Palaces Out Of Paragraphs

1. George Washington’s Farewell Address, September 19, 1796 : Paragraphs/ Breaks 1-7
2.  Document Originally found on ConText
3. Link: https://context.montpelier.org/document/715#passage-15

By: Kristen English

George Washington’s Farewell Address

 

September 19, 1796^[1]

Friends, & Fellow–Citizens.

The period for a new election of a Citizen, to Administer the Executive government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived^[2], when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person, who is to be cloathed with that important trust^[3], it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made^[4].

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken, without a strict regard to all the considerations^[5] appertaining to the relation, which binds a dutiful Citizen to his country–and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my Situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest^[6], no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness^[7]; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, & continuance hitherto^[8] in, the Office to which your Suffrages^[9] have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives, which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I had been reluctantly drawn^[10]. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last Election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed & critical posture of our Affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea^[11].

I rejoice, that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty, or propriety; & am persuaded whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire^[12].

The impressions, with which, I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion^[13]. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say, that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the Organization and Administration of the government, the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable^[14]. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthned the motives to diffidence of myself^[15]; and every day the encreasing weight of years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotizm does not forbid it^[16].

In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the career of my public life^[17], my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country, for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the stedfast confidence with which it has supported me^[18]; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful & persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal^[19]. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that, under circumstances in which the Passions agitated in every direction were liable to mislead^[20], amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of Success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected^[21]. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence^[22]–that your Union & brotherly affection may be perpetual–that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained–that its Administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and Virtue–that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection–and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it^[23].

[Read more…]

Annotations by Karl Risley

Title: Letter from Hamilton to Burr

Date: June 20, 1804

Author: Alexander Hamilton

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

N York 20 June 1804^[1]

Sir^[2]:

I have maturely reflected on the subject^[3] of your letter of the 18th Instant, and the more I have reflected^[4], the more I have become convinced that I could not without manifest^[5] impropriety make the avowal or disavowal which you seem to think necessary^[6].

The clause pointed ^[7] out by Mr. Van Ness^[8] is in these terms: “I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton^[9] has expressed of Mr. Burr.”^[10] To endeavor to discover the meaning of this declaration, I was obliged ^[11] to seek in the antecedent part of the letter for the opinion to which it referred, as having been already disclosed^[12]. I found it in these words: “Genl. Hamilton and Judge Kent^[13] have declared in substance that they looked upon Mr. Burr to be a dangerous man, and one who ought not to be trusted^[14] with the reins of Government.” The language of Dr. Cooper^[15] plainly implies that he considered this opinion of you, which he attributes to me, as a despicable one; but he affirms^[16] that I have expressed some other still more despicable; without, however, mentioning to whom^[17], when or where. ‘Tis evident that the phrase “still more despicable” admits of infinite shades from very light to very dark^[18]. How am I to judge of the degree intended. ^[19]Or how should I annex any precise idea to language so vague?

Between Gentlemen^[20] despicable and still more despicable are not worth the pains^[21] of a distinction. When, therefore, you do not interrogate^[22] 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^[23] of political opponents^[24], upon each other, may justifiably extend; and consequently as not warranting the idea of it which Dr. Cooper appears to entertain^[25]. If so, what precise inference could you draw as a guide for your future conduct^[26], were I to acknowledge that I had expressed an opinion^[27] of you, still more despicable^[28] than the one which is particularized? How could you be sure^[29] that even this opinion had exceeded the bounds which you would yourself deem admissible between ^[30]political opponents?

But I forbear further comment^[31] on the embarrassment to which the requisition you have made naturally leads^[32]. The occasion forbids a more ample illustration, though nothing would be more easy^[33] than to pursue it.

Repeating^[34] that I can not reconcile it with propriety to make the acknowledgment or denial you desire, I will add^[35] that I deem it inadmissible on principle^[36], to consent to be interrogated as to the justness^[37] of the inferences which may be drawn by others, from whatever I may have said of a political opponent^[38] 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^[39] imputations from every person who may at any time have conceived that import of my expressions differently from what I may then have intended^[40], or may afterwards recollect.

I stand ready to avow or disavow promptly and explicitly^[41] any precise or definite opinion which I may be charged^[42] 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^[43] upon a basis so vague as that which you have adopted^[44]. I trust upon more reflection^[45] you will see the matter in the same light with me. If not, I can only regret^[46] the circumstances and must abide^[47] the consequences^[48].

The publication of Dr. Cooper was never seen^[49] by me ‘till after the receipt of your letter.

