Palaces Out Of Paragraphs

English 1102: Hamilton and Writing

Hamilton–Burr Duel Correspondences Annotation

by

Historical Annotation Project

by: Emily Moseley

Title: Hamilton–Burr Duel Correspondences

Author: Alexander Hamilton

Date of Origin:
Letter 2 (Hamilton To Burr) : June 20, 1804

Link: Hamilton–Burr Duel Correspondences Page

Hamilton to Burr, June 20, 1804

N York 20 June 1804[1]

Sir:

I have maturely reflected[2] on the subject of your letter of the 18th Instant[3], and the more I have reflected, the more I have become convinced that I could not without manifest impropriety[4] make the avowal or disavowal which you seem to think necessary[5].

The clause pointed out by Mr. Van Ness[6] is in these terms: “I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.”[7] To endeavor to discover the meaning of this declaration, I was obliged to seek in the antecedent part of the letter[8] for the opinion to which it referred, as having been already disclosed. I found it in these words: “Genl. Hamilton and Judge Kent[9] have declared in substance that they looked upon Mr. Burr to be a dangerous man, and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of Government.”[10] The language of Dr. Cooper[11] plainly implies that he considered this opinion of you, which he attributes to me, as a despicable one; but he affirms that I have expressed some other still more despicable[12]; without, however, mentioning to whom, when or where. ‘Tis evident that the phrase “still more despicable” admits of infinite shades from very light to very dark[13]. How am I to judge of the degree intended. Or how should I annex any precise idea to language so vague?

Between Gentlemen[14] despicable and still more despicable are not worth the pains of a distinction. When, therefore, you do not interrogate me as to the opinion[15] which is specifically ascribed to me, I must conclude that you view it as within the limits to which the animadversions[16] of political opponents, upon each other, may justifiably extend; and consequently as not warranting the idea of it which Dr. Cooper appears to entertain[17]. If so, what precise inference could you draw as a guide[18] for your future conduct, were I to acknowledge that I had expressed an opinion of you[19], still more despicable than the one which is particularized? How could you be sure that even this opinion had exceeded the bounds which you would yourself deem admissible[20] between political opponents[21]?

But I forbear further comment on the embarrassment[22] to which the requisition you have made naturally leads. The occasion[23] forbids a more ample illustration, though nothing would be more easily than to pursue it.

Repeating that I can not reconcile it with propriety to make the acknowledgment or denial you desire, I will add that I deem it inadmissible on principle[24], to consent to be interrogated as to the justness of the inferences which may be drawn by others[25], from whatever I may have said of a political opponent in the course of a fifteen years competition[26]. If there were no other objection to it, this is sufficient, that it would tend to expose my sincerity[27] and delicacy to injurious imputations[28] from every person who may at any time have conceived that import[29] of my expressions differently from what I may then have intended[30], or may afterwards recollect.

I stand ready to avow or disavow promptly and explicitly any precise or definite opinion[31] which I may be charged with having declared to any gentleman[32]. More than this can not fitly be expected from me; and especially it can not reasonably be expected that I shall enter into an explanation upon a basis so vague[33] as that which you have adopted. I trust upon more reflection[34] you will see the matter in the same light with me. If not, I can only regret the circumstances and must abide the consequences[35].

The publication[36] of Dr. Cooper was never seen by me ’till after the receipt of your letter.

