion that will be mentioned immediately, the greatest lenity to Mr. Alexander Hamilton, the prime mover of the Federal Party. When some of the Papers which are now to be laid before the world were submitted to the Secretary; when he was informed that they were to be communicated to President Washington, he entreated in the most anxious tone of deprecation, that the measure might be suspended. Mr Monroe was one of the three Gentlemen who agreed to this delay. They gave their consent to it on his express promise of a guarded behaviour in future, and because he attached to the suppression of these papers a mysterious degree of solicitude which they feeling no personal resentment against the Individual, were unwilling to augment” (Page 204 & 205). It is also suggested (Page 206) that I made “a volunteer acknowledgement of Seduction” and it must be understood from the context that this acknowlegement was made to the same three Gentlemen.
The peculiar nature of this transaction renders it impossible that you should not recollect it in all its parts and that your own declarations to me at the time contradicts absolutely the construction which the Editor of the Pamphlet puts upon the affair.
I think myself entitled to ask from your candour and justice a declaration equivalent to that which was made me at the time in the presence of Mr Wolcott by yourself and the two other Gentlemen, accompanied by a contradiction of the Representations in the comments cited above. And I shall rely upon your delicacy that the manner of doing it will be such as one Gentleman has a right to expect from another—especially as you must be sensible that the present appearance of the Papers is contrary to the course which was understood between us to be proper and includes a dishonourable infidelity somewhere. I am far from attributing it to either of the three Gentlemen; yet the suspicion naturally falls on some Agent made use of by them.
I send you the copy of a memorandum of the substance of your declaration made by me the morning after our Interview.
With consideration I have the honour to be   Sir   Your very obed serv
A Hamilton
P.s. I must beg the favour of expedition in your reply.


Title: Enclosure: [Declaration of Messrs. Monroe Mughlenburgh and Venable], [5 July 1797]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Monroe, James

“That they regretted the trouble and uneasiness which they had occasionned to me in consequence of the Representations made to them—That they were perfectly satisfied with the explanation I had given and that there was nothing in the transaction which ought to affect my character as a public Officer or lessen the public Confidence in my Integrity.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Frederick A. C. Muhlenberg, 5 July 1797
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Muhlenberg, Frederick A. C.

[Philadelphia, July 5, 1797. On July 10, 1797, Muhlenberg wrote to Hamilton: “Your letter of the 5th inst did not reach me time enough.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Nicholas Olive, 5 July 1797
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Olive, Nicholas

New York, July 5, 1797. Acknowledges receipt of papers sent by Olive which “relate to transactions with Mr. Constable.” States that he is already “generally engaged for Mr. Constable, and would not in case of controversy act adversely to him for another.… But perhaps it may be most advisable for you as an Agent to confide the interest of your friend to some person free from any engagement to Mr. Constable.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Abraham B. Venable, 5 July 1797
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Venable, Abraham B.

[Philadelphia, July 5, 1797. On July 9, 1797, Venable wrote to Hamilton: “I have received your letter of the fifth instant by the hands of Mr. Wolcott.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John Fenno, [6 July 1797]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Fenno, John

[New York, July 6, 1797]
Mr. Fenno,
I have seen in your paper of 27th June past, the advertisement of a new publication, being No. V of the History of the United States for 1796, and containing these paragraphs:
“This number likewise contains some singular and authentic papers relative to Mr. Alexander Hamilton, late Secretary of the Treasury. No greater proof can be given of the value which is attached to their suppression than the following anecdote:”
“During the late canvas for the election of a President, Webster in his Minerva gave a hint that Mr. Hamilton would be an adviseable candidate. A person in this city who chanced to see this newspaper, wrote immediately to a correspondent in New-York. The letter desired him to put himself in Mr. Hamilton’s way, and inform him that if Webster should in future print a single paragraph on that head, the papers referred to were instantly to be laid before the world. The message was delivered to Mr. Hamilton and the Minerva became silent.”
I have also, since, seen the pamphlet, No. V. mentioned in the advertisement.
I think it proper to take an early opportunity to declare, that the anecdote stated in the above paragraph is wholly false, and that I never received any such intimation as is thereby pretended from any person whatever. As to the papers contained in the pamphlet, from a cursory perusal, I take them to be authentic. But the solution of them is simply this—They were the contrivance of two of the most profligate men in the world to obtain their liberation from imprisonment for a serious crime by the favor of party spirit. For this purpose recourse was had to Messrs James Monroe, Senator, Frederick A. Muhlenbergh, Speaker, and Abraham Venable, a Member of the House of Representatives, two of these gentlemen my known political opponents. A full explanation took place between them and myself in the presence of Oliver Wolcott, jun. Esq. the present Secretary of the Treasury, in which by written documents I convinced them of the falshood of the accusation. They declared themselves perfectly satisfied with the explanation, and expressed their regret at the necessity which had been occasioned to me of making it. It is my intention shortly to place the subject more precisely before the public.
Alexander Hamilton.
New-York, July 6, 1797