Sir, I have the honor to be
Your Obdt.^[50] S^t

A. Hamilton

[1]

This letter was sent exactly 21 days before Hamilton and Burr’s duel, which occurred on July 11^th in Weehawken, New Jersey. It was written in response to Burr’s initial letter, sent two days prior on June 18^th (Hess). Burr sent his initial correspondence in outrage over what Hamilton had said at a dinner party before he lost the election for Governor, more details will come in the next annotations. They travelled to New Jersey for the duel because, “everything was legal in Jersey” (Sanderson 206). Considering that the only form of communication was hand written and delivered letters, the correspondences happened at an accelerated rate, leading to a duel in just 23 days from initial communication. The duel was rushed.

[2]

Referring to Arron Burr, Alexander Hamilton is responding to a letter Burr sent him that can be found here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamilton%E2%80%93Burr_duel_correspondences. The simple sir word shows how blunt and direct Hamilton is being. At the time based on letters written by other politicians, a more courteous salutation was common (Washington) While using the proper respected term sir, he is being very short and direct, suggesting the high tension nature of this letter. This greeting also is used throughout the musical whenever Hamilton talks to Burr, such as in the first song introducing Aaron Burr in the song, “Aaron Burr, Sir”.

[3]

As discussed earlier, his initial addressing of Burr with the simple word “sir” was already short. Carrying this idea, in typical Alexander Hamilton fashion he does not waste any time for formalities, immediately addressing Aaron Burr’s previous letter. The topic of this letter will be explained in the next annotations. Remembered as a skilled writer, Alexander Hamilton exemplifies this by speaking volumes with what he doesn’t write. According to the OWL Purdue, the body of a formal business letter should immediately start with “a friendly opening”, showing one’s care and respect for the recipient, a common courtesy. A courtesy that Alexander purposefully neglects to include when addressing Aaron Burr, clearly illustrating his disdain for Burr from the initial stroke of his pen. This inability to “hold back” or ability to “wait for it” as Lin Manuel would put it is part of Alexander’s inner core, a characteristic that he cannot comprehend. This idea is addressed throughout the musical, especially in “My Shot”.

[4]

The addition of this line suggests how much Burr’s letter bothered him, making him reflect multiple times on the subject matter. No wonder the letter that follows is written in typical Hamilton fashion, a never-ending letter that emphasized a main point in many different ways. He was known for writing extensively. One specific example of his methods were the Federalist Papers, of which he wrote over have (Hamilton). It can be found here (www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/.) There is also speculation that Hamilton wrote Washington’s famous farewell address for him, again illustrating his writing skills.

[5]

If he did not make it blatantly clear in the absence of formalities discussed in previous annotation, Alexander explicitly informs Burr that he is convinced he “could not without manifest impropriety” reply to him. “Manifest” means “clear or obvious to the mind” while “impropriety” translates to “a failure to observe standards or show due modesty” (Dictionary.com). In other words, just in case Burr did not get the message, Alexander bluntly states that he literally could not reply to Burr without being clearly immodest or disrespectful. Alexander did not leave his contemptible tone up to Aaron Burr’s imagination. He made it clear. Alexander’s direct nature is another aspect of his character that is held true throughout the play, stated similarly in the lyrics of “Non-Stop”, when Aaron Burr Rhetorically asks, “Why do you always say what you believe”. Genius.com’s annotation of this songs points out this reoccurring theme highlighting the contrast between Hamilton’s freely expressed beliefs and opinions, and Burr’s “don’t let them know what you’re against or what you’re for” philosophy. With the scene set it is time to dive into the background behind this letter.

[6]

Evident throughout the musical, Aaron Burr and Hamilton never got along. Throughout the war and even afterwards when they were both working as lawyers in New York they opposed each other. When Aaron Burr ran for Governor of New York on the Democratic-Republicans ticket Hamilton obviously opposed him. Holding true to his nature, Hamilton aggressively and openly opposed him, speaking publicly against him. Aaron Burr lost the election of Governor of New York by a wide margin (Sanderson 206). After his disappointment Burr read a letter that was published in the Albany Register, written by Charles D. Cooper, a physician, writer, and lawyer, that was initially intended for Hamilton’s father-in-law Congressman Schuyler, detailing Hamilton’s aggressive words against Burr’s campaign that were spoken at a dinner party in Albany. The issue Burr wrote to Hamilton about, demanding a “necessary” “avowal or disavowal” was concerning a specific line in Charles D. Cooper’s letter (Sanderson 209).