Sir, I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St[37]

A. Hamilton

  1. Hamilton’s letter to Burr is dated the 20th of June, 1804, also placed in New York. This is four years after the Election of 1800 where Hamilton had prevented Burr from possibly becoming president. Hamilton also managed to keep Burr out of the governorship of New York in 1804, so as you can imagine, tensions were high between the two. The instigating factor for this round of correspondence has a different origin, however. It was over a disparaging remark made by Hamilton, overheard by a local physician, and told to Burr.
  2. Even though Hamilton is referencing reflection here in the context of reading over Dr. Cooper’s letter carefully as well as what Burr is asking of him, it seems as though he is foreshadowing the reflective stance he takes a few weeks later in his statement (to be read if he were killed in the duel). He says, “As well because it is possible that I may have injured Col Burr, however convinced myself that my opinions and declarations have been well founded, as from my general principles and temper in relation to similar affairs – I have resolved, if our interview is conducted in the usual manner,and it pleases God to give me the opportunity, to reserve and throw away my first fire, and I have thought even of reserving my second fire – and thus giving a double opportunity to Col Burr to pause and reflect.” Here he presents his thoughts during the duel, or what he hoped they would be. We can only infer that Hamilton did not want to duel in the first place, and he wanted this to be the climax of his and Burr’s quarrels.
  3. The term ‘Instant,’ often abbreviated ‘inst.’), refers to a recent occurrence in the present or current month. Here, Hamilton is referring to the letter that Burr wrote him which was dated June 18th, 1804.
  4. When Hamilton speaks of “manifest impropriety” here, he is almost sassing Burr by saying that if he owns up to the statements accused, he would be plainly showing improper behavior. Since there is little evidence or context given to the claims and ultimately what Burr wants from Hamilton, Hamilton is reluctant to provide Burr with any statements or admittance that could possibly be damning to his name and political career. It is clear that Hamilton was a well-read, intuitive individual, so he knew exactly what he was doing by answering Burr’s demands with a question. This is part of their corrosive relationship, Hamilton and Burr never could find common ground.
  5. Burr wrote to Hamilton because it was brought to attention that Hamilton had been slandering his name at a dinner party. Dr. Cooper’s words were of his own truth and Burr was looking for the subject of this publication to speak to its validity. The tone and words Dr. Cooper claims Hamilton said were harsh and unforgiving: “…I can prove them by the most unquestionable testimony. I assert that Gen. Hamilton and Judge Kent have declared, in substance, that they looked upon Mr. Burr to be a dangerous man, and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of government.”
  6. William P. Van Ness, born in Ghent, NY, was an attendee of Washington Seminary and graduated from Columbia College in 1797. He attained admission to the bar in 1800 after three years of reading law. He was a close friend to Aaron Burr and was a vocal supporter of the Democratic-Republican candidates (Jefferson for President and Burr for Vice President).
  7. In reference to the letter than Dr. Charles D. Cooper wrote to Philip Schuyler, Van Ness shows Hamilton a statement near the end of the letter which, though not a direct quote, shows that Hamilton spoke such ill things of Burr that even Dr. Cooper felt he had to keep quiet. Burr could’ve asked Van Ness to question Hamilton on a statement made earlier in the letter that put words almost directly in his mouth; however, it was this concluding remark that left such a big impact on Burr’s reputation.
  8. Charles DeKay Cooper sent a letter to Philip Schuyler (Alexander Hamilton’s father-in-law) from Albany, NY on April 23, 1804. This caustic letter was later published in the Albany Register in the context of opposing Burr’s candidacy. It described “a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr” at a political dinner in NY one evening. This immediately sent Burr into another quarrel with Hamilton, where he demanded ‘a prompt and unqualified acknowledgement or denial of the use of any expression which would warrant the assertion of Dr. Cooper” [from Burr’s letter to Hamilton on June 18, 1804].
  9. Judge Kent, also known as James Kent, was in office as the Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court at the time of his conversation with Alexander Hamilton that was overheard by Dr. Cooper. From Fredericksburg, Duchess County, New York, he was an American jurist and legal scholar. As stated in the Memoirs of Chancellor Kent, written by his son William Kent, “So long as Alexander Hamilton lived, Mr. Kent, whether as the humble law student at Poughkeepsie, or as a justice of the Supreme Court of his native State, entertained for him the highest regard and admiration.” Since Hamilton was seven years older than Judge Kent, he looked up to him for friendship and guidance at times.
