by Noah Hammond
N York 20 June 1804
Sir:
I have maturely reflected on the subject of your letter of the 18th Instant[1], and the more I have reflected, the more I have become convinced that I could not without manifest impropriety make the avowal or disavowal which you seem to think necessary[2].
The clause pointed out by Mr. Van Ness[3] is in these terms: “I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.[4]” To endeavor to discover the meaning of this declaration, I was obliged to seek in the antecedent part of the letter for the opinion to which it referred, as having been already disclosed[5]. I found it in these words: “Genl. Hamilton and Judge Kent[6] 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.[7]” The language of Dr. Cooper 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; without, however, mentioning to whom, when or where[8]. ‘Tis evident that the phrase “still more despicable” admits of infinite shades from very light to very dark. How am I to judge of the degree intended. Or how should I annex any precise idea to language so vague[9]?
Between Gentlemen despicable and still more despicable are not worth the pains of a distinction. When, therefore, you do not interrogate me as to the opinion which is specifically ascribed to me, I must conclude that you view it as within the limits to which the animadversions of political opponents, upon each other, may justifiably extend[10]; and consequently as not warranting the idea of it which Dr. Cooper appears to entertain. If so, what precise inference could you draw as a guide for your future conduct, were I to acknowledge that I had expressed an opinion of you, still more despicable than the one which is particularized[11]? How could you be sure that even this opinion had exceeded the bounds which you would yourself deem admissible between political opponents[12]?
But I forbear further comment on the embarrassment to which the requisition you have made naturally leads[13]. The occasion forbids a more ample illustration, though nothing would be more easy than to pursue it[14].
Repeating that I can not reconcile it with propriety to make the acknowledgment or denial you desire[15], I will add that I deem it inadmissible on principle, to consent to be interrogated as to the justness of the inferences which may be drawn by others, from whatever I may have said of a political opponent in the course of a fifteen years competition[16]. If there were no other objection to it, this is sufficient, that it would tend to expose my sincerity and delicacy to injurious imputations[17] from every person who may at any time have conceived that import of my expressions differently from what I may then have intended, or may afterwards recollect[18].
I stand ready to avow or disavow promptly and explicitly any precise or definite opinion which I may be charged with having declared to any gentleman[19]. 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 as that which you have adopted[20]. I trust upon more reflection you will see the matter in the same light with me[21]. If not, I can only regret the circumstances and must abide the consequences[22].
The publication of Dr. Cooper was never seen by me ‘till after the receipt of your letter[23].
Sir, I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St
A. Hamilton
1. Hamilton is referencing the letter immediately prior to this one, where Burr demands that Hamilton comment on a supposed insult Burr believes was made against him.
Burr, Aaron. “The Correspondence; No. 1” Received by Alexander Hamilton, 18 June 1804, New York, New York.
2. Burr wants Hamilton to confirm or deny the claims made in another letter written earlier by a man named Charles Cooper. He was a political ally of Burr’s so he had a vested interest in seeing Hamilton knocked down a peg.
“Charles D. Cooper.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 June 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_D._Cooper.
3. Mr. Van Ness was both the man who delivered Burr’s letters to Hamilton and Burr’s second in the subsequent duel. After a couple more letters between Burr and Hamilton, Burr refuses to respond, so Van Ness communicates with Hamilton’s second, Mr. Nathaniel Pendleton.
Van Ness, William P. Received by Nathaniel Pendleton, 26 June 1804, New York, New York.
4. This is a quote from the letter that Burr references Hamilton’s alleged attack on his character
Cooper, Charles D. Received by Philip Schuyler, 23 Apr. 1804, Albany, New York.
5. Hamilton is confused by the initially indicated passage so he has to look at what was said earlier in the letter from Cooper to Schuyler.
Hamilton, Alexander. “Hamilton to Burr.” Received by Aaron Burr, 20 June 1804, New York, New York.
6. Judge James Kent was another political ally of Hamilton who disagreed with Burr’s policies and the idea of him being in office.
“James Kent.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 17 June 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kent.
7. Aaron Burr was running for Governor of New York and Hamilton did not believe him fit for office. Morgan Lewis defeated Burr in a landslide decision and that seemed to be the last straw for Burr’s anger against Hamilton.
“New York Gubernatorial Election, 1804.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 June 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_gubernatorial_election,_1804.
8. Hamilton is pointing out that Cooper never specifies what the suppposed “more despicable” words were, so there is no way that he can give the response that Burr wants. Hamilton and Cooper have some political history, so it wasn’t completely unexpected that Cooper would want to spread the word that Hamilton was bad-mouthing other people.
