This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hamilton鈥揜eynolds affair article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest Maria Reynolds be merged into this article. The two articles contain basically the same content. There is very little information about Maria Reynolds aside from her involvement in the affair. ++ Arx Fortis ( talk) 20:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hamilton鈥揜eynolds affair/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
In regards to Maria Reynolds and Hamilton's affair, reference to Jefferson's backlash in 1797 should be on the Hamilton page and not in the Maria Reynolds Biography page. |
Substituted at 01:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Isananni: Thanks for your correction. That statement was in the narrative before I began making edits. I'll have to dig through the sources again, but I remember reading that the related issues lasted into Adams' presidency. Even so, the point about the effects of the affair lasting into Adams' presidency doesn't belong in the lede. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Per reviews on Amazon, Tilar Mazzeo's book is not a serious work of history. It is written in a 'historical fiction' style that invents reactions and emotions rather than sticking to what is known. While a degree in history isn't necessarily a prerequisite for doing worthwhile historical research (as Ron Chernow demonstrates), the fact Mazzeo is a professor of English seems relevant given that her book on Eliza Hamilton apparently reads more like fiction than objective research. It also contains numerous errors of basic fact, makes questionable decisions about what sources to trust or doubt, and ignores evidence that could disprove her claims. 76.180.183.120 ( talk) 04:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
In 1797, Hamilton was forced to publicly admit to the affair after James Reynolds threatened to implicate him in Reynolds' own scheme involving unpaid back wages intended for Revolutionary War veterans.
This seems a bit off to me. Hamilton admitted the affair to the public in 1797, yes, but Reynolds' threat to implicate Hamilton in Reynolds' schemes involving the veterans' back wages happened in late 1792. It was this threat that forced Hamilton to admit the truth of the affair to Monroe, Muhlenberg, and Venable when they came investigating Reynolds' claims about Hamilton. The knowledge of the affair was known to political insiders for years after that, but it did not reach the public conscious until 1797, when Hamilton wrote the Reynolds Pamphlet in response to Callender's articles that accused Hamilton of corruption and using the story of an affair as a cover-up. Perhaps we should adjust that to make it a bit more clear? Eleanor of Castile ( talk) 15:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hamilton鈥揜eynolds affair article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest Maria Reynolds be merged into this article. The two articles contain basically the same content. There is very little information about Maria Reynolds aside from her involvement in the affair. ++ Arx Fortis ( talk) 20:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hamilton鈥揜eynolds affair/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
In regards to Maria Reynolds and Hamilton's affair, reference to Jefferson's backlash in 1797 should be on the Hamilton page and not in the Maria Reynolds Biography page. |
Substituted at 01:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Isananni: Thanks for your correction. That statement was in the narrative before I began making edits. I'll have to dig through the sources again, but I remember reading that the related issues lasted into Adams' presidency. Even so, the point about the effects of the affair lasting into Adams' presidency doesn't belong in the lede. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Per reviews on Amazon, Tilar Mazzeo's book is not a serious work of history. It is written in a 'historical fiction' style that invents reactions and emotions rather than sticking to what is known. While a degree in history isn't necessarily a prerequisite for doing worthwhile historical research (as Ron Chernow demonstrates), the fact Mazzeo is a professor of English seems relevant given that her book on Eliza Hamilton apparently reads more like fiction than objective research. It also contains numerous errors of basic fact, makes questionable decisions about what sources to trust or doubt, and ignores evidence that could disprove her claims. 76.180.183.120 ( talk) 04:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
In 1797, Hamilton was forced to publicly admit to the affair after James Reynolds threatened to implicate him in Reynolds' own scheme involving unpaid back wages intended for Revolutionary War veterans.
This seems a bit off to me. Hamilton admitted the affair to the public in 1797, yes, but Reynolds' threat to implicate Hamilton in Reynolds' schemes involving the veterans' back wages happened in late 1792. It was this threat that forced Hamilton to admit the truth of the affair to Monroe, Muhlenberg, and Venable when they came investigating Reynolds' claims about Hamilton. The knowledge of the affair was known to political insiders for years after that, but it did not reach the public conscious until 1797, when Hamilton wrote the Reynolds Pamphlet in response to Callender's articles that accused Hamilton of corruption and using the story of an affair as a cover-up. Perhaps we should adjust that to make it a bit more clear? Eleanor of Castile ( talk) 15:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)