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Benjamin Walker, 6 July 1797
From: Walker, Benjamin
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Fort Schuyler [New York] July 6, 1797. “I will thank to advise what is best to be done to bring the business with Colo Smith to a conclusion—it was referred to Judge Lewis and John Murray as Arbitrators. The former kept the papers a long time and then, Mr Murray informed me, he declined Acting. The arbitration bonds expired and Mr James Smith got a new one executed by his brother extending the time to October. Still Mr Lewis was inserted as the Arbitrator tho’ I informed Mr Smith what Mr Murray had told me of his having declined. As Colo Smith was then gone no one knew where the matter rested. Now, they say Mr Lewis will be in Town the 20th of this month. I will attend to it—or if not that they will appoint Mr Lawrance or Mr Harrison. I have no objection to any man of character but such as are Creditors or connected in the affairs of Colo Smith these must certainly be objected to the Arbitrators must be perfectly indifferent as to the event. Mr Lawrence I am pretty sure is a Creditor. I dont know if Mr Harrison is or not but I think he declined once before from their whole proceeding. Refusing to appoint such Men as will attend to it &c.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Wolcott, Junior, 7 July 1797
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Phila. July 7th. 1797
Dr. Sir
I send you the residue of the pamph[l]et. I am astonished at the villany of Munroe—a more base, false, & malignant suggestion than is contained in his Note of Jany 2d 1793. was never uttered.
I am yrs
Oliv Wolcott Jr
A Hamilton Esq


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Wolcott, Junior, 7 July 1797
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Phila. July 7th. 1797
My Dr. Sir.
I have recd. your Letter with the enclosures. By what I last sent you, you will see the perfidy of at least Munroe.
I will attend to your request as soon as possible, but all my time this day will be taken up, and perhaps tomorrow.
yrs.
Oliv Wolcott Jr


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Abraham B. Venable, 9 July 1797
From: Venable, Abraham B.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia July 9th. 1797
Sir
I have received your letter of the fifth instant by the hands of Mr Wolcott.
I had heard of the pamphlet you mentioned some days before, but had not read it. I am intirely ignorant of the Editor, and of the means by which he procured the papers alluded to.
I have had nothing to do with the transaction since the interview with you, I do not possess a copy of the papers at present, nor have I at any time had the possession of any of them, I avoided taking a copy because I feared that the greatest care which I could exercise in keeping them safely, might be defeated by some accident and that some person or other might improperly obtain an inspection of them. I have indeavoured to recollect what passed at the close of the interview which took place with respect to this transaction, it was said I believe by us in general terms, that we were Satisfyed with the explanation that had been given, that we regreted the necessity we had been Subjected to in being obliged to make the enquiry, as well as the trouble and anxiety it had occasioned you, and on your part you admitted in general terms that the business as presented to us bore such a doubtful aspect as to justify the inquiry, and that the manner had been satisfactory to you.
I have now to express my Surprise at the contents of a letter published yesterday in Fennos paper, in which you indeavour to impute to party motives, the part which I have had in this business, and indeavour to connect me with the releasement of persons, committed as you say for serious crimes. Clingman had been released before I heard of the business, and Reynolds on the very day I received the first intimation of it, arrangements having been previously made for that purpose, by those who had interested themselves to bring it about. So that no application was made to me on that subject, either directly or indirectly the object being intirely accomplished by other means, and before I was informed of their confinement; If you will take the trouble to examine the transaction you will find this statement correct, and you cannot be insensible of the injury you do me when you say, this was an attempt to release themselves from imprisonment by favor of party spirit, and that I was one of the persons resorted to on that ground. I appeal to your candour, and ask you if any part of my conduct in this whole business has justifyed such an imputation.
This having been a joint business & Mr Monroe being now in New York, I must avoid Saying any thing more on this Subject untill I can see him and Mr Mughlenberg together, which I hope will be in the present week.
I am Sir   Hble Sert
Abm B. Venable


