#amrev discourse

[jack-the-sol]

convinced that 90% of all people in the AmRev fandom that care about John Laurens actually don't know any anatomy

[little-desi-historian]

OP--turned off reblogs and it is bad tumblr etiquette to try reblog it again, but I am sharing this with two cents cause I have opinions + media criticism credentials + done archivist historian work + my current wip centres largely around this nuance and the nuance of inherent human unreliability. See here, and here. Meaningful citation I am gonna quote a lot… also this is just my opinion having read Das Kapital and worked at a unions museum and being a historical fiction writer + gothic horror writer.

when I say "apologize" for Robespierre I don't mean take away his humanity or complexity. The same applies to Marie Antoinette as much as I don't like at all what she stood for or her irl views, she was still a person, as well Napoleon I Bonaparte (the first 'Liberal' Dictator) are all people, not necessarily 'moral' or 'good' people, and we don't have to erase their humanity to talk about how they were not 'good.'

As competent as Louis XIV nicknamed, Louis the Great (Louis le Grand) or Sun King (le Roi Soleil) for his competence and ability to win France's colonial wars (a thing shockingly-- historians of all political leanings agree upon), could've spared France and all of its citizenry a lot of hurt if he just took away the ancien regimes social powers but left them their titles etc. TLDR: if France became a constitutional monarchy none of the French revolution would've happened.

Robespierre was by no means an "avenging angel" but it is important to keep in mind most of what he fought for was warranted and he was the victim of a posthumous smear campaign.

I cannot possibly reiterate enough times just how messed up the ancien regime was, yeah, not all nobility had power or wealth, like country nobility. But, unless you are the bourgeoise new money, titled and wealthy or court nobility. You along with the 99.9% (who is not the clergy or the second estate) might as well be getting by on scraps, Dangerous Liaisons (the book) touches on this conflict a lot.

Historical fiction is by nature fiction it shouldn't be moralized differently from any other fiction.

The French (and by extension European + American) empires never really 'died' they just rebranded themselves a lot.

[pub-lius]

In all seriousness though I really am super glad you're doing well and you're here, I've been fighting for my life in the trenches (no one to talk to about AmRev) I genuinely missed you a lot, you're so funny and so awesome and you make banger posts (even when they're not history related) and I'm so glad you're doing okay

(Also recently Cicero got in touch with me, they're doing well too they've just been going through a lot lately as well but they're alive and good)

AWW THANKS POOKIE!!!

dude you can ALWAYS talk to me about amrev, even when im inactive, my dms and ask box are always open. im a bit more active on instagram but still i get tumblr notifications, so i am ALWAYS down to jam on some history talk

thank you so much that is really sweet :( i love coming back on here and seeing my mutuals and the posts ive missed, though im by no means caught up. as awful as tumblr is, it has absolutely helped make me more passionate about history and spreading information, and definitely a big reason why i decided to do it for a career. whenever i find myself questioning that decision, i think back on the discourse and asks and conversations ive had here, and i feel a bit better.

thats awesome to hear!! we love cicero on this account. if cicero has no fans, i am dead. genuinely like their posts have always been so well written and eloquent, and they dont even talk about hamilton buying 700 pounds of raisins, idk how they do it. its so incredibly impressive and ive always looked up to them. though of course taking a break from social media is imperative and i encourage everyone to do it whenever the hell they want.

anyway im just hanging out on here for a little while before bed to get my activity up enough for people to see im posting again. tomorrow im in for a 6 hour car ride with my dad and grandma back to new orleans from decatur, alabama so thats going to be… fun. i’ll probably be active then too as well, so be ready for me to stay yapping

[chaotic-history]

Choose violence - 19, 21, 24

Thanks for the ask!!

19 - You're mad/ashamed/horrified you actually kind of like... 

Nothing✨ I Am Cringe But I Am Free. (that said, I'm slightly horrified any time I find myself agreeing with JJ. Which doesn't happen often! But when it does.. *shivers*)

21 - Part of canon you think is overhyped

If I'm talking about the Enlightenment/V fandom(?), idrk. For 17thC NE I'll say the Salem Witch Trials, though I suppose it'd be the *fanon* that's overhyped, not the canon. I would like to be able to look up 17C NE movies/shows and *not* find like 90% completely unhistorical Salem Witch Trials shows. Where's my movie about Roger Williams and the Quakers being catty bitches to each other? Or Harry Vane being Massachusetts Bay's hottest flop politician? I want to see old men beating each other up over baptism procedures.

