S04.E14: Alexander Hamilton and the Ruffle Kerfuffle

[PaulE]

54 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

It was really sweet seeing everyone looking out for Thor when it seemed like he would possibly sign with Elias,

Yes, especially the way Trevor physically interposed himself between them just as Thor was about to take Elias's hand, with that hostile smile on his face that said, "Yeah, no.  That's not going to happen on my watch."

[Orcinus orca]

I was confused with Elias and Jay. 

Can someone inadvertently sell one's soul to the devil?  I can see being given the chance but hiring a publicist falls under that category?  Didn't make any sense to me.  Does an actor hiring an agent constitute selling the soul?  To me, there has to be some agreement that's what is transpiring.

[shura]

3 hours ago, PaulE said:

I just think that if you've been included in a group of important leaders who are drafting the Declaration of Independence, you ought to focus on that rather than on the ruffle kerfuffle, especially in Isaac's case because he's so desperate to be taken seriously.

Maybe he was like me and didn’t realize what the meeting was about until well after he got all worked up about the ruffle (btw, didn’t they have something about a jabot a few weeks ago?).  Honestly, I had no idea this was not just one of those let’s-discuss-philosophy gatherings until they said that they need something after life and liberty because having just the two doesn’t quite work stylistically (who knew this was the reason, right?).  They did not act like leaders of a rebellion trying declare independence at all.

5 hours ago, chaifan said:

I'll disagree with your take on this.  The "joke" was for us when Isaac said it.  We all knew it was coming when Franklin said earlier "life, liberty... I think there needs to be something else."  (paraphrasing here)  The whole point was that Isaac never knew he actually contributed, and I thought the scene with Pete was sweet.

Right, I can certainly see your side.  I just thought it was sweet already when Isaac said it, we knew right then and there what it meant and how significant it was.  Having Pete explain it to him pushed it into the schmalzy territory for me a little.  I’d prefer it if Sam just left the text of the Declaration for Isaac to read the line for himself, for example.  Or even if Isaac never found out - it would be like a little Greek tragedy.  But it’s just a matter of preference, it worked fine the way they did it, too.

So, how long until Isaac starts resenting Hamilton and company for the extra reason that they stole his line and now nobody gives him credit for it?  He is not really the kind of person who is content with having done something, he needs recognition.

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, shura said:

Maybe he was like me and didn’t realize what the meeting was about until well after he got all worked up about the ruffle

No, he knew what it was in advance, because when Hamilton was doing his "it's exclusive, are you sure the chili dump isn't the party you're attending tonight" digs at the haberdashery, Isaac said no, John Jay's to discuss the Declaration of Independence.

2 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

Hetty does it too.

(Calls Pete "Peter").  Yeah, she did it in this very episode (about Elias trying to drag him to hell last time).

[eel2178]

3 hours ago, Jodithgrace said:

It seems odd to me that even in Isaac’s flawed memory, he would have Alexander Hamilton and John  Jay at the signing of the Declaration of Independence when they weren’t involved at all, as far as  I know. I can only assume that they weren’t invited to the actual signing the following week because of their bad behavior. And where was John Hancock?
 

I think "John J" was John Hancock. Isaac kept referring to him by a nickname (that may or may not be genuine; I don't think John Hancock's middle name is known) to show how close he was to the "in" crowd.

[Chit Chat]

1 hour ago, Orcinus orca said:

Can someone inadvertently sell one's soul to the devil?  I can see being given the chance but hiring a publicist falls under that category?  Didn't make any sense to me.  Does an actor hiring an agent constitute selling the soul?  To me, there has to be some agreement that's what is transpiring.

  I thought that there had to be a mutual understanding of a transaction like that, but I'm sure there was something in the fine print that Jay might've overlooked that would cost him his soul.  

Elias said that he could come back to earth as a living human, otherwise known as a demon, so I'm sure he devised some very evil plan that would cause Jay to miss such language in the contract.  Jay needs to have Sam with him at all times for these kinds of meetings!  

[ItCouldBeWorse]

4 minutes ago, Chit Chat said:

Jay needs to have Sam with him at all times for these kinds of meetings!  