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to James Monroe, [10 July 1797]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Monroe, James

[New York, July 10, 1797]
Mr. Hamilton requests an interview with Mr. Monroe at any hour tomorrow forenoon which may be convenient to him. Particular reasons will induce him to bring with him a friend to be present at what may pass. Mr. Monroe, if he pleases, may have another.
Monday July 10. 1797


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Frederick A. C. Muhlenberg, 10 July 1797
From: Muhlenberg, Frederick A. C.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philada. July 10th. 1797
Sir
As I do not reside in the City at present, Your Letter of the 5th. inst did not reach me time enough to answer by Saturdays post. Whilst I lament the publication of the papers respecting the Affair of Reynolds (of which I hope I need not assure you that I had neither Knowledge or Agency, for I never saw them since the Affair took place, nor was I ever furnished with a Copy) I do not hesitate to declare that I regretted the Trouble and Uneasiness this Business had occasioned, & that I was perfectly satisfied with the Explanation you gave at the same time permit me to remind You of Your Declaration also made in the presence of Mr. Wolcot that the Information & Letters in our possession justified the Suspicions we entertained before Your Explanation took place, and that our conduct towards You in this Business was satisfactory. Having no Share or Agency whatever in the publication or Comments You are pleased to cite I must beg to be excused from making any Remarks thereon. Were I to undertake to contradict the many Absurdities & falsehoods which I see published on a Variety of Subjects which heretofore came under my Notice, it would require more time than I am willing to sacrifice. I have the honor to be
Sir   Your obdt. humble Servt.
Fredk A C Muhlenberg
A. Hamilton Esqr.


Title: David Gelston’s Account of an Interview between Alexander Hamilton and James Monroe, 11 July 1797
From: Gelston, David,Hamilton, Alexander,Monroe, James
To:

[New York] Tuesday Morning July 11th. 1797
Minutes of an Interview between Colo. Monroe and Colo. Hamilton at Colo. M’s. lodgings in the presence of Mr Church & myself. Colo. Hamilton came about 10 oClk in the morning introduced Mr Church as his brother in law. Colo. H. appeared very much agitated upon his entrance into the room, and observed the cause or motives of this meeting being he presumed pretty well understood, he went into a detail of circumstances at considerable length upon a former meeting at Philada. between Mr Muhlenberg Mr. Venable and Colo. M. after considerable time being spent in the detail Colo. M. asked what all that meant & said if you wish me to tell you any thing relating to the business all this history is unnecessary. Col. H said he should come to the point directly—some warmth appeared in both Gentln & some explanation took place Colo. M then began with declaring it was merely accidental his knowing any thing about the business at first he had been informed that one Reynolds from Virginia was in Gaol, he called merely to aid a man that might be in distress, but found it was a Reynolds from NYork and observed that after the meeting alluded to at Philada he sealed up his copy of the papers mentioned and sent or delivered them to his Friend in Virginia—he had no intention of publishing them & declared upon his honor that he knew nothing of their publication until he arrived in Philada from Europe and was sorry to find they were published. Colo. H. observed that as he had written to Colo. M. Mr Muhlenburgh & Mr. Venable he expected an immediate answer to so important a subject in which his character the peace & reputation of his Family were so deeply interested. Colo. M replied that if he Colo. H would be temperate or quiet for a moment or some such word he would answer him candidly—that he recd his Colo. H.’s letter at 10 oClock at Night, that he had determined to leave Philada next Morng & actually did leave it for NYork, that immediately at a late hour that night after receiving the letter he went to Mr. Venables quarters that it was impossible to meet Mr. Muhlenberg & Mr. V. & that as at the meeting before alluded to they were all present (upon which Mr. C. took out of his pocket two pamphlets in which was a statement signed by Mr Muhlenburgh Mr Venable & Colo Monroe) and all had signed it that he thought it most proper for them all to meet & return a joint answer to Colo. H.s letter which he meant to do on his return from Philada. Colo. M then observed if he Colo. H. wished him to give a relation of the facts & circumstances individually as they appeared to him, he would do it then. Colo H. said he should like to hear it, Colo. M then proceeded upon a history of the business printed in the pamphlets and said that the packet of papers before alluded to he yet believed remained sealed with his friend in Virginia and after getting through Colo. H. said this as your representation is totally false (as nearly as I recollect the expression) upon which the Gentlemen both instantly rose Colo. M. rising first and saying do you say I represented falsely, you are a Scoundrel. Colo. H. said I will meet you like a Gentleman Colo. M Said I am ready get your pistols, both said we shall not or it will not be settled any other way. Mr C & my self rising at the same moment put our selves between them Mr. C. repeating Gentlemen Gentlemen be moderate or some such word to appease them, we all sat down & the two Gentn, Colo. M. & Colo. H. soon got moderate, I observed however very clearly to my mind that Colo. H. appeared extremely agitated & Colo. M. appeared soon to get quite cool and repeated his intire ignorance of the publication & his surprize to find it published, observing to Colo. H. if he would not be so warm & intemperate he would explain everything he Knew of the business & how it appeared to him. I then addressed my self to Colo. H. and said if he pleased I would make a proposition he said by all means. I then observed as Colo. M. had satisfied him as to that part of the business which related to the publication of the pamphlets, and as the other part was a transaction of the three Gentlemen before alluded to whether it would not be much the best way to let the whole affair rest until Colo. M returned to Philada. and a meeting could be had with Mr. V & Mr. Muhlenburgh & a joint letter or answer given as Colo M. had proposed. Colo. H. made some answer in a word or two which I understood as not disapproving the mode I proposed, but what I cannot recollect with precision. I observed a silence & addressed my self to Mr. C. with observing perhaps my proposition ought to have been made or would have been made with more propriety to him than to Colo. H & repeated the same thing over again to Mr. C. who after asking Colo. M when he should return to Philada. he Colo. M. answerd on friday at farthest Mr C. then replied that as they Mr. C. & Colo. H. would go on saturday and as the business could be finished on Sunday he thought it would be much the best way. the Gentlemen all rose Mr. C observing that as there would be an explanation by all three Gentlemen (vizt.) Mr V. Mr M. & Colo M that any warmth or unguarded expressions that had happened during the interview should be buried and considered as tho’ it never had happened. Colo. M. said in that respect I shall be governed by Colo. H’s conduct. Colo H said he thought that any intemperate expressions should be forgotten to which Colo. M. agreed.
David Gelston
the Interview continued about an hour or a little over myself being present through the whole.

N. York 11th July 1797


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John B. Church, 12 July 1797
From: Church, John B.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[New York, July 12, 1797. On July 13, 1797, Church wrote to Hamilton: “I wrote you a few Lines hastily Yesterday at the Post Office.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John B. Church, 13 July 1797
From: Church, John B.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New York July 13: 1797
My dear Sir
I wrote you a few Lines hastily Yesterday at the Post Office just as the Post was setting out I am this Instant Return’d from your House, Eliza is well she Put into my Hand the Newspaper with James Thomsonn Callender’s Letter to you, but it makes not the least Impression on her, only that she considers the whole Knot of those opposed to you to be ⟨Scoundrels⟩, the Postman brought to your House whilst I was there a Letter which as I saw was from Mr Wolcott, I took, the Liberty to open, it contained the inclos’d Certificate, he mentions his Intention of setting out for New York this Day, but I suppose you saw him last Night, and that he will therefore postpone his Journey. Francis has been with me this Morning he pretends that he has Papers in the Hands of his Brother at Philadelphia which will be useful to you, and as he was very desirous to see you at Phila. I thought it was best to suffer him to set out, I imagine he will be with you before you Receive this Letter, he told me that Giles, Maddison and Finlay had frequent Meetings at his Brothers House and that they used a variety of Perswasions to prevail on him to accuse you of being concern’d with Reynolds in Speculation of Certificates altho he repeatedly assur’d them that it was not true, yet they were dispos’d to go every Length for the Purpose of injuring your Character. I suppose Munroe will be at Philadelphia tomorrow, and I think from what I observed Yesterday that he is inclin’d to be very generous and that he is much embarrass’d how to get out of the Scrape in which he has involv’d himself, I told him that Muhlenberg & Venable had both written to you but I did not communicate any part of the Contents of their Letters. I Receiv’d a Letter Yesterday from Mr Cox coverg a Copy of a Deed from Westcott to him for 73 Patents of Land of which 17 & ½ Tracts are my Property to be drawn by Lot which he says cannot be done untill some Gentlemen to whom they have sold a Part of the Lands (who are now absent from Philadelphia) Return there and offering to execute a Deed for my undivided Interest, but I wish if possible to have the Patents out of his Hands. My Angelica is not very well—she complains that her Throat is a little sore, I hope it will not be of long Duration. I think from the present Appearances you will not be long detain’d at Philadelphia, but be able to Return on Sunday or Monday. Adieu I am ever sincerely
Yours
J B Church