  10. Though not a direct quote from Alexander Hamilton or Judge Kent, this puts words into each of their mouths that they distrust Burr so much as to strip him of his accountability. Though he may be a man not willing to take a stance on anything, Burr believes that he would be a great Vice President to Jefferson and any slander that gets in the way of that he takes very personally – especially when it comes from Hamilton, his biggest enemy.
  11. Aaron Burr is referring to Dr. Charles DeKay Cooper, born 1769, who was an Albany physician. In 1794, he was appointed “health officer” of the Albany port by Governor George Clinton. Under this position, however having turned from medicine to politics, he published a letter in the Albany Register in April of 1804 (two months before Aaron Burr called Hamilton’s attention to it). This letter is credited with provoking the duel between Hamilton and Burr, rightfully so, because of the correspondence between the men that soon followed. Dr. Cooper went on to serve as a county court judge, clerk, and was appointed Secretary of State in 1817. He later served on the city council and his impact is still seen today as an officer of many Albany-based civic organizations.
  12. Dr. Cooper was implying towards the end of his letter that he did not feel comfortable stating “a more despicable opinion” like he did the previous statement because he felt there was some validity to it. Usually political statements are filled with some falsehood or pretense; however, when Hamilton made the accusation that Dr. Cooper overheard, he must’ve agreed on some level to have kept it from Mr. Schuyler like this. This section of the letter worried Burr most, as he had made sure to get Mr. Van Ness to point this section out first to Hamilton.
  13. Burr recognized the significance that one publication can have on a campaign, much less, a reputation. So in asking Hamilton to peruse this letter, he too saw little clarity in the conclusion of Dr. Cooper’s letter to Mr. Schuyler. Even if Hamilton may have had a notion as to what Dr. Cooper could be referencing here, he could not be certain because of the vague description here. Hamilton asked “How am I to judge of the degree intended?” in hopes of getting Burr to recognize how, for lack of a better word, silly his question was. Current events back then were not recorded like they are today, so you have to imagine hearing one powerful man’s opinion coming as quite a shock sometimes because there were usually no forewarning at the time, just word of mouth.
  14. The word ‘gentleman’ starts around c. 1200 referring to a “well-born man, man of good family or birth.” In England, this usually meant that you held a certain social stature that was higher than the rest, sometimes restricted to those who wear the coat of arms. You can tell that Hamilton is not trying to call upon the nobles in England to judge his opinions; however, it is used here to be truthful and sincere. At the time this was written (1800s), the term ‘gentleman’ became a common term, losing its old meaning but it did not lose the respect it calls for. Since Hamilton chose to capitalize the word here, it shows that he was talking about himself and Burr specifically. When capitalized like this, the meaning back then changed to describe the people of subject.
  15. Hamilton recognizes that he has expressed some cruel opinions about Burr and his abilities (although not outlined in his letter to Burr for seemingly obvious reasons). In his statement that he wrote to be read in the event of his death in his interview (duel) with Burr, he recognizes, “Intrinsick – because it was not to be denied, that my animadversions on the political principles character and views of Col Burr have been extremely severe, and on different occasions I, in common with many others, have made very unfavourable criticisms on particular instances of the private conduct of this Gentleman.” Here Hamilton opens up and gives a statement that might’ve let him avoid the duel, but at what cost he didn’t know and was not willing to find out.
  16. Here we can understand Hamilton’s confusion and frustration with Burr as he analyzes the question posed and asked of him. Hamilton repeats back to Burr that he interprets the question to be of whether or not their feelings towards one another (specifically Hamilton’s of Burr) are within the limits of criticism between political opponents. Hamilton is, in turn, asking Burr if he is sure if he’s asking for Hamilton to comment not only on the nature of Hamilton’s spiteful remarks during dinner that night, but furthermore on the correct relationship between political opponents. Keep in mind that in the late 18th and early 19th century, politics were a cruel game with much less rules than today. Instead of passive-aggressive tweeting at each other, opponents slandered each other left and right and could even have duels.
