origin of Hambletonian (the word)

Factual Questions
1

Ron Chernow, in his biography Alexander Hamilton, uses the eponymous adjective Hamiltonian 100 percent of the time throughout the book. The sole exception is on p. 608 in a quote attributed to Commodore James Nicholson, writing to Albert Gallatin, in which Commodore Nicholson uses Hambletonian.

Chernow’s cite for the Nicholson quote is The New York Times Book Review, Feb 13, 2000 (paragraph 8), not Nicholson’s original communication. Both the NYTBR and AH quotes read:

This quote, by the way, refers to Burr’s precedent-setting grassroots electioneering in the New York state elections in April 1800 in which, Chernow writes, “Hamilton and Burr descended from the lofty heights to spar in the grit and bustle of lower Manhattan ward politics.” Campaigning was intense because these local elections had the potential to (and did in fact) decisively influence that Fall’s presidential election since, in New York state, presidential electors were chosen by joint ballot of the two houses of the legislature.

Chernow, in an Author’s Note, says his policy is to modernize spelling of 18th Century prose but “to retain original spelling to emphasize the distinctive voice, strong emotion, patent eccentricity, or curious education of the person quoted.”

He retains Hambletonian. I googled hamiltonian hambletonian and get this explanation, through Google Books, from The Horse in America, by John Gilmer Speed, p.121-123:

Bishop’s Hamiltonian and Rysdyk’s Hambletonian both were born (probably not the proper horse breeding term) well after the Nicholson Hambletonian quote. It seems unlikely to me it would be a recurring misspelling.

Does anyone know the origin of Hambletonian? Whether it’s a corruption of Hamilton or a legitimate surname/eponym, why the chronic entanglement with Hamilton? This type of confusion, if that’s what it is, doesn’t seem a common occurrence among similar surnames in general.

2

Well, “Hambletonian” is clearly derived from the name of the horse (and Hambletonian was an extremely important horse in the history of standarbreds: 99% of standardbreds trace their bloodline back to him). The misspelling explanation certainly could be the truth – accurate spelling wasn’t as prized back then and people often tried to spell by ear, leading to odd spellings. It’s quite possible that Hambletonian’s owner was trying to write out Hamiltonian, or heard the name from some one who had a bad cold.

3

There was, in England, a quite famous horse named Hambletonian between the years of ca. 1797-1801. And for the next 20 or so years there were horses “out of” Hambletonian. I’m not aware of any horse in the US named “Hambletonian” in a period 1770-1850.

4

You’re right, samclem – I found this confirmation of that:

So the dates of the Commodore Nicholson quote and the fame of the horse coincide. The Nicholson substitution of *Hambletonian * for Hamiltonian now looks as if it could be careless or confused spelling, and I can readily see why Bill Rysdyk made the same misspelling. I no longer see it as an odd coincidence.

5

Still, I wonder why Chernow, or for that matter the New York Times Book Review, did not correct Commodore Nicholson’s usage of Hambletonian, or at least insert sic.

None of the listed conditions seem to apply, yet he retained the original spelling. Chernow’s and the NYTBR’s inaction seem to support Hambletonian being synonymous with Hamiltonian. But how did they come to be interchangeable?

6

I read Chernow’s book and really enjoyed it. I wonder if “Hambletonian” was just an amusing typo in the first place, back in the early 19th C., and it kinda sorta stuck? It might even have been a political joke of the day (political campaign = horserace, after all) that now goes right over our heads.

7

Could be. Both Chernow and The New York Times Book Review, in that case, may have reasoned the same in letting it stand.

You were in my thoughts while reading Alexander Hamilton, Elendil’s Heir, since my conversation with you (Posts 53 to 65) last Nov/Dec about John Davison Rockefeller Sr. and Cleveland prompted me to move it higher up my reading list. So glad I did. I now think Hamilton was “the biggest thing to ever blow into New York,” as I expressed it then about Rockefeller. The only actual physical evidences (I can think of on the spur of the moment) left of Hamilton are The Grange and his gravestone (and Eliza’s) in Trinity churchyard, while Rockefeller has monuments all over the place, but Hamilton established New York’s (and America’s) foundation and set it on its course. Chernow’s last chapter had me in tears, by the way, and I am not a cryer.

The Hambletonian thing has always bothered me, I don’t know why. It sounds so Dickensian, in Dickens’ most sickly-sweet moments.

8

This is the first time I have ever heard the word except as a name of a horse race. The Hambletonian is the first leg of the triple crown for harness racing. It’s been held at the Meadowlands for at least 20 years.

9

Thanks! Chernow received a book prize from Mount Vernon a year or so ago, and announced that his next book will be a bio of Washington himself. Can’t wait!

10

I can’t wait either. That is great news.

A review I read just yesterday (but can’t seem to find today on the net) of the Hamilton book starts out by stating Hamilton was as much President as George Washington 1789-96 because of his role in originating and shaping policy, writing Washington’s speeches and correspondence. I disagree, of course. Washington was the only one among that incredible generation who could have brought the new country through those years in one piece. Hamilton’s divisiveness alone might have shipwrecked the new nation. He was perfect as prime minister, indispensable to the America we know today, but only Washington could be “first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen.” He is that, to me, today. I strongly suspect, by your phrasing, **Elendil’s Heir ** – “a bio of Washington himself” – you agree.

11

I do indeed. I’ve long been an admirer of Washington, and consider him the best President (a nose ahead of Lincoln) and the greatest American of all time. We would not have the country we have today, were it not for Washington’s service as general, president of the Constitutional Convention, and first President of the United States. He refused a crown many would have thrust upon him. He peacefully yielded power at the close of his service both as general and President, causing even King George III to say he was “the greatest man in the world.” He was, as Abigail Adams said, “modest, wise and good.”

Hamilton was an invaluable aide to Washington, during the Revolution and as President, but there can be no doubt who was really in charge. The view of Hamilton as the string-pulling power behind the throne was popularized by partisans who simply resented how often the President (wisely, IMHO) sided with Hamilton over Jefferson.