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Samuel Dexter, 17 July 1797
From: Dexter, Samuel
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New York, July 17, 1797. Asks advice concerning notes he endorsed for James Greenleaf for which Greenleaf provided encumbered lands in upstate New York as security. Encloses fifty dollars as a retainer.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John Fenno, [17–22 July 1797]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Fenno, John

[Philadelphia, July 17–22, 1797]
Mr. Fenno
It has been a general maxim with me, to leave the evidence of my conduct and character to answer the calumnies which party spirit is so incessantly busied in heaping upon me; nor should I have deviated from this course in the present instance, had it not been, that the names of three citizens of political and personal importance in the community appeared to give sanction to the slander. But for this, indeed, I should have been intirely careless about it, relying on those internal characters of falsehood in the story, which could escape no discerning eye. It is necessary to suppose me, not only merely unprincipled but a fool, to imagine that I could not have found better means of gratifying a criminal avarice, and could have stooped to employ such vile instruments for such insignificant ends. When I determined to take notice of the slander, it was my intention, if the sanction of those names could not be taken away by the explicit declaration of the Gentlemen concerned—to place before the public an exact detail of the affair in all its circumstances, accompanied with the written documents which explain unequivocally its true nature. But as such a disclosure would exhibit some features, which delicacy desires to suppress, and as I have obtained from the Gentlemen concerned a full testimony, that they were convinced by the evidence laid before them of the falsehood of the charge brought against me, and a disavoval of the implication contained in the ambiguous phraze of their Memorandum No. V in these words “We left him under an impression our suspicions were removed”—I have concluded to dispense with the proposed detail, and instead of it, to present to the public the documents at foot. No. 1 & 2 are answers to my letter to Messrs. Mughlenberg Monroe and Venable published in No. VI of the History of the U States for 1796. The rest speak for themselves. But in addition to this, I have resolved to place in the hands of my friend  a particular narrative of the affair and the original papers which support it, with permission to communicate them to respectable men of whatever political party on whose delicacy reliance may be placed.
A HPhiladelphia July  1797


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from James Monroe and Frederick A. C. Muhlenberg, 17 July 1797
From: Monroe, James,Muhlenberg, Frederick A. C.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Phila. July 17. 1797.
Sir
It was our wish to have given a joint answer with Mr. Venable to your favor of the 5th. instant concerning the publication of the proceedings in an enquiry in which we were jointly engaged with him in 1792, respecting an affair between yourself & Mr. Reynolds & into which, from the circumstances attending it, we deemed it our duty to enquire. His departure however for Virginia precludes the posibility of so doing at present. We nevertheless readily give such explanation upon that point as we are now able to give; the original papers having been deposited in the hands of a respectable character in Virga. soon after the transaction took place, & where they now are.
We think proper to observe that as we had no agency in or knowledge of the publication of these papers till they appeard, so of course we could have none in the comments that were made on them.