24 - Topic that brings up the most rancid discourse

I don't know? Enlightenment fandom doesn't seem to have a ton of discouse, NE fandom doesn't have discourse by virtue of being approximately 6 people who aren't united enough to be called a fandom, and I'm not in the amrev fandom enough to really know the discourse. I see a single hint of Hamilton discourse and run as fast as I can 💀

[sappymix1]

in the middle of the kick discourse i was sick of seeing everyone be miserable on here so i opened up my main and my entire dash was either people on the verge of telling one another to kill themselves over a musical theatre poll or the amrev bloggers discussing 9/11 inspired hamburr fanfic but you know what it was still better than the kick dooming

[clove-pinks]

To admit once for all, without flinching at the consequences, that the decisive actors here are the adventurer and the pirate, the wholesale grocer and the ship owner, the gold digger and the merchant, appetite and force, and behind them, the baleful projected shadow of a form of civilization which, at a certain point in its history, finds itself obliged, for internal reasons, to extend to a world scale the competition of its antagonistic economies.

— Aimé Césaire, Discourse on Colonialism (translated by Joan Pinkham)

Action of 18 October 1782 between the 74-gun Scipion and the 90-gun HMS London (detail), Auguste-Louis Rossel de Crecy.

[swirlzberry]

Omg everything happens when im sleeping

[binch-i-might-be]

RAY THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT

how tall r u

1,76m!

I have given up trying to convert it because feet and inches and shit are confusing as fuck and it always gives me two (2) different results??? I'm sorry I'm too european for this

[vive-la-revolution]

how i picture francis kinloch. discuss.

[fuimustroes]

you are not morally superior for liking one part of history over another.

[absolxguardian]

Since it’s now Hamilton Discourse 2 Electric Boogaloo time right now, I’ve been thinking about historical fiction depictions of the American Revolution. And I’ve determined that Assassin’s Creed 3 is the one that gets it right. It’s the one that captures the feeling of betrayal of principles and not living up to one’s ideals. Not to mention that between the Database and Shaun giving the side of how petty the most of the Revolutionaries’ concerns were, people also get the proper historical context. Because the things the American Revolution was really fighting for (removal of a legally instituted caste system, rising bourgeois elite vs falling feudal elite, mechanistic restrictions on free trade, and religious sectarian violence) are forms of oppression so far removed from the modern psyche that most people don’t know about it. 

But what really works is the narrative. You play as a Mohawk man, Connor (Ratonhnhaken:ton). The only characters you can really trust are the original ones, namely Achilles Davenport, the former slave who is Connor’s Mentor. Other than other minor characters, who also come from less privileged positions than we normally see- mostly working class white men, with a few women and black people thrown in- Achilles and Connor are the only real heroes involved. Washington is Connor’s main ally, but there is still a mission (based on historical fact) where Washington orders the burning of Connor’s village.

And the best part is that the last scene of the game is either (depending on the order you play the epilogue missions), Connor trying to return to his village only to find out that the new American government had driven them off their land. Connor got involved in the whole Assassin business to protect the Mohawk, and he still failed. Or it’s Evacuation Day in Boston, and while people are cheering for their new found freedom, behind them a slave market occurs. These are both very powerful scenes, showing how un-Revolutionary the American Revolution really was.

[cuntycassandra]

I don’t write my ‘A’s like that, but the 7s and the 2s definitely

everyone who writes their ‘7’s with a little dash through them had a conscious moment of truth where they actively chose to write ‘7’ in that way and never stopped doing it like if you can’t clearly recall that fateful decision wyd

[hamiltonconfessions-but-better]

Yup. Hello again from the person who started this entire Amrev discourse.

The entire point of the initial post was just me saying that whenever I think of Alexander Hamilton and others, I see them as how they were historically but still am a part of the Hamilton fandom. Unsure how to fully explain it, but the anon who made the “completely seperated the historical and musical versions of all the characters” confession was able to explain it a little bit better. In my post, and the recent posts I have made, I am NOT hating on anyone who is more so deep in the musical fandom, and ships the characters as in the musical. I honestly don’t give a fuck on who you ship or what you believe in musically. However, the moment I mentioned Amrev you just come and hit me with all of the evil and bad stuff they did. Yeah, thanks a lot, I DONT NEED TO BE REMINDED.