I certainly hope that Getty, Trevor, Alberta and Thor filled the other ghost and Sam in on Elias's visit, and that she warned Jay to watch out for demons, but I fear not.

[Chit Chat]

Elias is a sneaky one!  Now he's going after Jay while off the property. Yikes!  

At least Jay sensed that he was selling his soul, even if he didn't know that he was literally about to sell his soul!  

[Snow Apple]

7 hours ago, ams1001 said:

Angelica is the hot one but Eliza's "gettable."

 

They also mentioned Peggy but I forgot what they said about her. Not as "kind" as they were about Angelica and Eliza.

I haven't even seen the musical but I love The Schuyler Sisters song. 

Edited February 28 by Snow Apple

[Annber03]

8 hours ago, appositival said:

Poor Jay, having to sit through a story that he can't hear and being berated for not paying attention.

"We're still not at John Jay's house?!" 

6 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

That, and Trevor's vociferous defense of Tub Thumping.

Trevor singing the song again, like he did back in "Weekend from Hell", made me laugh XD. 

I still have yet to see Hamilton, too. 

5 hours ago, PaulE said:

I've always suspected that was the case.  He was a little too flamboyant, even in those days when the standards for masculinity would probably have been less severe than they became.  I think he'd have always had problems with other (straight) men, and unfortunately his personality made things worse.  That's why, although I criticize him a lot, my heart sometimes bleeds for him.

Same. Yeah, he was, and still can be, A LOT much of the time, but I also sympathize very much with his awkwardness and desperate efforts to fit in and be accepted. He means well much of the time, he just...struggles a lot with how to properly deal with any issues or insecurities he's going through. 

I think that also explains why he tends to fixate on and obsess over these little issues - it's something he can control and deal with, as opposed to the bigger issues that he doesn't always know how to handle (like, say, trying to hide his sexuality at a time when the risk of being found out was a lot more severe). 

[Orcinus orca]

1 hour ago, eel2178 said:

I think "John J" was John Hancock. Isaac kept referring to him by a nickname (that may or may not be genuine; I don't think John Hancock's middle name is known) to show how close he was to the "in" crowd.

John Jay was a member of the Founding Fathers and a key figure in the American Revolution.

Edited February 28 by Orcinus orca

[eel2178]

5 minutes ago, Orcinus orca said:

John Jay was a member of the Founding Fathers and a key figure in the American Revolution.

That shows you how much attention I paid in Early American History class.

[Driad]

Did men in the 1770s really call those things ruffles?  Of course Isaac was telling the story, so he would call them whatever he does nowadays.

[Lugal]

6 hours ago, Jodithgrace said:

It seems odd to me that even in Isaac’s flawed memory, he would have Alexander Hamilton and John  Jay at the signing of the Declaration of Independence when they weren’t involved at all, as far as  I know. I can only assume that they weren’t invited to the actual signing the following week because of their bad behavior. And where was John Hancock? 1776…even though it was a musical, really captures the situation of the signing, and it was not this. A little research wouldn’t hurt, writers. 

This was the drafting of the Declaration, not the signing.  Which is why they stole Isaac's line "pursuit of happiness" and in earlier drafts, it was "property."

I liked the affection they all showed for Thor and watching out for him, but as a pagan, is Hell, the infernal realm of eternal torment, a place he would even go?  I think he would be more concerned about the goddess Hel, who ruled the realm in Niflheim, a dark place where those who did not die a heroic death would end up.  It feels like they missed an opportunity here, especially last week when Thor talks about the wolf Sköll chasing the sun into the underworld and "sorry to get all scientific."

[shura]

They sure were lining up to sign it though when Isaac knocked a candle down and burned it.  I was wondering about that, what would their signatures on the draft even mean?

[Skooma]

7 hours ago, Orcinus orca said:

I was confused with Elias and Jay. 

Can someone inadvertently sell one's soul to the devil?  I can see being given the chance but hiring a publicist falls under that category?  Didn't make any sense to me.  Does an actor hiring an agent constitute selling the soul?  To me, there has to be some agreement that's what is transpiring.