  17. It becomes clear later in Dr. Cooper’s letter that he is not only passing along the information he knows about what was said between Hamilton and Kent; however, he does seem to believe that it as some grounds for validity. Because of the caution in saying “a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr,” you can tell that Dr. Cooper is afraid of what such words published could do to a political campaign and more importantly a reputation. It is not explicit that Dr. Cooper is “entertaining” the opinions mentioned by Hamilton; however, it is in his hesitation to pass such information along that we can conclude his own opinions must’ve shared some similarity with Hamilton’s.
  18. The “guide” Hamilton referred to is not one that existed at the time; however, it was an expression for a need of a set of laws or some structure to run a political campaign by. In today’s world, the presidential campaign is much different; however, in Revolutionary America, there weren’t many rules because nothing like this had ever been done before. So Hamilton noting that there is a need for a guide of sorts is a big step for the Founding Fathers as they figure out how exactly media (of all sorts) plays a role in campaigning. It was Hamilton, though, who made the biggest impact with his writing of politics because he could persuade an audience like no one else could at the time. He even founded the New York Post to get his publications out with haste.
  19. Hamilton expressed his opinions of Burr and his campaign at a dinner party in Albany, NY in March of 1804. He ate with Judge John Taylor, a Republican merchant and former state assemblyman who was working for the election of Morgan Lewis. Both Hamilton and Taylor shared a dread for having Aaron Burr as governor. It was here that Dr. Charles D. Cooper took note of the terrible statements as he was “delighted to sit back and listen to two of New York’s most illustrious Federalists, Hamilton and James Kent, denounce him [Burr] bluntly at the table.”
  20. Because Burr took a quiet stance as opposed to Hamilton’s sheer oversharing of opinions at times, Hamilton was asking for him to define what behavior he would like to see between the two political opponents. What Hamilton didn’t know was that Burr had a new sense of pride after the election and wanted to take action for once: “Joanne Freeman has written, ‘Burr was a man with a wounded reputation, a leader who had suffered personal abuse and the public humiliation of a lost election. A duel with Hamilton would redeem his honor and possibly dishonor Hamilton.’” It was this mindset that led Burr to initiate an interview – a duel.
  21. “During his feverish efforts to prevent Burr from becoming president during the 1801 election tie, Hamilton had called him profligate, bankrupt, corrupt, and unprincipled and had accused him of trying to cheat Jefferson out of the presidency.” Hamilton scrambled when he feared that Burr would win the tie, and he said some harsh words although he later admitted that he had “no personal knowledge” of such machinations. Yes, Hamilton’s moral compass might be slightly out of whack; however, Burr usually did not defend himself or his honor, he chose to silently take what was said and hope that “the generosity of [his] conduct would have some influence on [Hamilton’s].” To some of Burr’s admirers this may have said less about his ethics than his style. Hamilton was outspoken and Burr tended to keep a “studied ambiguity” in his comments on political figures.
  22. Hamilton had just experienced extreme embarrassment and brought shame to his family’s name due to his affair with Maria Reynolds, so he was not about to go around saying things without carefully analyzing the situation and knowing what Burr’s true intentions were with his response. Even if his word was not true, Hamilton was not willing to discredit himself because that would show the public that his word is not reliable and he could retract and statement given. Burr later began making impossible demands of Hamilton, demanding that he “make a general disavowal of any previous statements that might have conveyed ‘impressions derogatory to the honor of Mr. Burr,’ and he made clear that ‘more will now be required than would have been asked at first.’” Burr deliberately made it impossible for Hamilton to comply because he wanted Hamilton to deny any and all bad claims he had ever made about Burr.
  23. It is ironic that in attempt to keep his name somewhat clean and away from slander, like the statements from Hamilton at city tavern, Burr ended up killing his reputation for good when he fatally injured Alexander Hamilton in a duel. It was the letters that demanded more than Hamilton was willing to admit to or entertain the idea of that led to the duel. When Dr. Cooper’s publication was brought to Hamilton’s attention, he did not seemed phased and not willing to provide Burr with any more fuel that could hurt him. The occasion he speaks of is not only the correspondence but what he presumes to be some kind of show-down (like a duel) once they reach a stalemate in writing.
