Palaces Out Of Paragraphs

English 1102: Hamilton and Writing

Reflective Blog Entry

by

By: Rahmel Bailey

When I first began this project my main goal was – go big. I wanted to create something that would push me to learn about new techniques in video editing and have fun while being able to show my creativity. In this project, I was able to do just that. However, the process wasn’t simple. I intended to complete the project very early and after choosing my song I had initial thoughts on an overall message that would guide the video. I came up with a song and video duo that would focus on the battle between life and legacy. However, I wasn’t sure how I would put everything together, and when I would have time to spend learning software. Last week I attempted to make a push while studying for a big exam. I completed the entire outline from start to finish and my next job was to record. My brother came to visit me over the weekend, which was great because he helped me put the pieces together. I spent the rest of my time editing but, there were some defects in the video because I am still learning the software.
I chose legacy vs. time as my theme because I aim to do work that positively impacts others and leaves a mark on the world. I have many interests that involve me tackling that challenge in different ways. I sometimes wonder if I have enough time to do them all. I have always been interested in music, movies, politics, engineering, African-American history, business, sports, and the list goes on. Therefore, I chose legacy vs. time.
The feedback from the Peer Review was very helpful and I took it into consideration. My partner Clarisa gave effective feedback that made me feel more confident about my idea for the project but it also questioned the scale of the project given my skills and time. Because of that feedback, I decided not to include some of the green screen ideas I had before such as a video background that was constantly changing and speeding up. For this project, I didn’t have enough time to add the features that I originally planned. It would have taken me days to figure out how to get that effect to work.
In all, I like how the project came out even if it has a rough look from the videography and editing. I think the rough look gives it a style that goes fits the music. In the future, I will take more time to learn the video editing software to create a more refined video.

Life and Legacy

by

By: Rahmel Bailey

The song “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story” is the final song in the musical performance of Hamilton and acts as a grand finale to the play. It speaks about the legacy of Hamilton after his death and question who will keep it. In the mixtape a remix of the song was created called “Who Tells Your Story”, which has some similarities but a lot of changes from the original.

In the original song the entire cast is included and many of the founding fathers give their remarks of Hamilton which reflect how many tried to downplay Hamilton’s contributions to the founding of the country. It is clear that many didn’t want to give him any recognition, but only gave him some credit because his impact was undeniable. Jefferson is heard saying “I’ll give him this: his financial system is a work of genius”,  and Madison says “He took our country from bankruptcy to prosperity, I hate to admit it,”. The founding fathers only gave him credit for his undisputable contributions. In the rap song it differs because it follows Common and Black Thought talking about the legacy that they have set for themselves. Furthermore, in the main hook the singer asks “Who holds on to our lives”. The perspective of the remix is of Common and Black Thought talking about the legacy they will have, and the main singer asks the listener to think of their legacy. However, the original song talks of Hamilton’s legacy and how Eliza helped it.

In the original piece there is a large emphasis on time, almost as though the reason Eliza had to save Hamilton’s legacy was because he died early and wasn’t able to solidify his impact like the other founding fathers. However, the rappers Common and Black Thought contribute legacy to the contributions made while alive. Common asks if he will be remembered for his early album “Water For Chocolate” or “Resurrection”, and Black Thought mentions that his writing and raps will be most remembered about him.

The new form changes the viewers experience with the text because in the original we see that the legacy of Hamilton was up to everyone else after he died and is more of a historical song of how the story of Hamilton survived overtime. However, the remix makes the reader think of the legacy they will leave after they die. This is essential because it speaks directly to black and brown audiences and challenges them to chase success in their lives.

Because I am using the remix from the mixtape this analysis will help me create a video that fits with the overall meaning I found from the lyrics of the song. It taught me more about how a legacy can be affected after death.

Remix and Adaptation Project Proposal

by

The remix and adaptation project will be very interesting because it will allow me to be creative and figure out a unique way to dive into one of the songs from Hamilton. I think the music itself is an important theme in the musical The intense use of hip-hop and poetic speaking in the songs tell a story using a medium that black and Hispanic people can relate to.  For this project, I really want to explore new methods that force me to learn new editing software techniques.