Of course.  It (the selling your soul to the devil bit) would have been in the fine print of the contract.  So if Jay failed to read the fine print - and who really does these days - it would be his mistake and on him.  The devil does not play fair.

In the famous musical "Damn Yankees" (1955 is the film version) the contract is spelled out but there is an escape clause.  And many a person would have sold their soul to the devil to have the Yankees lose the pennant, lol.  (It gave us old standards like "You Gotta Have Heart"and "Whatever Lola Wants" in it btw).

Anyway maybe even if someday one of them ends up tricked into signing the contract I bet there will be an escape clause in it somehow.

[kathyk2]

9 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

Hetty does it too.

"Sit Down, John/Open up the Window"

1776 is possibly my favorite movie musical, and it doesn't matter if you're interested in American history.  There are so many memorable songs and wonderful performances. Long-time television fans will recognize many of the actors (William Daniels as John Adams; Ken Howard as Thomas Jefferson; John Cullum as Edward Rutledge; Blythe Danner as Abigail Adams), some of whom also starred in the Broadway musical. Howard da Silva is an excellent Franklin, and Ron Holgate is a wonderful Richard Henry Lee (he sings one of my favorite songs.)

You can watch it for free (in the US) here:

https://tubitv.com/movies/691740/1776?start=true&tracking=google-feed&utm_source=google-feed

 

I love 1776 especially William Daniels as John Adams. I can see Alberta being upset that slavery could have been abolished but wasn't.

[nora1992]

19 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

 

1776 is possibly my favorite movie musical, and it doesn't matter if you're interested in American history.  There are so many memorable songs and wonderful performances. Long-time television fans will recognize many of the actors (William Daniels as John Adams; Ken Howard as Thomas Jefferson; John Cullum as Edward Rutledge; Blythe Danner as Abigail Adams), some of whom also starred in the Broadway musical. Howard da Silva is an excellent Franklin, and Ron Holgate is a wonderful Richard Henry Lee (he sings one of my favorite songs.)

You can watch it for free (in the US) here:

https://tubitv.com/movies/691740/1776?start=true&tracking=google-feed&utm_source=google-feed

 

Blythe Danner played Martha Jefferson.  In a Hollywood twist, Gwyneth Paltrow played daughter Patsy Jefferson in the movie Jefferson in Paris.

Virginia Vestoff was Abigail Adams.  This is a favorite of mine, too.

Thanks for the link.

[SG429]

I'm just not sure how Jay got to almost signing a contract without Sam knowing. After almost being owned by the mob, and a "publicist" hired just for the restaurant and not the inn as well?

Edited March 1 by SG429

[iMonrey]

20 hours ago, Orcinus orca said:

Can someone inadvertently sell one's soul to the devil?  I can see being given the chance but hiring a publicist falls under that category?  Didn't make any sense to me.  Does an actor hiring an agent constitute selling the soul?  To me, there has to be some agreement that's what is transpiring.

That's why you should always read the fine print!

17 hours ago, Annber03 said:

I still have yet to see Hamilton, too. 

22 hours ago, PaulE said:

I've seen enough of it to know it's not for me. 

[PaulE]

20 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

1776 is possibly my favorite movie musical, and it doesn't matter if you're interested in American history.  There are so many memorable songs and wonderful performances.

Yeah, I loved that movie, and it was very popular at the time because the country was beginning to ramp up its preparations for the Bicentennial.  As you say, you could enjoy it just for the music and performances but, for me, it was also educational because, thanks to John Cullum's song "Molasses to Rum to Slaves," I learned for the first time about the so-called triangular trade, whereby New England ships would carry rum to Africa in return for slaves, whom they would then sell in the West Indies to work on the sugar cane plantations.  Then those same ships carried the  sugar back to New England, which then made rum, and on and on it went.  It might have been the first time I understood that the virtuous North wasn't so virtuous regarding the slave trade.  I'm sure that's included the history curriculum in schools today, but it certainly wasn't mentioned in most history classes back then.

[Katy M]

On 2/28/2025 at 9:59 AM, appositival said:

Poor Jay, having to sit through a story that he can't hear and being berated for not paying attention.

Unfair, but funny.