  24. Hamilton upholds his and the general “principle” in everything he does, says, and writes. So for Burr to ask Hamilton to deviate from what he believes is not right or just, he is taken aback and therefore poses another question to Burr. In Hamilton’s statement he wrote to be written in the event of his death during the duel, he states, “I hope the grounds of his proceeding have been such as ought to satisfy his own conscience.” Here he leaves out principle and morality and jumps to any form of closure that may come from this duel – a clean or clear conscience. If it can’t be his own, Hamilton at least hope that his actions (especially his last) can make an impact on Burr, politics, or the country because that was his original goal on that tiny island as a kid. Hamilton just wanted to make a difference.
  25. Hamilton was a strong believer in freedom of speech, especially that in writing. He knew that not everything published was one hundred percent true because he too has written some things to get himself out of bad situations or to prove a point, not necessarily in the most truthful way. So with this, he is trying to make it clear to Burr that what Dr. Cooper is saying is merely an opinion or a second-hand account of an event – not necessarily the truth as told by the subjects. Since this letter was written by neither him nor Burr, he made an appeal to Burr so that he might see that in the grand scheme of things, this letter could mean nothing if they were to pay it no attention and give it no credibility.
  26. Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton had been at each other’s throats since pretty much the day they met. None of their political stances aligned and their personalities were so different that they never could accomplish anything without fighting. Hamilton referencing their “fifteen years of competition,” here was not an overstatement, they had truly been at it for fifteen years, and a lot was said during that time. In Robert Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton, he adds, “Burr was deliberately making impossible demands, asking Hamilton to deny that he had ever maligned Burr, at any time or place, in his public or private character. Hamilton could not sign such a document, which would have been untrue and which Burr might have brandished in future elections as an endorsement.” Hamilton feared this kind of statement on his behalf could make future military work difficult, and even strip him of his Federalist political stance.
  27. In his statement written before the duel, Hamilton speaks to Burr not as a political opponent but gentleman to gentlemen, “I am conscious of no ill-will to Col Burr, distinct from political opposition, which, as I trust, has proceeded from pure and upright motives.” Hamilton has admitted that any bad blood between the men was purely political and not a personal attack, but a business one. This may be tied to the reason why Hamilton was so opposed to dueling, “My religious and moral principles are strongly opposed to the practice of Duelling and it would ever give me pain to be obliged to shed the blood of a fellow creature in a private combat forbidden by the laws.” Hamilton took his work very seriously, but not very personally. It may have seemed personal at times, but at the end of the day Hamilton is trying to make a change just like every other Founding Father and politician at the time. It was just a difference in beliefs that kept them from agreeing.
  28. “Injurious imputations” are harmful or almost criminal statements made by someone, attributing a statement to some person. In the case Panster v. Wasserman, you see than “An injurious imputation, affecting another in his office, profession, or business, is actionable per se, without an allegation of special damage.” In this instance, Hamilton and Burr are of the same profession and these injurious imputations are made by a physician that is up to date and involved in political happenings.
  29. Hamilton suggests here that Burr is not worried about the words said by Hamilton that one night; however, how the people interpret Hamilton’s view on Burr’s political campaign. The “import of [his] expressions” is how the public takes his opinions, whether it be surface-level acknowledgement or a connection with what he said and a change of political beliefs, or beliefs in a particular candidate.
  30. It was spring of 1804 when “that memorable gubernatorial canvass” (Kent 142) occurred in New York where Burr was running as President of the United States. The mentality of Hamilton, sitting with his friend Judge Kent, at the time was worry that their efforts were not getting through to the Burrites and their opinions on his political capabilities were not shared by enough to make a difference in the election. They were somewhat heated at the city tavern when conversing about what they thought of Burr which had repercussions they could not have anticipated: “It has already been shown how, in all human probability, expressions of opinion as to Burr’s fitness for the responsible position which he sought, which had passed between Alexander Hamilton and Judge Kent, were the cause of the memorable duel in which Hamilton lost his life, and Burr his reputation and the respect of mankind.”