Currently, I want to use “Who Tells Your Story” from the Hamilton Mixtape that includes Common, the Roots and Ingrid Michaelson. The original song from the play was the final song from Act 2, the main singer in the song is Eliza. This is important because it represents how she was the one who kept the story of Hamilton alive and protected the role of Hamilton on the birth of our nation. In the song, the word “Time” is repeated and emphasized by Eliza which reflects on Hamilton’s feeling that he was running out of time. I was able to relate to that time goes by fast. Not long ago I was starting high school, now I’m entering my second year of college. I sometimes reflect on the impact that I want to have in my life on my family, friends, and society. When looking at the accomplishments I wish to have time is the biggest enemy.

I want to take a snippet of the song, mainly the chorus and a rap verse. Then I want to extend the music and add some vocals to the song that reflect my personal insight on the topic of legacy. To discuss the idea of leaving a lasting legacy in a finite amount of time. In addition to adding vocals to the song I have a green screen and want to make a short clip to go along with the song. I anticipate the result to be a music video and have to work on my video editing and audio editing skills. This will be the most challenging part as I have very little experience editing music and videos. However, I look forward to the challenge and will have fun with the project.

 

Historical Annotation Project

by

Title: Hamilton–Burr Duel Correspondences

Author: Alexander Hamilton

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

By: Rahmel Bailey

N York 20 June 1804

Sir:

I have maturely reflected on the subject of your letter of the 18th Instant, and the more I have reflected, [1] 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 is in these terms: “I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.” [3] 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, [4]as having been already disclosed. [5]I found it in these words: “Genl. 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] 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. ‘Tis evident that the phrase “still more despicable”[6] 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?[7]

Between Gentlemen despicable and still more despicable are not worth the pains of a distinction.[8] 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[9]; and consequently as not warranting the idea of it which Dr. Cooper appears to entertain.[10] If so, what precise inference could you draw as a guide for your future conduct, [11] were I to acknowledge that I had expressed an opinion of you, [12]still more despicable than the one which is particularized? [13]How could you be sure that even this opinion had exceeded the bounds [14]which you would yourself deem admissible between political opponents?[14]

But I forbear further comment on the embarrassment to which the requisition you have made naturally leads. [15]The occasion forbids a more ample illustration, though nothing would be more easy than to pursue it.

Repeating that I can not reconcile it with propriety to make the acknowledgment or denial you desire, [16]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,[17] from whatever I may have said of a political opponent in the course of a fifteen years competition.[18] If there were no other objection to it, this is sufficient, that it would tend to expose my sincerity and delicacy to injurious imputations from every person who may [19]at any time have conceived that import of my expressions differently from what I may then have intended, or may afterwards recollect.[20]

[20]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.[21] More than this can not fitly be expected from me; [22] 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.[23] I trust upon more reflection you will see the matter in the same light with me. If not, I can only regret the circumstances and must abide the consequences.[24]

The publication 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

A. Hamilton

 

1.

Hamilton in this line is referring to a letter that Aaron Burr, his longtime rival, had written on June 18th, 1804 that he had recently received. In the letter (Burr’s letter) Burr states that he heard that Hamilton was speaking badly about him and that he had undeniable evidence on it. That a letter written by Charles D. Cooper stated “could detail . . . a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.” He demands a response from Hamilton and wanted to know what he said. (Rorabaugh, W. J)

2.Hamilton’s first statement in response to the very heated Burr is unlike the sure Hamilton we usually hear of. When he received the letter from Burr he knew he was going to be asked to give an embarrassing apology or be challenged to duel. Burr came from a high-status family where a man’s honor is believed to be the most important thing (Chris) Burr had just lost the election and because Hamilton was caught mud flinging he is now seen as the reason for the loss. Hamilton is hesitant when first responding because he did not want to duel. It simply went against his moral and religious belief. (Richard) Hamilton says he can’t avow or disavow shows the same torn feeling from when he had to decide to duel with Burr or not, he had to choose between morals and honor. (Freeman)

3. Hamilton was also torn because he knew that he did speak horribly on Burr, not that he was ashamed of it. But he felt that as a man because he spoke against Burr that he must stand behind his words to remain honorable. Honor for politicians at the time was the most important thing. Hamilton did not think he could defy Burr challenging him to a duel and remain a public figure.

