Who Tells Your Story? Philip Schuyler’s Legacy of Enslavement and Freedom Beyond Hamilton

Due to the enduring popularity of Lin Manuel Miranda’s musical Hamilton, public memory continues to recenter Alexander Hamilton’s legacy in American history. While the play loosely follows early American historical events, the fact that it’s a piece of historical fiction cannot be overstated given how often the beloved piece is accepted wholesale. Understanding Hamilton’s legacy must also come with the excavation of key figures of his life, and thus, it is imperative that his close political ally and father-in-law, Philip Schuyler, is also reconceptualized in a historically accurate context. This reworking prompts us to question the early American definition of ‘freedom,’ as it is inherently exclusive and fails to serve American citizens of today.

Schuyler is not portrayed in the play; however, he is alluded to often. Aaron Burr, Hamilton’s nemesis, sings that “the man is loaded,” and he later switches political party affiliation to steal Schuyler’s New York Senate seat. But beyond this, his memory in the modern day is quite fuzzy. Because of Hamilton, remembrance of Philip Schuyler is mostly tied to his children’s contributions. But why was Philip Schuyler “loaded”? How did he, and his family, rise to the political and social ranks? While Hamilton alludes to the fact that his daughters did all the ‘social climbing’ for him, the true story has much more subtlety. In light of debates over ‘critical race theory’ in K-12 education, teaching accurate and nuanced history becomes even more important. Avoiding uncomfortable truths, like how Schuyler gained wealth and interacted with those around him, erases the complexity of identity that is key to education addressing race, equity, and justice. 

Philip Schuyler was born into wealth that was deeply intertwined with enslavement in upstate New York. In 2005, archaeological efforts uncovered the remains of fourteen enslaved individuals on the piece of land near Albany that belonged to Schuyler’s family. While some of these enslaved persons appear to have died earlier than Schuyler’s era, they clearly indicate his place in the generational cycle of slavery– some of the enslaved people uncovered would have been the property of his grandfather and father. Schuyler would have grown up with enslaved labor practices around him. He continued this cycle as his children grew up with enslaved people working in and outside the home. In fact, Schuyler writes in letters that Hamilton’s children arrived at his home “with the maids…in good health.” This practice continuing to his grandchildren is telling of how normalized the system of slavery was in the everyday life of Schuyler, his ancestors, and his descendants. 

Even though they were not paid for their labor, letters written by Schuyler only refer to these enslaved persons as “servants” and “maids.” While it is impossible to know for certain why the word ‘slave’ was avoided, it was possibly in an effort to separate Northern enslavement from the enslavement occurring in the South– Northern enslavers used the word “servant” almost exclusively. In that same regard, Schuyler never refers to himself as a ‘master’ in surviving letters. In fact, the most Schuyler places himself in the enslaver narrative is to say that they were “[his] servants.” In downgrading the brutality of the practice through fairly neutral language choice, Schuyler distanced himself from the atrocities he and other Northern enslavers committed. If he doesn’t explicitly state the brutality he partook in, he can overlook its existence. This linguistic minimization shows how liberty was deliberately constructed to exclude entire groups of people; this allows for enslaved people to be viewed as ‘less than human’ and not deserving of revolutionary concepts of freedom.

This strategy is further reflected by how Schuyler managed his property. While his home is usually referred to as an Estate, Schuyler's property was more accurately a plantation. His ‘estate’ included his mansion and sawmills, a grist mill, and a linen mill that would have used enslaved predominantly African, but some Indigenous, labor for production and homemaking efforts. He never, however, refers to his estate as a plantation. This highlights the denial Schuyler was undergoing to maintain status. While Northern slavery does not get as much coverage in historical remembrance, it was still significant. Census records note that nearly 14% of New York's population were slaveholders in 1790, amounting to 20,000 enslaved people across the state. Schuyler himself listed fourteen enslaved persons in this census as living on his property. The Schuyler family owned enslaved persons as late as 1804, according to surviving documentation.

One of the best ways to explore the major contradiction in Schuyler’s life is to examine his relationship with Alexander Hamilton, who he saw as a son and close political ally after Hamilton married his daughter, Eliza. In early letters between the two, Schuyler signs his letters “affectionately and with every wish for your happiness.” Schuyler’s admiration for Hamilton was significant due to their different upbringings. Schuyler grew up very privileged in upstate New York while Hamilton was an orphan from the Caribbean who came to the North American colonies for a chance at improving his status. In this time period, it would be unusual for a daughter of a wealthy family to marry ‘down.’ However, Schuyler saw the potential in Hamilton- especially since they held similar political views. Despite these differences in status, Schuyler refers to himself as Hamilton’s “obedient servant,” indicating a significant level of respect. 

This dynamic highlights how Schuyler was able to use his daughters in a socially tactical manner– as head of a racialized and patriarchal household. In elevating his family’s status through marriage alliances, Schuyler reinforces racial and gender hierarchies that sustained his wealth. While Hamilton is wrong in stating that Schuyler did not have male heirs, the play is right in saying that his daughters  “socially climbed” for his benefit. Their marriages were deeply intertwined with the political and social structures that privileged white male dominance and wealth– wealth built on the labor of enslaved people. 

The usage of a term like “servant” for both Hamilton and enslaved people creates a strange dichotomy. Understanding the connections between Schuyler's interactions with white individuals and his treatment of those he deemed ‘less than human’ is crucial for comprehending the contradictory nature of his actions. Despite class differences, both men benefited from enslaved labor and fought for freedom- but only for white, land-owning 'patriots.' It becomes clear here the true contradiction surrounding Early American freedom: it is for the chosen white few while tyranny and slavery existed for the Black and Brown masses. The selective nature of their views on freedom are most definitely at odds with the inclusivity and liberality that Hamilton fought so passionately for. Thus, discussions of racial slavery must be taught in addition to celebratory narratives of American freedom in order to comprehend the aftermath of complex belief systems and actions. 

While the names and stories of all enslaved persons under Schuyler are unknown, the Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site has been undergoing research of surviving documentation to piece together the lives of these people; this research is published to a continuously updated blog. So far, they have determined that Schuyler enslaved around 30 men, women, and children who labored in the mills and aided in household tasks. A recently uncovered 1768 newspaper ad from the New York Journal purchased by Philip Schuyler offers a reward for a runaway “Negro- man” named “Harre” that was in his 30s; Harre was described as having “large staring eyes” and “walk[ing] something lame.” There is surviving documentation that also discusses enslaved people named Diana and Claas running away in 1779 and 1782, respectively; it is known that Diana was caught and imprisoned, but the fate of Claas is unknown. However, one might imagine that due to time and location, Claas may have run away to join the British war effort and hopefully gain freedom after his military service. Self-emancipation was an extremely dangerous feat, so the fact that Harre, Diana, Claas, and potentially other individuals enslaved by Schuyler attempted and/or succeeded shows perseverance to escape brutality- at the possible expense of their lives. 

These self-emancipation efforts exemplify a rival vision of freedom– one much more radical, universal, and rooted in resistance. The pursuit of freedom in the face of immense danger heavily contrasts with the exclusionary freedom championed by Schuyler. While Early American liberty was reserved for the privileged few, the freedom envisioned by enslaved persons was broader, more inclusive, and thus, more aligned with our modern-day ideals on what freedom truly means.