[7]

It is important to note that while, again mentioned earlier, the only quarrel discussed in this letter and Burr’s previous letter concerns Cooper’s letter. However, Burr and Hamilton have had a long rivalry. As Peter Hess puts it in his article, “The Albany Connections of Burr, Hamilton, and Schuyler”, Cooper’s letter was “the last straw” for Burr concerning Hamilton. Their relationship began when they were both studying law at Schuyler’s, Hamilton’s father-in-law, house. There first competition was likely their competition to become Washington’s second during the Revolutionary War. Hamilton belonged to the Federalist party while Burr was a Democratic Republican. These differences caused them to be in opposition for several elections. Specifically, Hamilton strongly spoke against Burr’s campaign for the Presidency in 1800 (Hess).  Tensions were already high before Dr. Cooper’s letter had been brought to Burr’s attention. Burr was most likely also enraged, not towards Hamilton specifically, because he had lost the election for Governor of New York. He had also received no votes towards becoming Jefferson’s Vice President, despite his incumbent Vice Presidency of the time (Hess). Jefferson went behind his back and gave his support to the current Governor of New York, George Clinton (Hess). Basically, Aaron Burr, a quietly ambitious man, had gone from Vice President of the United States, to holding no public office at all in a year. This is an embarrassing and humiliating build-up that allowed Dr. Cooper’s letter to be “the last straw” between Burr’s and Hamilton’s relationship.

[8]

Mr. Van Ness was Burr’s second. (Sanderson 209) A second during this period of history was basically like a spokesman. Mr. Van Ness delivered Burr’s letter to Hamilton. The use of his second illustrates the high tensions lying behind Burr’s initial letter to Hamilton. Tensions high enough to warrant a duel. Although not yet mentioned in the correspondences between them, all of these letters address the issue that caused their duel. The duel was probably never mentioned directly because at the time it was illegal and becoming frowned upon in society (Hess). In fact, when the seconds were scheduling the duel they called it the “Interview” (Sanderson 210). Lin Manuel detailed the “rules” of dueling in the musical through the song, “Ten Duel Commandments”. The first step once an apology is not given is to “grab a second”, showing that path towards dueling had already begun. The first commandment of dueling was practically skipped entirely, “demand satisfaction and ask for apology”. This step should occur before seconds are brought into the conversation (Drake). Burr, while still asking for an apology, immediately found a second and had him deliver his first letter to Hamilton, showing his wishes for a duel from the beginning. Burr may also have assumed that Hamilton would not apologize for his actions, a safe conclusion he could have reached through his long years of interaction with Hamilton. This assumption may be the reason why Burr found a second early. Why waste time waiting for an apology that will never happen? Burr’s disobedience of the “first duel commandment” ironically foreshadows his disobedience of the rules of dueling during the actual duel, failing to refrain from firing his pistol, killing Hamilton.

[9]

Hamilton was in Albany the day he spoke against Burr’s campaign for Governor at the dinner party Dr. Cooper wrote about because he was defending Harry Croswell’s appeal, who was found guilty of violating the Sedition Act (Hess).  The Sedition Act made it illegal to speak against the government (“Alien and Sedition Acts”). Hamilton in his defense claimed that freedom of the press was “all-important to the liberties of the people” (“People v. Croswell”). Furthermore, in the early 1800’s the freedom to critique public figures politically was arguably the most important aspect of freedom of speech to Americans, a people who revolted against England because of the absence of this right (“Freedom of Speech Clause”). This desire and Hamilton’s adamant defense of free speech in the press clearly illustrates that Hamilton’s “limits” of appropriate words he refers to in this letter must be very broad. While Hamilton defended the freedom of speech, he ironically ends up dying because of words his own spoken word.

[10]

This is the direct quote taken from Dr. Cooper’s letter to Mr. Schuyler that Aaron Burr demanded Hamilton refute or acknowledge. The letter was written on April 23^rd, 1804, about two months before Burr contacted Hamilton (Founder’s Online…). Cooper’s words imply that while Hamilton’s disapproving opinion of Burr was explained in his letter, he could still share harsher words Hamilton had concerning Burr. The nature of Cooper’s words further suggest that these words crossed the line and were inappropriate for even this letter, despite Cooper’s oppositional intentions towards Burr (Hess). Why else would Cooper not include them, except for the sake of keeping his letter appropriate? In place of sharing Hamilton’s possibly vulgar words, Cooper leaves them to the reader’s imagination. This explains Aaron Burr’s previous letter demands, “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” (Sanderson 209) In other words, Burr demanded that Hamilton explain what Cooper was referring too, eliminating imagination’s grasp on Hamilton’s “despicable opinion” concerning Burr. He wanted to know the truth behind Cooper’s words. Cooper’s letter can be found here: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0203-0002

[11]

Hamilton explains that to answer Burr’s question he read what Cooper had written earlier in his letter, before the clause Burr wanted explained. Hamilton could have easily began writing what he had found earlier in the letter without explaining that he was “obliged” to look at what was previously found. His diction and choice to include this sentence is another jab at Burr. Hamilton is suggesting that Burr took the clause discussed in the last annotation out of context. Hamilton initially states that the “despicable opinion” Cooper was referring to had already been disclosed earlier in the letter. Basically, Burr’s question already had an answer, insulting Burr’s intelligence.