Malone, Dumas. “THE THREATENED PROSECUTION OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON UNDER THE SEDITION ACT BY THOMAS COOPER.” American Historical Review, vol. 29, no. 1, Oct. 1923, pp. 76–81.
9. These three sentences are Hamilton wondering how he is supposed to respond to these claims. He has no idea what Cooper is referencing, so he declines to comment.
10. Hamilton is saying here that he has made comments about political rivals and has received criticism from rivals as well, and that it is possible that the unspecified comments that Cooper mentions are within the acceptable range for political criticism. James Madison even published an anonymous essay that criticized Hamilton.
Madison, James. “To the Secretary of Treasury.” National Gazette, 14 May 1792.
11. Hamilton is asking Burr how he would be able to draw a conclusion about what Hamilton said when he has no idea what was said, since Cooper never brings it up in his letter. Hamilton also wonders why Burr is so adamant to hear a response when he hadn’t minded when Hamilton made criticisms of him in the past.
12. Hamilton is questioning where Burr draws the line for political criticism, because he seems to be inconsistent as to where he draws the line. Burr seems to have no problem attacking the character of his politicla opponents, Hamilton included, as you can see in Burr’s private journal. He says “I vacated my position of senator that I stole from that conniving, insolent maggot’s father-in-law as a way of rubbing salt in the wound before rejoining the New york Assembly” The father in law he is talking about is Philip Schuyler, a general in the revolutionary war and a New York senator. He was friends with Hamilton since married Schuyler’s daughter, Elizabeth.
Burr, Aaron. Aaron Burr’s Private Journal. May 2, 1804.
Gerlach, Don. “PHILIP SCHUYLER AND THE NEW YORK FRONTIER IN 1781.” New York Historical Society Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 2, 1969, pp. 148–181.
13. Hamilton is saying that he doesn’t even want to entertain the idea of giving Burr what he wants because he knows how it will end.
14. Hamilton mentions how he could explain furthur to Burr why he doesn’t want to comment on what Cooper accused him of, but the situation doesn’t call for it.
15. Hamilton wants to really drive the point home that he will not give Burr the confirmation that he desires. He starts this next paragraph by repeating that he will not comment once again.
16. Hamilton is saying that he will never accept the judgement of others when that judgement is based on assumptions they made without any basis. He refuses to acknowledge Burr’s demands since he has no reason to believe the accusations were true.
17. Hamilton describes how over his long political career, he has never had such a claim made against him. Burr is the first one to make an accusation against him without providing the exact quote or summary of what was said. Hamilton gives this as his reasoning to the fact that he is honest and tries to avoid personally attacking his political rivals. Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed with each other frequently, but never personally went at each other.
Swanson, Donald F. “Thomas Jefferson on Establishing Public Credit: The Debt Plans of a Would-Be Secretary of Treasury?” Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 3, 1993, pp. 499–509.
18. Hamilton continues his previous statement that people haven’t often misunderstood what he meant, but of they do, he can explain himself. He seems to be implying that Burr is being ridiculous and should stop pestering him for a response. In Burr’s letter to Hamilton in response to this one, he is dissatisfied with Hamilton’s answer and says that he would like a sufficient response. This shows that Burr isn’t willing to give any ground in this disagreement.
Burr, Aaron. “Hamilton to Burr.” Received by Alexander Hamilton, 22 June 1804, New York, New York.
19. Hamilton states that he is fully prepared to give Burr the answer he wants if he is able to provide an exact account of what was said and when. Since Cooper fails to provide any such example, Burr can’t give Hamilton the specifics and he will never be able to give Burr the answer he desires.
20. Hamilton tells Burr that it is ridiculous to expect him to respond to a claim made without any description as to what actually happened. Cooper basically says that Hamilton said “some bad things about Burr one time,” which is nothing to go off of.
21. Hamilton hopes that Burr will change his mind after reading the reasoning behind Hamilton’s refusal to confirm or deny Cooper’s claim. Hamilton and Burr have known each other for a long time, so Hamilton seems to be hopeful that Burr will see his logic and change his mind.
22. Hamilton knows that it is possible that Burr won’t agree with him, os he is willing to accept the consequences. Little does he know that it will end up in a duel and his death.
Geissler, Suzanne. “War of Two: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and the Duel That Stunned the Nation/Aaron Burr in Exile: A Pariah in Paris, 1810-1811.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 37, no. 3, 2017, pp. 558–561.
23. Hamilton tells Burr that he never heard about Cooper’s letter before Burr brought it to his attention.