But you particularly wish to know what the impression was which yr. explanation of that affair made on our minds, in the interview we had with you upon that subject at your own house, as stated in the paper no. 5 of the publication referred to; and to which we readily reply, that the impression which we left on your mind as stated in that number, was that which rested on our own, and which was that the explanation of the nature of yr. connection with Reynolds which you then gave, removed the suspicions we had before entertained of your being connected with him in speculation. Had not this been the case we shod. certainly not have left that impression on your mind, nor shod. we have desisted from the plan we had contemplated in the inquiry, of laying the papers before the President of the U States.
We presume that the papers to which our signatures are annexed are in all cases correct. Tis proper however to observe that as the notes contained in no. 5. were intended only as memoranda of the explanation which you gave us in that interview, as likewise of the information which was afterwards given us by Mr. Clingham on the same subject, and without a view to any particular use, they were entered concisely and without form. This is sufficiently obvious from the difference which appears in that respect, between the papers which preceded our interview & those contained in no. 5 of the publication.
We cannot conclude this letter without expressing our surprise at the contents of a paper in the gazette of the U States of the 8th. instant, which states that the proceedings in the inquiry in question, were the contrivance of two very profligate men who sought to obtain their liberation from prison by the favor of party spirit. You will readily recollect that one of these men Mr. Clingham was never imprisoned for any crime alledged against him by the department of the Treasury; & that the other Mr. Reynolds was upon the point of being released and was actually released & without our solicitation or even wish by virtue of an agreement made with him by that department before the enquiry began. We feel too very sensibly the injustice of the intimation that any of us were influenc’d by party spirit, because we well know that such was not the case: nor can we otherwise than be the more surprised that such an intimation shod. now be given, since we well remember that our conduct upon that occasion excited yr. sensibility, and obtained from you an unequivocal acknowledgement of our candor.
with consideration we are Sir yr. most obt. & very humble servants

Fredk A C Muhlenberg
Jas. Monroe


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to James Monroe and Frederick A. C. Muhlenberg, [17 July 1797]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Monroe, James,Muhlenberg, Frederick A. C.

[Philadelphia, July 17, 1797]
Gentlemen
I have your letter of this date. It gives me pleasure to receive your explanation of the ambiguous phraze in the paper No V., published with your signatures and that of Mr Venable, and your confirmation of the fact, that my explanation had been satisfactory to you.
You express your surprise at the contents of a paper in the Gazette of the U. States of the 8 instant. If you will review that paper with care, you will find, that what is said about party spirit refers to the view with which the accusation was instituted by Reynolds and Clingman, not to that with which the enquiry was entered into by you. They sought, by the favor of party Spirit, to obtain liberation from prison—but though they may have rested their hopes on this ground it is not said nor in my opinion implied, that you in making the Inquiry were actuated by that spirit. I cannot however alter my opinion, that they were influenced by the motive ascribed to them. For though, as you observe, Clingman was not in prison (and so far my memory has erred) and though it may be true, that Reynolds was released before the enquiry began by virtue of an agreement with the Treasury Department (that is the Comptroller of the Treasury) for a reason of public utility which has been explained to you. Yet it will be observed that Clingman, as well as Reynolds was actually under a prosecution for the same offence and that it appears by No. 1. of the papers under your signatures, that for a period of more than three Weeks, while Clingman was in the act of soliciting the “aid and friendship of Mr Mughlenburgh on behalf of himself and Reynolds to get them released or discharged from the prosecution” he Clingman frequently dropped hints to Mr Mughlenburgh, that Reynolds had it in his power very materially to injure the Secretary of the Treasury, and that Reynolds knew several very improper transactions of his; and at last went so far as to state that Reynolds said he had it in his power to hang the Secretary of the Treasury who was deeply concerned in Speculation.” From this it appears, that the suggestions to my prejudice were early made and were connected with the endeavour to obtain relief through Mr Mughlenburgh. I derive from all this a confirmation of my opinion, founded on the general nature of the proceeding, that Reynolds & Clingman, knowing the existence in Congress of a party hostile to my conduct in administration, and that the news papers devoted to it, frequently contained insinuations of my being concerned in improper speculations, formed upon that basis the plan of conciliating the favour and aid of that party towards getting rid of the prosecution by accusing me of Speculation. This is what I meant in the publication alluded to and what I must always believe.
With this explanation, you will be sensible that there is nothing in the publication inconsistent with my declaration to you at closing our interview. It is very true, that after the full and unqualified expressions which came from you together with Mr Venable, differing in terms but agreeing in substance, of your entire satisfaction with the explanation I had given, and that there was nothing in the affair of the nature suggested; accompanied with expressions of regret at the trouble and anxiety occasioned to me—and when (as I recollect it) some one of the Gentlemen expressed a hope that the manner of conducting the enquiry had appeared to me fair & liberal—I replied in substance, that though I had been displeased wtih the mode of introducing the subject to me (which you will remember I manifested at the time in very lively terms) yet that in other respects I was satisfied with and sensible to the candour with which I had been treated. And this was the sincere impression of my mind.
With Consideration   I am Gentlemen   Your Most Obed & humble Servant
Alex HamiltonPhiladelphia July 17. 1797

To Fred: A Mughlenberg  & James Monroe
}
Esquires