[Orcinus orca]

4 hours ago, PaulE said:

I'm sure that's included the history curriculum in schools today, but it certainly wasn't mentioned in most history classes back then.

It is not.

[PaulE]

15 minutes ago, Orcinus orca said:

It is not.

Very sorry to hear that--though sadly, in these days, not surprised.

[Jodithgrace]

I’m laughing because I was the one who mentioned 1776, and the reason that I mentioned it, is because on Monday I have to give a presentation on the Triangular trade before a showing of the movie. I’ve been working on this for days, so it immediately came to mind during an episode about the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

On 3/1/2025 at 10:04 AM, nora1992 said:

Blythe Danner played Martha Jefferson.  In a Hollywood twist, Gwyneth Paltrow played daughter Patsy Jefferson in the movie Jefferson in Paris.

Virginia Vestoff was Abigail Adams.  This is a favorite of mine, too.

Yes! I've corrected my error. Thanks. 

 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

1776 is also available on YouTube:

Within the first 15 minutes, there's a Sam Adams joke. And Ben Franklin is wearing an impressively ruffled jabot. 

 

Edited Monday at 06:51 AM by ItCouldBeWorse

[proserpina65]

On 3/1/2025 at 11:45 AM, PaulE said:

Yeah, I loved that movie, and it was very popular at the time because the country was beginning to ramp up its preparations for the Bicentennial.  As you say, you could enjoy it just for the music and performances but, for me, it was also educational because, thanks to John Cullum's song "Molasses to Rum to Slaves," I learned for the first time about the so-called triangular trade, whereby New England ships would carry rum to Africa in return for slaves, whom they would then sell in the West Indies to work on the sugar cane plantations.  Then those same ships carried the  sugar back to New England, which then made rum, and on and on it went.  It might have been the first time I understood that the virtuous North wasn't so virtuous regarding the slave trade.  I'm sure that's included the history curriculum in schools today, but it certainly wasn't mentioned in most history classes back then.

I saw 1776 at the Grand Opera House in Wilmington, Delaware in 1976 as part of a class field trip.  (We couldn't hear Maryland called to sign because it came right after Delaware. 🥲)  It was fantastic then and fantastic now.  And Molasses to Rum to Slaves was such a showstopper that it stuck in my memory for decades afterwards.  I now possess my own copy and watch it every July 4th.  I even turned my best friend into a fan, and she generally doesn't like musicals.

Thinking about that movie, I have to say that Isaac is not nearly as flamboyant as Edward Rutledge was in the film's depiction of him.  Even with last year's extravagant ruffle.

 

[Johannah]

I generally find Issac annoying, so this wasn't my favorite episode.  The other plot just seemed...  I dunno...  Not fleshed out?  More like filler.

Other thoughts:

I also thought the barn looked shabby.  If I drove up to it looking for a restaurant, I would think I was in the wrong place and leave.

Someone said something about the speech in Isaac's story being more current.  I guess you could say that, in Isaac's retelling of the story, he was just using the language he has learned over the years and now uses.  Many people retelling stories do so using their own expressions.  Or something...

So the party was a disaster and Franklin got a different bunch of friends together for the next signing attempt.

Thanks to whomever recounted the final scene.  My recording ended halfway through it.  If Jay only saw a picture of what's his face once or twice, I can understand that he wouldn't recognize him.  I wouldn't.  Maybe he would look familiar, but without context, it could totally fly over his head.

I'm tired.  I don't know if I'm making sense.  I can't think of words I want to use.  I should go to bed.  Goodnight. 🙄

[iMonrey]

10 hours ago, Johannah said:

I generally find Issac annoying, so this wasn't my favorite episode.  The other plot just seemed...  I dunno...  Not fleshed out?  More like filler.

I typically enjoy the episodes more on rewatch because I catch little things I missed the first time. But this one? Just not very good, I'm afraid. I agree the B-plot with Elias should have been stronger, and Isaac's ruffle being the focus of the flashback was sort of irritating and silly. 

10 hours ago, Johannah said:

If Jay only saw a picture of what's his face once or twice, I can understand that he wouldn't recognize him.  I wouldn't. 