Also to the person who said that my opinion doesn’t matter because I “babyfied” the word rape, I only did it not for the purpose of censoring it to the public, but I am unsure if this follows the guidelines of the confession blog and if my confession would even be added. But besides that, let me ask you something. Did the founding fathers and those involved in the American Revolution do bad stuff? Yes. Did they do good stuff? Yes. Should we ignore the bad stuff they did? No. Should we ignore the good stuff they did? No. Should we look at the historical events from all aspects and POV’s? YES.

Look, I am not on their side. Most of them I do not look up to. But I am interested in what they did, but that doesn’t mean that I support everything that they did.

And apologies if this opinion may offend some, but I personally am not on the historical Jamilton, Hamburr, Jeffmads, etc side. I am more on the historical Lams and Hamliza side. Thank you for reading.

confessions referenced: 1 2 3

[46ten]

John Adams and Hamilton, briefly

A closer examination of Adams’s use of eighteenth-century moral philosophy, especially Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments, reveals a striking and underappreciated originality in Adams’s political thought. As Luke Mayville has powerfully demonstrated, Adams’s preoccupation with aristocracy - and its malignant twin, oligarchy - in the Defense and Discourses reveals not a fondness for, but rather a grave fear of, oligarchic power in American society. While democratic republican reformers like Jefferson believed that America would weed out the roots of ancient and corrupt oligarchic institutions and cultivate the seeds of a truly meritocratic and virtuous elite, Adams was doubtful. According to Adams, the deep, social psychological roots of authority would give rise to a “natural aristocracy” not of the wise, talented, and virtuous, but rather of the beautiful, well-born, and wealthy. What is more, this national aristocracy would not only survive, but thrive if left unchanged, all to the detriment of the republic. Adams approached moral philosophy as more than an academic guide to the human psyche. He made it a crucial link between the “phenomena of social life and the problems of political power” that enabled him to advance a unique conception of oligarchy. 

Adam Smith’s America: How a Scottish Philosopher became an Icon of American Capitalism by Glory M. Liu (2021).

[I may add to this post later, as I have been wanting to do a longer post summarizing/explaining why the Hamilton/Adams relationship was the way it was.] 

To understand the differences between Adams and Hamilton, one first has to start with an understanding of the differences between the New England colonies, the Middle/Mid-Atlantic colonies, and the Southern colonies. (American schools start teaching about the differences between the colonies in elementary/middle school - so I’m not sure if the very crude summary that follows is even necessary - and there are entire books on this topic). These were separate societies. (Leaving out the Southern colonies) we have the Germans, Dutch, and English in PA/NY/NJ/DE vs the Puritan descendant Massachusetts colonists. The founders of these colonies were different groups of people: they differed economically, in religious beliefs, in the structure of society, in attitudes on a range of subjects, etc. A ‘tolerant’ society focused on profit - the Dutch traded weapons to the Native Americans that they in turn used to raid NE towns - vs the fiercely independent and religious communities of NE. A people who saw themselves in America seeking freedom (NE) vs disparate peoples in America seeking profit (Middle). NE did not have farmland that could support large agricultural operations - family farms were most common. In contrast, NY/NJ was governed by a slave-owning, Dutch and English aristocracy, heavily involved in trade of wheat (the breadbasket of N. America), fur and lumber for West Indian sugar. William Duer, who marries into the Livingston family, spent part of his early adulthood running his family estate in the West Indies; an entire branch of the prestigious Cruger family were NY-West Indian merchants. This latter group pushed Hamilton to the forefront of national politics. 

The anger NEnglanders held against the Middle colonists for their interactions with Native Americans (the French and Indian War played no small part in hatred) and their bias based on moral deficits lasts straight through the AmRev - Albany was considered practically a den of sin by NE soldiers, who also, of course, were horrified to be under the charge of Philip Schuyler. One of the reasons for Schuyler’s removal as commander of the Northern Dept was exactly this political concern. When we read several accounts of Schuyler as aristocratic, this is NE bias at work, too, against a ‘Dutch’ large landowner, wealthy slave holder, and prominent trader of West Indian goods. 

And then Hamilton enters the picture. Adams may have disliked him because he’s an upstart - someone who rose very quickly in the early national political scene through his support from and for the Dutch slave-owning aristocracy, while Adams labored for decades supporting the nascent country with a political philosophy he found far more principled - but there were also real differences in interests and philosophy. And AH did very little to reduce any suspicion. Hamilton seemed to have decided fairly early on that Adams was not of sufficient skill or integrity - and just plain did not share the same profit-loving beliefs - to play a major role in new government, so he undermined Adams, even when wholly unnecessary. (Not to say that Adams was particularly adept in his roles as V. President and President, either.)  Adams regarded Hamilton’s economic plans as harmful to the poor (they were) and designed to further enrich the wealthy (they did). Adams absolutely recognized Hamilton for the warmonger he was.