4. Van Ness was Burr’s second, meaning that he was responsible for sending the letters to Hamilton from Burr during the affair of honor, a name for the duels. The letter from Dr. Cooper is pointed out to Hamilton. The letter was retrieved by Albany register and was sent by Cooper to Hamilton’s father in law. Cooper aimed to point out that Hamilton was saying some intense, mudslinging views on Burr. It is still not completely known exactly what Hamilton said. (Freeman)

5. Hamilton is explaining that because it was his first time hearing of the news from Mr. Van Nass about the quote “detail still more despicable opinion” Hamilton had to go back and read the entire letter of Cooper to get some context so that he could address it. Hamilton clearly doesn’t want to duel because he is explaining his entire thought process to Burr, which really isn’t something we know him to do. (Rorabaugh)

 

6.Hamilton is explaining that he went back in the text and this is the context eh found to the despicable quote. The displaceable statements made about Burr did not only come from Hamilton but also from Judge Kent, who is also mentioned in the Cooper letter. However, many other Federalists probably spoke badly of Burr, (Baker) Burr’s reputation at that point wasn’t the best and many politicians did not trust Burr. He was Vice President at the time and the President did not trust him and gave him almost no political input as a result. (Rorabaugh)

7. Hamilton begins to get very tricky at this instant in the letter. It continues to reveal his deep uneasy feeling towards having a duel. Hamilton was not necessarily afraid to die that didn’t want to go against his principle and didn’t want to kill Burr, even if that was his enemy. From before the duel up until his last words he continually stated that he wouldn’t fire at Burr.

