| Episodes |
Callender Takes on Hamilton
Chris McHugh
[1] James Thomson Callender is known as the muckraking journalist who brought to the surface one of the most controversial questions surrounding the United States' forefathers: "did Thomas Jefferson have a relationship with one of his slaves?" Callender, however, was originally a supporter of Jefferson, so much so that he went to prison bringing down Jefferson's opponents. One of his earlier targets, though not the one that got him thrown into prison, was Alexander Hamilton, the Treasurer of the United States. In his The History of the United States for 1796, Callender accuses Hamilton of having a love affair with a Mrs. Reynolds and of embezzling from the national treasury in order to pay off Mr. Reynolds. Callender focuses mainly on the charge of embezzlement. In fact, he seems to almost take it for granted that everyone will accept the affair between Hamilton and Mrs. Reynolds with minimal support. In his response, Hamilton says that Mr. Reynolds had known, and supported, the affair, and speculates that it had been a joint effort by the Reynolds to extort money from him. It does not seem as though this attempt to extort, if that was what it had been, had any success, because Hamilton defends himself thoroughly by using the ruling of the House of Representatives after its investigation of the claims.
[2] Callender first presents his readers with the evidence of embezzlement, before rousing the masses, as any great muckraker would do, in order to force Hamilton's response. For the evidence he uses a number of written correspondences, supposedly between Hamilton and Mr. Reynolds. At one point Hamilton sent a note to Reynolds, with no return address or signature, but in Hamilton's "feigned hand," that said, "enclosed are fifty dollars. They could not be sent sooner." Callender also presents one of these correspondences that states "it is utterly out of my power, pon my honour, to comply with your request." This was addressed to Mr. Reynolds and a response to a request for money to "subscribe for the Lancaster Turnpike." Callender asks how it is that Reynolds has such great power over Hamilton to make such a demand that Hamilton had to reply as he did. Callender argues that the "gentle tone of the refusal . . . expressly implies a high degree of previous intimacy" and that it should be noticed that a simple explanation of impossibility was not enough. Instead, Hamilton had to declare "PON HIS HONOUR," as if he needed to defend his failure to supply the requested funds. Callender immediately follows this with Mrs. Reynolds' claim that Mr. Reynolds had "sometime before ‘received upwards of eleven hundred dollars from colonel Hamilton.'" The subscription for the Lancaster Turnpike, as stated previously, was only three hundred dollars. This all amounts to the strong suspicion that, even though Reynolds was refused on this occasion, he had often received, or expected to receive, large sums of money from Hamilton.
[3] Now, after laying out his case, Callender incites the emotions of his readers. In typical style, he proceeds to question Hamilton's actions in preparation for an "inquisition" into the matter about to be taken by the House of Representatives. He says that Hamilton should have confronted his accuser. For example, when a Mr. Randolph was accused of acts "not more culpable" than those of which Hamilton had been accused, Randolph chased his accuser to Rhode Island to get a "certificate of innocence, couched in the strongest of terms." When the investigation came to Hamilton, however, he sent Reynolds away. Callender claims that had Randolph sent his accuser away before his own investigation, "every friend to order" would have been convinced of his guilt. Callender's true muckraking instincts then show themselves. Addressing his readers directly, Callender proclaims, "Physician! heal thyself . . . . Let [Hamilton] observe that this narrative is explicit; and that . . . silence will be more fatal to his character, than the most feeble vindication." In short, Callender turns the public eye away from the outcome of the inquisition and towards Hamilton's own public defense.
[4] Hamilton's response in his 1797 Observations on certain documents is fast and thorough. He admits to the affair with Mrs. Reynolds, though gives no details beyond that Mr. Reynolds knew of it and speculation that it was meant to extort money from him. Hamilton then proceeds to attack Callender's arguments about the embezzlement of money from the United States government. In one strategy, he uses the simple expedient of logic. He says that to do this he would have to be "unprincipled enough to sacrifice his trust and integrity." Then, in addition, he points out that if he were such a person and had embezzled, especially the several million dollars of which he was accused, why would he pay his cohorts, such as Mr. Reynolds, such small sums as fifty dollars? It does not seem at all reasonable that, if he had millions, it would be "utterly out of [his] power, pon [his] honour," to supply Mr. Reynolds with three hundred dollars to invest in a turnpike. Even the 1100 dollars he is accused of sending hardly seems a fair share for his partner. Hamilton further points out that Reynolds is not a very important man; it would be likely that a man of means, such as a millionaire treasurer, would choose more powerful allies.
[5] Hamilton then goes on to bring the public eye back to the outcome of the inquisition; regardless of whether or not the Reynolds were present, the House of Representatives did investigate the charges. In the process, all related monetary records, including both the nation's and his own personal records, were opened and investigated. The investigating committee came to the conclusion that no money from the government's funds was used "directly or indirectly" for any purpose other than those of the government itself. Hamilton claims he was certain the House of Representatives would unanimously agree he was innocent, but, in order to be sure, he gave "early previous notice [of his resignation] with the declared purpose of affording the opportunity of legislative crimination." "Not the least step was taken" against him by the House of Representatives, and thus Hamilton had the right to assume that he had been granted "complete vindication." Hamilton appears to have been innocent beyond all argument.
[6] Callender writes a scathing article about Hamilton's horrible crimes. Hamilton comes back and refutes it with logic and the full weight of the legal system on his side. It would be difficult for people to believe that Hamilton was guilty if, after a full examination of every record related to the supposed embezzlement, the House of Representatives did not lift a finger to try to prove Hamilton guilty before he left office. Hamilton, in a real sense, wins. The fact remains, however, that Hamilton did resign his office shortly after this dispute. Callender forced him to admit to an affair with a married woman in order to defend himself. Whether the public continued to doubt his innocence or Hamilton simply resigned in shame of the love affair, it was Callender's hand that started the dispute that ended Hamilton's career.
