Pseudonyms afforded the protection needed to write things that were controversial, to engender debate over things they didn't themselves believe in, and to encourage focus on ideas over reputations
Thread of their known pseudonyms🧵
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay all wrote under the name Publius, after the Roman consul Publius Valerius Poplicola.
This shared authorship became known after Hamilton died, but the individual authors of the Federalist Papers Publius entries remain debated.
John Jay and John Stevens, Jr. shared the Americanus pseudonym when writing various Federalist essays.
Robert Yates and Melancton Smith co-wrote under the name Brutus, the Roman Republican better known his role in the assassination of Caesar.
Samuel Bryan wrote the majority of the letters published by the pseudonym "Centinel", but he co-wrote some entries under the name with George Bryan and—perhaps—Eleazer Oswald, too.
We actually don't know all of the pseudonyms used by some of the Founding Fathers.
For example, Alexander Hamilton wrote as...
Phocion, the Athenian statesman, when defending the Jay Treaty.
Hamilton wrote as Columbus—in defense of the Continental Congress—and as Pacificus—against war.
Curiously, both Hamilton and Franklin wrote separate pieces under the name Historicus.
They had no apparent connection.
The same thing happened with John Adams using the name Poplicola, one and the same as Publius Valerius Poplicola from Hamilton, Madison, and Jay's writings.
Benjamin Franklin wrote under many pseudonyms, and it's clear no one knows them all.
His pseudonyms like Richard Saunders (i.e., "Poor Richard") were sometimes known to be him, and the pseudonyms would sometimes write that they were not—sometimes seriously, sometimes jokingly.
Benjamin Franklin often wrote as a woman.
For example, he wrote as Silence Dogood, to provide social commentary. Sometimes the names were a little sillier, like Martha Careful, or Caelia Shortface.
Under the Shortface name, Franklin even wrote physical threats to himself.
Another humorous instance of name collision came from when two Founding Fathers wrote as an individual with the surname "M'Sarcasm".
Presumably this was named for the character in Love À-la-Mode.
They hyperbolically agreed with positions their real authors disagreed with.
Some names were just absurd:
Croaker, Roderick Razor, Peep Junior, Skyaugusta, Tom Tell-Truth, Federalissimo, Betsey Cornstalk, Patience, Busy Body, and more.
Perhaps the most absurd pseudonym user was none other than Samuel Adams.
Why? Well...
Samuel Adams wrote under no fewer than twenty different pseudonyms, oftentimes to provide the appearance that many people supported his views.
He also wrote under pseudonyms in order to slander people and to write absurd things to drum up readership.
All in good fun!
Do you know how the New York Post was founded?
Hamilton. Again.
And to kick it off his new publication in 1801, he wrote eighteen articles under the pseudonym "Lucius Crassus", violently criticizing Jefferson's presidency.
The list goes on.
Many Founding Fathers wrote under pseudonyms, before and after the Revolutionary War, for work and for pleasure, and sometimes simply for jokes.
Some even wanted to have a sparring partner when no one else would debate them, so they had to debate themselves.
In some cases, people sought to limit the 'pseudonym problem'.
For example, Benjamin Russell, printer of the Massachusetts Centinel, announced that he wouldn't print antifederalist essays unless the authors would reveal their names upon request.
None agreed to his terms.
In another case, a man going by "A Farmer" (a pseudonym!) proposed that the printer of the Gazette of the State of Georgia keep a roster of all of the names of anonymous essay writers.
His goal? To stifle discourse.
Ironically, he wouldn't dare do this under his own name!
The Founding Fathers were not alone in doing all of this, either.
Literary and scientific greats have written under pseudonyms since time immemorial (and beyond).
From Isaac Newton to Søren Kierkegaard to Mary Ann Evans—this tradition has been commonplace in Europe for ages.
What I want to convey is that there is an American tradition harkening to before the Founding and extending far beyond it.
That tradition is pseudonymous writing, and it's as American as apple pie.
Always has been, and for goodness' sake, let's hope it always will be.
John Smith, founder of Jamestown, got his start fighting the Ottomans for Habsburgs. He killed so many Turks they knighted him and gave him a coat-of-arms with three Turk heads on it.
He was captured, sold as a slave, escaped, and founded Jamestown.
The Turks are for the three who challenged him to duels, all of whom he beheaded.
He also killed his slavemaster who was trying to convert him to Islam, then he escaped from Istanbul to Russia, passed through the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and made it England.
Hello, HBO?
"Pocahontas, did I ever tell you about the time the Prince of Transylvania made me a noble in the Austro-Hungarian Empire because I cut off three Turkish guys' heads? Good times."
Amy Wax got in trouble for remarking that she'd not seen a Black student in the top quarter of a Penn Law class.
Thanks to hacked Columbia data, we can see that she was...
Probably right!
In the decade before her statement, there were just two top-25% Black students.
It is *totally* plausible that she never met these students. And it's also plausible that she rarely saw Black students in the top *half*, because each year, the number of them was just 1-4.
But, despite being 8% of the class, they were ~40% of the bottom 10%-ranked students:
Note: Penn is on-par/slightly less elite than Columbia, so it's likely that the Black students there were somewhat *worse*, as the article notes, making her claims more likely.
This all comes from @zagrebbi's latest article. It's well worth a read!
Big day if you think Roe v. Wade was correctly decided.
My favorite part (note that I've only read 150 pages so far) was Thomas explaining that, no, the Founding g Fathers did not adopt the English feudal system.
This fact was clearly lost on the other side.
The Court's reliance on a random remark from a case that ultimately didn't even produce lasting changes raises the question of whether that sort of thing even matters.
Why shouldn't I cite the Dred Scott case as the law of the land?