  1. Hamilton tries to somewhat diffuse the letter written by Cooper, in part because the letter was a shock to him and he doesn’t fully know. And because he wants Burr to have solids grounds for wanting to duel if they do end up dueling. He tries to state that Cooper notes them both as being despicable and dirty people and that Hamilton has convinced that Burr is even more crooked than Hamilton. He uses his writing skills to logically makes sense of the letter.
  2. Hamilton explains that Coopers sees them both as evil and someone deserving hatred but Burr is of a higher degree of wrong. He goes on to use more wittiness to say that how can he judge wicked from wicked, they are both wrong things. He attempts to discredit Dr. Cooper’s letters as the only grounds for them to have a dispute. He wants to take the letter out the argument to get to the point and maybe lesson some tension. However, the tension can’t be lessened.
  3. After he has taken the Cooper letter out of the argument he says the Cooper has written very vaguely and that the letter that Burr wrote is also very vague. Burr doesn’t say very much for someone who wants to have a duel with another. At the time Burr’s mind has already been made up that the only way to gain his honor is through the duel, so he feels there isn’t much to say.(Freeman)
  4. Hamilton has said may cruel and wrong things about Burr his opponent and he recognizes it here. For years he talked about Burr and tried everything in his power to ensure that Burr does does not succeed politically and he understands that this is very wrong on his part. But he also recognizes that the evil acts that he spoke on of Burr are true and that Burr is wrong in many ways. Hamilton believed that Burr was willing to do anything for power but lacked moral, something he believed wasn’t good for the country.
  5. He goes on to state that Burr has no argument when asking about the mud flung sentiments that were stated because these the two have been rival and have been trying to bring down one another for over a decade of back and forth. When Washington became president Hamilton took the position as the Secretary of Treasury to the surprised of Burr which was the first of many battles that Burr and Hamilton went through over the years. Hamilton became promoted in the military by Washington in 1898 and Washington made sure that Burr wasn’t, another battle. For these reasons and their opposing political views, Burr hated Hamilton and vice versa.
  6. Hamilton argues with Burr that he needs to get to the point of his reason for sending the letter and that his reason as stated by Cooper does not count as the reason. Because of their lengthy political rivalry, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that words were said about Burr. Hamilton basically is angry at Burr and takes the stance that Burr is wasting his time.
  7. Cooper doesn’t know about the intense hatred that Burr and Hamilton have for each other, both they both do. Because of this Hamilton question’s Burr interest from a speculator. He begins to insult Burr by asking him what the purpose of his very broad letter was. He questions the response that Burr wanted him to give. We now see the Hamilton that we know who is certain in his words. He strongly believes every word he said of Burr even if they seem wrong and cruel.
  8. Another insult to Burr where he is basically repeating that they are political rivalries and questions if there even exists any bounds that the two can’t cross. He uses this argument to state why they shouldn’t have the duel, but it defeats its purpose because it is an insult. He basically calls Burr an idiot.
  9. He begins to insult Burr consistently and even calls Burr’s affair to action letter an embarrassment. He attempts to make the argument that it is so sorry of a letter that he can’t respond to answering what Burr asked. These insults have a reverse effect on attempting to not have a duel.
  10. Hamilton in no way wants to acknowledge the request that Burr has created which he finds a very embarrassing attempt to make the request. He won’t answer the question that Burr has asked of him and his argument for doing so is because sends a letter that is so vague and meaningless.
  11. He insults Burr again and backs up his point about Burr sending such a poor letter to ask the question. He states that Burr is trying to argue based on the words stated by someone else. This is a blow at the honor of Burr which we know was crucial to men of the era.
  12. He claims that he won’t respond to what Burr said because he has made statements of a lot of people and not every individual who Hamilton has made statements about and heard the news from an outside source have come to Hamilton with anger on the news. Burr deciding to take the news as a threat makes him seem less of a man than Hamilton. Hamilton basically calls Burr less than a man than him.
  13. The cycle of the insulting Burr and Burr’s letter continues and Hamilton uses it to hide his true feeling of the fight. That he didn’t want to fight because it went against his morals. Hamilton had been in several duels before but the duels that he was in some never even made it to a battlefield and in the others, nobody was shot. He does not want to duel Burr at all, but will forever defend his honor and defend his views of Burr who he finds diabolical.
  14. Hamilton believes that he can’t be expected by a sensible person, by any gentlemen to have to respond to the poor letter written by Burr, so he won’t respond with a simple yes or no to the question. He attempts to push the argument back so that he doesn’t have to answer the question now.
  15. He won’t answer the question that Burr has asked him whose basis was on the words of another man. If Burr’s argument is on the basis of another man it is not the argument of a true gentleman so Hamilton is not obligated to respond to it. And he won’t.
  16. Again knows that this is just the beginning of the affair of honor between him and Burr. He understands that his statements against Burr are worthy of a duel that he has to participate in to maintain his public figure. But he doesn’t want to and tries to push it to a later date. He mentions Burr’s next letter. Burr’s next letter was more enraged and to the point.
  17. He had never even heard of the letter that was written by Dr. Cooper until the letter was delivered by Burr’s second who delivered all of Burr’s letter to Hamilton right up until the duel. Burr uses this letter to create a stronger argument that Hamilton has tried to taint his character which to them had the same as ruining his reputation and his honor.

 

Citations

BAKER, THOMAS N. “‘An Attack Well Directed’ Aaron Burr Intrigues for the Presidency.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 31, no. 4, 2011, pp. 553–598. JSTOR, JSTOR,

Wyatt-Brown, Bertram. “Andrew Jackson’s Honor.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 17, no. 1, 1997, pp. 1–36. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3124641.

Bell, Richard. “The Double Guilt of Dueling: The Stain of Suicide in Anti-Dueling Rhetoric in the Early Republic.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 29, no. 3, 2009, pp. 383–410. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40541855.