  31. Hamilton is calling Burr out on an empty accusation of an outside opinion that does not stand. When he says ‘precise or definite opinion’ he is asking for a clarification from Burr as to what exactly this publication is saying about Hamilton. Hamilton is ready and not afraid to lay truth to or deny the claims made by Dr. Cooper when he starts with ‘avow or disavow.’ Hamilton is not one to be afraid of expressing opinion but he is smart enough to know that Burr’s intentions could change at any minute and end up harming Hamilton or besmirching his name and reputation.
  32. Notice that Hamilton did not capitalize ‘gentleman’ here. This takes on the more casual meaning of the word, though still expressing some form of respect to those referenced. See citation [o] for more information on the origination of the word.
  33. Here is where Hamilton really pushed Burr’s buttons. He knew exactly what Burr was seeking with his letter and him having sent Mr. Van Ness over to personally read the publication by Dr. Cooper; however, he discounted any and all grounds that Burr was arguing on. This “basis so vague” is Hamilton hinting to Burr that the conversation that is referenced in the article and the opinions expressed were not meant for the public ear. The conversation between Judge Kent and Hamilton was, or so they though, a private one where they could perhaps be more harsh with their words and opinions on Burr’s candidacy. It is made clear in Memoirs of Chancellor Kent that Judge Kent esteemed Hamilton to be something of a mentor and a good friend so of course he would express a similar opinion of Burr after seeing all they’ve been through. So this notion that Burr’s wanting of an explanation is on a basis too vague, is Hamilton’s way of telling Burr that he is not going to get any stance out of Hamilton because the man cannot seem to take a stance himself.
  34. Hamilton is basically handing the letter right back to Burr and asking him to try again. There is truly no stance taken by Hamilton in his letter and he knows that this will frustrate Burr to no end.
  35. This is where Hamilton addresses the eventual anger of Burr. The consequences he is talking about could be in reference to the duel that will proceed after their harsh correspondence. Hamilton was looking to leave the statement how it stood and let whoever shall read the letter assess Dr. Cooper’s truthfulness on their own. This led the two to hit a wall in communication and then led Burr to take action and set up a duel. Hamilton did not believe duels were the right way to solve quarrels or political oppositions; however, he believed in his word and stance on this subject even moreso. An interesting consequence of the duel between Hamilton and Burr is noted in the Memoirs of Chancellor Kent, “In 1816, 12 years after the death of Alexander Hamilton and probably inspired by that event, the Assembly of the State of New York passed an act to suppress dueling.” In the council at the time, was Mr. Chancellor Kent, and old friend of Hamilton’s. It may have been late, but the effects of Hamilton’s duel were seen years later and he was still able to play a part in shaping the country even after he’d passed.
  36. Even though Dr. Cooper’s letter to Philip Schuyler was private when first sent, it was later published in an effort to hurt Burr’s campaign and provide some push-back on his abilities to run a country in such position. The publication of this letter, not necessarily what was written inside, was what drove Burr to accuse Hamilton of much more than he had intended when speaking with Judge Kent that night. Hamilton was not aware of the publication at this point in time (June 20, 1804), which is why he was more reluctant to start a narrative on Dr. Cooper’s writings with Burr. Burr was not a man to take a stance unless he knew the outcome and had planned accordingly; and since Hamilton had no idea where he was coming from with this correspondence, he was hesitant to provide Burr with any of the information or reaction he was looking for.
  37. If you look at each of the letters, they all end with this statement, ‘I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St,’ followed with the sender’s signature. You can even hear this statement repeated in the songs of Hamilton the Musical as letters were being written back and forth. It was standard between the 19th and early 20th century because it showed respect to whomever you were writing to. At the time, “politeness required the second party to affirm that he/she was the servant of the first party”. Reading this in modern terms would be like saying, ‘Yours truly,’ not an implication that one man is actually a servant or slave to the other.