Hamilton meddles almost immediately against Adams - ensuring that he’d get few electoral votes in 1789, when the election of Washington wasn’t even in question. He wanted Adams to lose the election of 1796, throwing his support behind Pinckney instead. With an aim of not disrupting the continuity the new nation experienced under Washington, Adams kept most of the same cabinet members, only to have AH use those members to run the gov’t behind Adams’s back. Let’s not even get into AH’s machinations during the Quasi-War. In a long list of ways, Hamilton was duplicitous towards Adams before outright challenging him. And then Hamilton had the nerve to claim a superior moral character to Adams in 1800 in his pamphlet shared with other members of the Federalist party. There was a lot of underhandedness going on from AH. This again is an example of Hamilton’s invincible belief in his own rightness. 

That said, Adams had no extraordinary interest in Hamilton’s personal life beyond the fairly common staunch Calvinist point-of-view that a deficient family background brought about a deficient moral character, void of virtue and reason, and therefore unfit to lead. Nor was Adams singular in his concern about the talent, reason, and virtues - the character - of major political players - these concerns take up a lot of ink in this period of time because of the prevalent moral and political philosophies. Who should be leaders? Who should vote? To the extent that Adams shared the common Federalist belief that a natural aristocracy was composed of men reliant on reason and virtue, Hamilton, by way of his illegitimate birth in the West Indies, was never going to fit the ideal. And Hamilton certainly lived up (or down?) to that negative reputation of being primarily interested in benefiting the wealthy and the well-born, and then a confirmed adulterer. But Adams could be fairly publicly moderate with men with whom he held private disagreements (Franklin!). He even seems to have had a good opinion of Philip Schuyler, as I recall one of the things Adams wanted to do was to name Philip Schuyler and others holding the rank of General at the time of the end of the AmRev to positions of formal leadership in 1798-99, and was baffled at Hamilton elevating himself and all his cronies. 

Once Hamilton was dead, Adams (who turned 70 in 1805) seemed to enjoy making up additional gossip about him - we have no record, for example, of anyone else stating that Hamilton was an opium addict. We also have no record of anyone else stating that Hamilton was having affairs with all his sisters-in-law. But Adams also wasn’t publicly publishing this stuff - it’s in his correspondence to select others. 

All that said, Adams really should be more popular than Hamilton - Adams really was an anti-slavery Founding Father; though he was not an abolitionist, he offered them his support. He was closer to a political moderate (in modern parlance) than Hamilton. And he rightly identified the oligarchic plan that underlay the High Federalists’ vision, although he certainly wasn’t a populist, either. 

There’s a lot more historical context than just personality differences between personages. And there’s a lot more understanding of political and moral philosophies of the time that is needed before speculating about the whats and whys of Adams’s behavior (or speculation about Washington’s reactions to additional speculation). Warning, lecture here: Folks have dedicated their professional lives to understanding some of these topics, and we need to show greater interest in what they have found and reframe our opinions accordingly. 

This is horribly brief and reductive and I can already see the simplifications that will lead to errors, and I may expand on it later, but it gets some general thoughts down. 

[haley-harrison]

Re-read this and I feel like this:

[trans Hamilton longpost:]

Okay, my fav headcanon is that Alexander Hamilton was transmasc.

If you consider this, then the Reynolds pamphlet doesn't seem like the dumbest idea ever: admitting an affair is a lesser evil than having your entire identity (and legacy) destroyed. If what Reynolds was really threatening Hamilton with was outing him as afab, it makes sense for Alexander to react the way he did.

It also makes sense that Washington wouldn't let him fight (until the very end of the war anyway): an injury could have outed him if a physician noticed - this actually happened to Deborah Sampson, who dressed as a man to fight in the Revolutionary war. I just think it probable that GWash knew and that's why he was even more protective of Alexander.

It would have been easy for Alex to reinvent himself - it was the 18th century - we aren't even sure if his actual birth year was 1757 or 1759, for fuck's sake. And considering where he grew up, dressing as a dude would have been safer, too.

It certainly adds to the massive chip on his shoulder. He might have felt like he constantly had to prove himself to avoid discovery.

Guys, the more I think about this, the more sense it makes. I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure unless we exhume him (which is hella unlikely), but until such time, this is the hill imma die on.

Thank you for coming to my TedTalk

[problematic-president]

Average discourse on amrev tumblr