Freeman, Joanne B. “Dueling as Politics: Reinterpreting the Burr-Hamilton Duel.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 2, 1996, pp. 289–318. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2947402.

Rorabaugh, W. J. “The Political Duel in the Early Republic: Burr v. Hamilton.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 15, no. 1, 1995, pp. 1–23. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3124381.

Chris. “Dueling History: An Affair of Honor.” The Art of Manliness, 28 May 2018, www.artofmanliness.com/articles/man-knowledge-an-affair-of-honor-the-duel/

Hamilton to [?], Sept. 2I, I792, Hamilton Papers, I2:408

[Van Ness], “Correct Statement,” 62–63

James S. Biddle, ed., Autobiography of Charles Biddle, Vice-President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, 1745–1821 (Philadelphia: E. Claxton, 1883), 305; New York American Citizen, January 6, 1804.

Dr. Charles D. Cooper to General Philip Schuyler, April 23, 1804, on Hamilton’s opposition to Aaron Burr’s run for governor of New York in 1804. A copy of this letter was published in the Albany Register on April 24, 1804.

Letter from Alexander Hamilton, Concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq. President of the United States (New York. Printed for John Lang, by George F. Hopkins, 1800 [Copy-right secured]

The Art of Duelling. London: J. Thomas, F.C. Westley, R. Willoughby, 1836,P.1

Trees, Andrew S. “The Importance of Being Alexander Hamilton.” Reviews in American History, vol. 33, no. 1, 2005, pp. 8–14. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/30031480.

Adair, Douglass, and Marvin Harvey. “Was Alexander Hamilton a Christian Statesman?” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 2, 1955, pp. 308–329. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1920511.

Cogan, Jacob Katz. “The Reynolds Affair and the Politics of Character.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 16, no. 3, 1996, pp. 389–417. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3124057.

BAKER, THOMAS N. “‘An Attack Well Directed’ Aaron Burr Intrigues for the Presidency.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 31, no. 4, 2011, pp. 553–598. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41261652.

Hamilton, A. Boyd. “Hamilton.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 17, no. 2, 1893, pp. 175–184. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20083532.

Lind, Michael. “Hamilton’s Legacy.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), vol. 18, no. 3, 1994, pp. 40–52. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40258878.

“Communications.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 4, 1996, pp. 850–852. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2947169.

Freeman, Joanne B. “Grappling with the Character Issue.” Reviews in American History, vol. 28, no. 4, 2000, pp. 518–522. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/30031197.

Pen, Paper and The Writing Process

by

By: Rahmel Bailey

Ideally, I begin my writing process by trying to understand the prompt or the purpose for me writing. This usually takes me several minutes to read the instructions, and if it is a personal writing I find the correct notebook for that purpose. I have different notebooks where I organize different things. My next step, probably the most important, is to take out my pen and begin writing down all my initial thoughts. When I do this I attempt to empty my mind of all the irrelative thoughts. I quickly scribble sentences,

 

 

phrases, and words that I find fit and address the purpose. I attempt to write them even if doesn’t all make sense.

However, there are many instances when writing especially when I am not the most interested in the piece and I can’t think of any ideas to get on the page. In these situations, I again first attempt to understand the purpose and stare into space for a while. I sit somewhere from 10 to 30 minutes in silence at a comfortable place and begin brainstorming. I attempt to clear my mind and focus on the task of writing alone and begin thinking, rereading the prompt until thoughts come into my head. I think of how I can make it sensible and interesting to me.

The next step for me is to go over those thoughts and organize them into paragraphs, taking out the non-essential ideas and keep the most important. I also find the points that can be expanded on and turn those into their own paragraph or large snippets of a paragraph, while other points remain a sentence or two.  I then create a thesis statement that brings the entire piece together. Once the thesis is created and there is an outline of the organized paragraphs I can begin to write my first draft of the essay. I do this by trying to write details for each paragraph or for snippets of the paragraph.