They showed us a portrait of Elias way back in one of the very first episodes and it did indeed look like Matt Walsh. I don't know if that was just a lucky coincidence or if they knew in advance he'd eventually be playing that character. Jay hung the portrait in Hetty's room to cover up the giant hole he made, but she told Sam to make him take it down. We haven't seen it since. I can't think of any reason why Jay would suspect the "publicist" was a ghost brought to life.

[Snow Apple]

2 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I can't think of any reason why Jay would suspect the "publicist" was a ghost brought to life.

Especially since Elias was wearing modern clothes. It's like Superman/Clark Kent with his glasses. I use to think it was silly until the day I didn't recognize a friend without his ever-present ball cap. We really do take cues from hair, body type, clothes, etc. in addition to faces.

Now that I think about it, I look for hair color instead of faces first when meeting up with someone in a restaurant, airport, conferences, or somewhere crowded.

[PaulE]

On 3/3/2025 at 1:21 PM, proserpina65 said:

Thinking about that movie, I have to say that Isaac is not nearly as flamboyant as Edward Rutledge was in the film's depiction of him.  Even with last year's extravagant ruffle.

 

Yeah, but Rutledge was not to be trifled with.  He was the youngest member of the Continental Congress yet he basically was the leader and spokesman for the entire South.  Whereas poor Isaac . . .

But I agree Rutledge wore some pretty elaborate clothing, as did all the southerners.  The conservative southerners were all dandies whereas the radical New Englanders wore very plain and drab outfits, and the mid-Atlantic men were somewhere in between.  Fortunately, none of them wore anything as grotesque as Isaac's ruffle! 

[Dimity]

On 2/28/2025 at 1:14 PM, Jodithgrace said:

It seems odd to me that even in Isaac’s flawed memory, he would have Alexander Hamilton and John  Jay at the signing of the Declaration of Independence when they weren’t involved at all, as far as  I know. I can only assume that they weren’t invited to the actual signing the following week because of their bad behavior. And where was John Hancock? 1776…even though it was a musical, really captures the situation of the signing, and it was not this. A little research wouldn’t hurt, writers. 

I don't think the writers tried at all to stick to history here.  They just had fun with it.  A quick google shows, among other things, that Hamilton (aside from not being there at all) was only 21 at the time.  Which makes 40ish Isaac's jealousy of him even more petty!  But then I guess in this version of events Hamilton is a much older man so there you go.

Anyway all to say I thought this episode was fair to middling.  I keep hoping they'll give Sam and Jay a win but they always seem to get one step forward and then two steps back!

Edited Wednesday at 03:58 AM by Dimity

[proserpina65]

22 hours ago, PaulE said:

Yeah, but Rutledge was not to be trifled with.

I definitely would NOT have made fun of Ned Rutledge's ruffle no matter how out of date it might have been, that's for sure.  (Have to confess, I absolutely adored John Cullum in that role.)

 

22 hours ago, PaulE said:

and the mid-Atlantic men were somewhere in between. 

Delaware's representatives really ran the gamut between plain-dressed and plain-spoken Thomas McKean to fussy dandy George Read.  I've always been a little annoyed that the only representative we see from Maryland is Samuel Chase, who definitely fell on the fussy dandy end of the scale, and was a depicted as a glutton as well; might've been true to life, but we did have other guys there, too.

[shapeshifter]

On 2/28/2025 at 1:14 PM, Jodithgrace said:

It seems odd to me that even in Isaac’s flawed memory, he would have Alexander Hamilton and John  Jay at the signing of the Declaration of Independence when they weren’t involved at all, as far as  I know. I can only assume that they weren’t invited to the actual signing the following week because of their bad behavior. And where was John Hancock? 1776…even though it was a musical, really captures the situation of the signing, and it was not this. A little research wouldn’t hurt, writers. 

I think the writers deliberately only showed the signing of a destroyed draft so they could use poetic license to include Isaac. It’s kind of a nice detail to also include the absent-to-the-signing-of-the-final-draft, John Jay:

Quote

…his duties as a New York Congressman prevented him from voting on or signing the Declaration of Independence…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay#During_the_American_Revolution

…and funny to have Isaac criticize the document’s S’s resembling F’s.