Works Cited:

  1. Bielinski, Stefan. “Charles De Kay Cooper.” The People of Colonial Albany Live Here, New York State Museum, 30 Sept. 2007, exhibitions.nysm.nysed.gov//albany/bios/c/chcooper462.html.
  2. “Burr–Hamilton Duel.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 June 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr–Hamilton_duel.
  3. Chernow, Ron. “Chapter 41. A Despicable Opinion.” Alexander Hamilton, illustrated, reprint ed., Penguin, 2005.
  4. Cooper, Charles D. “Enclosure: Charles D. Cooper to Philip Schuyler, [23 April 1804].” Received by Philip Schuyler, Founders Online, National Historical Publications and Records Commission, 23 Apr. 1804. National Archives, founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0203-0002.
  5. “Duel At Dawn, 1804.” The Death of President Lincoln, 1865, EyeWitness to History, 2000, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/duel.htm.
  6. “Fatal Duel.” Newburyport Herald, July 1804, newseumed.org/artifact/alexander-hamilton-dies-after-duel-with-aaron-burr/.
  7. “Gentleman (n.).” Index, www.etymonline.com/word/gentleman.
  8. Hamilton, Alexander. “Alexander Hamilton.” Digital History, 2016, www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/active_learning/explorations/burr/burr_hamilton1.cfm.
  9. Hamilton, Alexander. “Hamilton–Burr Duel Correspondences.” Received by Aaron Burr, Hamilton–Burr Duel Correspondences, 20 June 1804, en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamilton–Burr_duel_correspondences. in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago
  10. Harrell-Sesniak, Mary. “Understanding Terms Found in Historical Newspapers.” GenealogyBank Blog, GenealogyBank Blog, 11 Feb. 2013, blog.genealogybank.com/understanding-terms-found-in-historical-newspapers.html.
  11. “James Kent.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 April 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kent.
  12. Kennedy, Roger G.. Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson : A Study in Character, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gatech/detail.action?docID=241302.
  13. “Kent Family Papers, 1785-1901. .” The Columbine Shooting Case Study, Quartz, www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/archival/collections/ldpd_4078978/index.html.
  14. Kent, William. Memoirs and Letters of James Kent., LL.D. Boston : Little, Brown, and Co., 1898. Google, archive.org/details/memoirsandlette00kentgoog.
  15. National Reporter System, New York (State), et al. The New York Supplement. Vol. 180, West Publishing Company, 1920. original from Harvard University
  16. Owen, Diana. “New Media and Political Campaigns.” Oxford Handbooks, Oxford University Press, 2 Apr. 2018, www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199793471-e-016.
  17. Presnell, Jenny L.. “Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton” The People of Colonial Albany Live Here, New York State Museum, 30 Sept. 2007, American National Biography, http://exhibitions.nysm.nysed.gov//albany/bios/s/elschuyleranb.html.
  18. “The Duel.” Depression-Era Soup Kitchens, Online Highways LLC, 2018, www.u-s-history.com/pages/h494.html.
  19. “William P. Van Ness.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 June 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_P._Van_Ness.
  20. Van Ness, William P., and Nathaniel Pendleton. “Joint Statement by William P. Van Ness and Nathaniel Pendleton on the Duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, [17 July 1804].” Founders Online, National Historical Publications and Records Commission, 17 July 1804. National Archives, founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0275.