Once my draft is completed and has been edited for grammar I try to take a break and not look at it for several days. Then I come back to the writing and reread the piece and find ways that it can be improved. I then brainstorm the ideas and update my writing.

Hamilton: A Real OG

by

By: Rahmel Bailey

Hamilton is probably the only founding father I will call a gangster. A gangster is someone who is ruthless, willing to do anything for success and doesn’t let anything get in the way of that success. Hamilton lived his life knowing death wasn’t far and made decisions to build and protect his legacy while he was alive. Much like a lot of OGs he was raised poor and without a father, he only had his mother around. The circumstances that he was born into fueled him take his shot and kill Red Coats in the revolution where he rose to fame. Shots were the same way his life ended when he was killed in a duel.

According to the code of THUG LIFE by Matulu Shakur, Hamilton unknowingly lived by some of the codes. He followed the beginning of the code because he knew he would be successful and that he would not live a long life. He was responsible for legal/ payment financial system by creating the country’s national financial system and help the nation develop credit and debt. As stated in the code, Hamilton knew true enemies that prevented him from reaching his success, this is why he had an intense feud with Burr who was his true enemy and tried to take his spot in the Washington cabinet. Hamilton followed the rule to respect brothers and sisters (not the family kind) by having respect for Washington and some of the other founding fathers even when their views weren’t aligned. And he had respect for sisters which was proven by the way he regarded his wife who spoke highly of him. Hamilton lived (actually he died) by the code to protect yourself. Whenever he was attacked by an enemy especially Burr he never backed down and was ready to take on anyone. Even when he was challenged to a duel by Burr, Hamilton didn’t back down even though he was opposed the feud. Hamilton lost his life because he was protecting himself. And more importantly, he didn’t shoot during the duel because he wasn’t to protect his reputation, which is the lasting memory of himself.

 

Hamilton is truly a gangster. A real OG.

 

Image result for og

Image result for thug life tupac

Hamilton and Burr: Who Shot First

by

By:Rahmel Bailey

For my historical document, I decided to research the Hamilton-Burr Duel Correspondence letters. The collection of letters were written by Hamilton and Burr, and mark the very last documents that they sent one another before attempting to settle their notable rivalry. I found the documents on Wikisource, the letters are also available in the public domain. I was drawn into the battle of Hamilton and Burr because I had some knowledge on their rivalry from history class. I knew that Hamilton was selected over Burr to serve as Treasurer under George Washington and that the two had different viewpoints. However, I had no idea their feud cost Hamilton his life. (They didn’t mention that on the ten dollar bill.)  I believe the documents are essential to understanding the life of Hamilton because he made the choice to risk his life, leave his wife and children in all to bring destruction to his political opponent. Hamilton was an intelligent man, therefore he must have an adequate explanation for the duel. Furthermore, it is important to research because the account of the actual battle is also unclear.

To me, the duel is important because in the play Hamilton is compared to Black and brown people. Similar to many revolutionaries of color in this country he lost his life at the hands of a bullet. In order to figure out the reasoning for Hamilton to participate in the battle, I need to research.

 

 

American politician Aaron Burr (1756 – 1836) fatally wounds Alexander Hamilton (1757 – 1804) with a shot from his pistol during a duel in Weehawken, New Jersey, July 11, 1804.

The document takes places long after the Revolutionary War and after Hamilton served as Treasurer, their feud had been going on for over a decade. Becuase the documents give insight at the end of their rivalry, the relationship between Hamilton and Burr have to be acquired at different points before then. To bring the document to life, the entire field must be understood. Some examples of things that must be understood prior are that talks of a duel between the two were not first established in the letter. I have been researching the story behind the battle by mainly reading other related documents, like those from the messengers of the letters, and by learning about the less violent attacks that pushed the duel to take place. I have been trying to get the background through finding relative primary documents. There were many things that pushed Burr and Hamilton to the battle, one primary influence were outsiders. A newspaper editor pushed for Burr to challenge Hamilton to a duel in the paper. Also, Charles D.  who insulted Burr is actually mentioned in the letters.

