Historians of the male variety like to focus on her appearance. First and foremost, her appearance is not at all relevant in any way to her value as a human being, so why historians like to harp on it beyond a simple ‘this is what she looked like’ is beyond me. These historians also tend to like to say negative things about her appearance. The only evidence we have that she was other than physically lovely is that one letter Alexander sent to John Laurens. I am inclined to take his physical description of her there with a grain of salt. It’s clear that he felt awkward about telling his friend about his fiance. He was uncharacteristically emotionally forthcoming to Laurens in his letters and yet didn’t tell his friend he was engaged for at least a month after the fact (it might have been longer, I don’t remember). That whole letter is one giant effort to downplay the significance of his relationship with Eliza, and, significantly I think, it is the only letter where he attempts to do that. That letter says more about his relationship with Laurens than his relationship with Eliza. He’s writing to an emotionally volatile and probably depressed friend who is having a difficult time coping with his captivity and is anxious that all his friends will forget about him, and so spend most of the letter trying to soothe Laurens’ delicate psyche on that front. He’s trying to let him down easy, not giving a necessarily honest picture of Eliza. Even if these are his true feelings on the subject, he describes her as handsome (maybe it’s just me but I don’t think this is an insult?), waxes poetic about her eyes and figure, and catalogs the qualities that she possesses that make them a good match. She’s steady, she has sense, she’s not the sort to attack his (massive) insecurities, she has a kind heart. These are all either qualities that her husband lacked or needed in a partner.

People like to make much of the fact that he describes her as “not a genius.” This is taken to mean she is boring, slow, and incapable of holding the attentions of so fiery and intellectual a man. This is frequently trotted out as a pathetic justification of the Reynolds affair. Of course he cheated on his wife, she was boring and average looking, just another dull housewife taking care of the kids who’d never had an outrageous thought in her life. This is ridiculous and insulting. First of all, Hamilton himself didn’t even try to justify his adultery. If he’s not even going to make excuses for himself, why should we make excuses for him? Really, the only thing that saves his character there is the fact that he admitted he had behaved horribly and that he had no excuse. There is also an implication that, to be worthwhile at all, a woman must not only be sexy and ‘interesting,’ whatever that means, but must also be a genius. She must have it all in order to deserve attention, respect, love, or fidelity. The misogyny inherent in the dismissal of Eliza as boring and someone Alexander could have done better than is disgusting. He certainly didn’t think he could have done better.

The dismissal also erases all of the amazing social works she did. Yes, she raised eight children of her own, but she also raised at least three others, and probably helped raise more while her husband was alive. Considering how uncommon adoption was at the time, this is huge. Furthermore, all of those children except Philip I who was killed and Angelica who suffered a psychotic break, all of those children turned out amazingly well-adjusted people. This is much much more than can be said for, say, Abigail Adams or other women of the time we like to praise for, essentially, being ‘not like other girls.’ Why is it laudable for a person to shirk the responsibilities they have for the most basic care of another human being? We praise Aaron Burr for being such an involved father, but Eliza gets disdain for being an involved and, to hear her children tell it, excellent, mother. Since mothering is just 'boring howsewife stuff’ however, we view it with scorn. She raised at least eleven kids well, what a loser.

She helped her husband in his political and legal career. We know this because some of his papers switch between his hand and hers, implying that he would sometimes dictate and she would act as scribe (adorable, by the way). She also helped him with the Farewell Address. People sometimes dismiss this too, since she was just a scribe or just somebody to read it to, she didn’t contribute at all. I highly doubt her contribution wasn’t completely necessary, and more important than we can know. If any of you have ever been working on a speech, you know how amazingly helpful it is to have somebody else, especially someone with good judgement, listen to it and tell you what sounds good, what’s awkward, what’s pretentious, what needs clarifying.

She catches a lot of flack for not liking being in the political spotlight, as does Martha Washington and, really, any other woman who didn’t like being at the center of the pomp. Meanwhile Jefferson’s and Madison’s shyness and aversion to the grand stage or huge social gatherings makes them interesting, it’s touching when men are shy. For women, apparently, it means they’re holding back their husband’s ambition and is used as further evidence that they are boring.

After her husband’s death, she helped start what would become New York’s social services. She and another woman started and ran an organization that took care of underprivileged children and families, helping them get necessities like food, shelter, water, work, and education. They kept many families from starving after a particularly nasty outbreak of yellow fever. Eliza Hamilton saved thousands of people’s lives and improved the lives of thousands. Her accomplishments are dismissed, however, because charities for widows and orphans are seen as things bored wealthy women with insipid claims to bourgeois-style morality put a tepid effort into. It’s further proof that she was boring and only cared about boring feminine things like children and charity, rather than interesting, important things like politics or philosophy. The fact that she and her partner did more to improve the lives of the poor of New York than any other women of the day is largely forgotten.

Sadly, most of what we know about her comes from what she wrote about her husband after his death, and this colors the perception of her. Eliza got a little strange after the duel. This is sometimes taken as a sign of weakness because people seem to forget that within two and a half years she lost her son, her daughter went insane, her sister died, her mother died, and her husband died. Shortly after him, her father died as well, and she was left with no income, huge debts, and seven children to take care of. This would have psychologically scarred anybody. She burned her letters because she didn’t want posterity to see things that she had meant to be private and intimate, and because she never got over her insecurity about her poor education and resultant poor spelling. Historians forget that, had Abigail Adams survived her husband, we likely wouldn’t have any of her letters either. I want you, before writing Eliza off, to do an experiment. Go through the Adams correspondence reading only John’s letters, and see how that alters the picture you get. And then think about private, intimate exchanges you’ve had with friends. Do you really want everyone to be able to read it? We lack a great deal of evidence with regard to her personality because it has bee destroyed. Many people forget that lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack.   

TL;DR: Betsey was a badass, anyone who says otherwise is wrong.