The biggest challenge of the research is to find as many relevant primary documents as possible in order to get a first-hand look at the events and opinions surrounding the duel.  Moving forward I will try to read online encyclopedia annotations to find primary documents.

 

 

Blog Entry 1

by

“Immigrants we get the job done”

The Broadway musical Hamilton is a very unique piece, it is the story of Alexander Hamilton a founding father of the United States and is played by a cast of almost all people of color. However, the most interesting thing about the work is how the creator Lin Manuel Miranda relates Alexander Hamilton to himself and many people of color. In the play he shows Hamilton’s poor upbringing, growing up without a father, and his mother died at an early age. He didn’t come from a privileged home like many of his counterparts, he picked himself up from the bootstraps to rise to success.
One major emphasis that Lin Manuel puts on Hamilton to emphasize the relation to many people of color through showing that Hamilton was an immigrant. In a song from the musical, “Yorktown (The World Turned Upside Down)”, one of the most notable lines from the entire play is “Immigrants we get the job done”. In this line, he references that historically immigrants have played a major role in the development and prosperity of the country, that the country is made of immigrants. Furthermore, I believe the meaning is meant to take a position on the rhetoric related to immigrants and make a claim that immigrants today are essential to the rise of this country and have been historically. The fact is, Hamilton was also an immigrant who came to America where he was given an opportunity to leave poverty and make a name, it led him to help defeat British forces in the Revolutionary War and serve on the cabinet of George Washington.
This was something I found intriguing because my family is made of immigrants and in society today immigrants and given a bad rep. It shouldn’t be this way, this connotation of immigrants is backward when compared to immigration around our country’s founding. I feel proud when hearing “ we get the job done” as do many others who can relate.

Transcript Document: Hamilton and Burr’s Duel Correspondence

by

Document Title: Hamilton and Burr’s Duel Correspondence

Authors: Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, Van Ness

Date of Origin: June 18, 1804

Document Source: Wikisource

Link: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamilton%E2%80%93Burr_duel_correspondences

 

Burr to Hamilton, June 18, 1804

N York 18 June 1804

Sir,

I send for your perusal a letter signed Ch. D. Cooper which, though apparently published some time ago, has but very recently come to my knowledge. Mr. Van Ness, who does me the favor to deliver this, will point out to you that clause of the letter to which I particularly request your attention.

You must perceive, Sir, the necessity of a prompt and unqualified acknowledgement or denial of the use of any expressions which could warrant the assertions of Dr. Cooper.

I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

A. Burr

 

Hamilton to Burr, June 20, 1804

N York 20 June 1804

Sir:

I have maturely reflected on the subject of your letter of the 18th Instant, 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.

The clause pointed out by Mr. Van Ness is in these terms: “I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.” 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. I found it in these words: “Genl. 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.” 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. ‘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?

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; 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? How could you be sure that even this opinion had exceeded the bounds which you would yourself deem admissible between political opponents?

But I forbear further comment on the embarrassment to which the requisition you have made naturally leads. The occasion forbids a more ample illustration, though nothing would be more easy 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, 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. If there were no other objection to it, this is sufficient, that it would tend to expose my sincerity and delicacy to injurious imputations 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.

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. 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. I trust upon more reflection you will see the matter in the same light with me. If not, I can only regret the circumstances and must abide the consequences.

The publication 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

A. Hamilton

 

Burr to Hamilton, June 21, 1804

N York 21 June, 1804.

Sir,

Your letter of the 20th inst. has been this day received. Having considered it attentively, I regret to find in it nothing of that sincerity and delicacy which you profess to value.

Political opposition can never absolve gentlemen from the necessity of a rigid adherence to the laws of honor and the rules of decorum. I neither claim such privilege nor indulge it in others.

The common sense of mankind affixes to the epithet adopted by Dr. Cooper the idea of dishonor. It has been publicly applied to me under the sanction of your name. The question is not whether he has understood the meaning of the word or has used it according to syntax and with grammatical accuracy, but whether you have authorized this application either directly or by uttering expression or opinion derogatory to my honor. The time “when” is in your own knowledge but no way material to me, as the calumny has now just been disclosed so as to become the subject of my notice and as the effect is present and palpable.

Your letter has furnished me with new reasons for requiring a definite reply.

I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

A. Burr

Hamilton to Burr, June 22, 1804

N York 22 June 1804

Sir,

Your first letter, in a style too peremptory, made a demand, in my opinion, unprecedented and unwarrantable. My answer, pointing out the embarrassment, gave you an opportunity to take a less exceptionable course. You have not chosen to do it, but by your last letter, received this day, containing expressions indecorous and improper, you have increased the difficulties to explanation, intrinsically incident to the nature of your application.

If by a “definite reply” you mean the direct avowal or disavowal required in your first letter, I have no other answer to give than that which has already been given. If you mean anything different admitting of greater latitude, it is requisite you should explain.

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

A. Hamilton

Van Ness to Pendleton, June 26, 1804

Sir,

The letter which you yesterday delivered me and your subsequent communication in Col. Burr’s opinion evince no disposition on the part of Genl. Hamilton to come to a satisfactory accommodation. The injury complained of and the reparation expected are so definitely expressed in his (Col. B.’s) letter of the 21st Inst. that there is not perceived a necessity for further explanation on his part. The difficulty that would result from confining the inquiry to any particular times and occasions must be manifest. The denial of a specified conversation only, would leave strong implications that on other occasions improper language had been used. When and where injurious expressions and opinions have been uttered by Genl. Hamilton must be best known to him and of him only does Col. Burr think it proper to enquire.

No denial or declaration will be satisfactory unless it be general so as to wholly exclude the idea that rumors derogatory to Col. Burr’s honor can have originated with Genl. Hamilton or have been fairly inferred from anything he has said. A definite reply to a requisition of this nature is demanded in Col. Burr’s letter of the 21st Inst. This being refused, invites the alternative alluded to in Genl. H.’s letter of the 20th Inst. It was demanded by the position in which the controversy was placed by Genl. H. on the 22nd Inst., and I was immediately furnished with a communication demanding a personal interview.

The necessity of this measure has not in the opinion of Col. Burr been diminished by the General’s last letter or any subsequent communication which has been received and I am again instructed to deliver you a message as soon as it may be convenient for you to receive it. I beg, therefore, you will have the politeness to inform me at what hour I shall wait on you.

Your most obt. & very hum. Servt.

W. P. Van Ness

Rahmel Bailey Introductory Post

by

During the Fall semester I had the opportunity to take English 1101 with Dr. Sturm who was a new teacher at the time. Believe it or not, it was one of my favorite classes because I was allowed to collect information and form my own opinion and thoughts on topics. Also, I was allowed to be creative and express myself on assignments and in the classroom. It was very different from the Calculus and Chemistry courses that I also took where I had to accept everything I was taught as fact. The course reminded me of English class in high school where the greatest takeaway was the insightful class discussions on books, prompts and current events. My favorite kind of communication is speaking because I find it an innate and powerful form of communication for people. I struggle the most with communication through my writing, I am looking to improve my ability to write over the semester because it is a necessary and unavoidable skill.

 

I am very familiar with the play Hamilton, in fact I know several people who have watched the production with the original cast. In addition, I have been outside the theater where Hamilton is orchestrated and have seen Lin Manuel and some of the other cast members in front of the theater. I have a general understanding of Hamilton, that it is a musical that follows the life of Hamilton. I enjoy musicals and particularly enjoy when the cast members in a musical sing together much like a choir. Hip-hop is one of my most favorite genres of music because my parents introduced me to it when I was around 3. I grew up on hip-hop music.

 

Also, I am from Brooklyn.