[12]

Aaron Burr was chosen to run on the Democratic Republican ticket for Governor of New York in Albany on February 18th, 1804. He was actually given the honor after the true ticket holder, Albany Judge John Lansing, New York’s Chancellor, backed out due to a disagreement between him and the current Governor of New York, George Clinton. Clinton was offered the ticket to re-run for Governor but refused because Jefferson was planning on making him his Vice-President, replacing Burr behind his back (Hess). When Lansing had been offered the ticket, Clinton met with him privately and demanded that Lansing be his puppet while Governor when he was the Vice President. Lansing backed out. In a last ditch effort, fifteen Democratic Republicans met and nominated Aaron Burr for the ticket (Hess). Aaron Burr was the party’s third choice. At the infamous dinner table, the topic of discussion was whether or not to send the Federalist’s support to Burr for Governor (Bielinski). This topic held a lot of weight because Burr mostly gave his loyalties to the Democratic-Republicans, although he seemed to represent whichever side gave him the best chance. If Federalist’s supported Burr in the final length of the election as well, he had a good chance of winning.

[13]

Judge Kent, an associate justice of the supreme court also shared disapproving comments concerning Burr at the dinner party according to Cooper (“James Kent”). Judge Kent’s irrelevance in this debacle is very telling of Burr’s and Hamilton’s relationship. Burr’s main quarrel with Hamilton only concerned the contents of Cooper’s letter, which accused Kent of similar actions. Burr never sent a letter or a second to Kent. While Cooper did further accuse Hamilton of a “still more despicable opinion”, Burr must still have been bothered by the words Cooper credited to both Hamilton and Kent. Burr seems to have put all of the blame onto Hamilton, showing their long history of quarreling. This also shows the strange nature of Burr’s and Hamilton’s relationship. While they literally were mortal enemies, they seem to expect more respect from one another than they did from others. This could be due to their close interactions they had during the revolutionary war with George Washington, and a very small bond that might have been established through their works to establish the new nation. They always interacted closely with one another, studying law at Mr. Schuyler’s house early in the lives (Sanderson 206). In a way, their treatment of each other is analogous to how brothers treat one another. Fighting in private, but in public they expect each other to at least treat one another with more respect than other people would show them. Lin Manuel illustrates this weird relationship throughout the songs, “Dear Theodosia”, and “Non-Stop”.

[14]

Hamilton had several reasons to not “trust” Burr “with the reins of Government.” As Wells states, Burr wanted to “usurp absolute power for himself” (Wells 553). In 1795 Burr was accused in print of conspiring against the new nation, “plotting to establish himself ruler of a vast American Empire, and of entering into a clandestine agreement with a foreign agent” (Wells 553). These accusations, along with many others were written as poems. The title of the first poem against Burr was “Aristocracy”. The author was anonymous, but in hindsight has been discovered to be Burr’s childhood friend and “accomplice”, Matthias Ogden (Wells 262). Ogden grew up with Burr and was arguably his closest ally for most of his life (Wells 262). He was also revered as a great patriot for his service as Brigadier General of the First New Jersey Regiment (Wells 262). Ogden’s extreme disapproval of Burr adds validity to Hamilton’s lack of respect for Burr. It shows that Hamilton’s opinion was not just a personal grudge, especially if a personal friend of Burr spoke against him. This information provides more background into their lifetime quarrel, explaining Hamilton’s lack of cooperation and politeness in his reply to Burr’s demands, believing that Burr deserved no explanation.

[15]

As stated earlier, Dr. Cooper was a physician, writer and lawyer who lived in Albany for most of his life (Bielinski). At the time of the infamous dinner party, he was working as a physician. As an up and coming physician he was named the “health officer” of the Albany Port in 1794 by George Clinton, the current governor of New York. By the time of the dinner party he had moved on from medicine and become a politician. He was the judge of the county court in Albany, eventually was elected as the Secretary of State in 1817, and later served on Albany’s city council (Bielinski). He also ran several “civic organizations” in Albany throughout his life, being a very involved and respected member of the community. This is why he was present at the dinner table, and why his letter held so much weight in Burr’s eyes.

[16]

Despite popular belief, Hamilton was not an innocent angel, and Burr isn’t always viewed as an enemy like he is remembered today. Many historians actually view Hamilton in negative light (Lewis). For example, Lewis sides with Burr in his article, calling Hamilton “a man of vaunting ambition and ‘‘poison-tipped pen,’’ who was willing to do almost anything to destroy his rival during the quarter century before their fatal encounter” (Lewis). This perspective is usually attributed to Burr, but it is not that outrageous to apply such a perspective to Hamilton based on his ambitious intentions. Lewis goes even further stating that Hamilton was the man obsessed with power.

[17]

Again, Cooper’s exact quote that Burr is questioning Hamilton about is, “I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.” Hamilton is pointing out how vague Cooper’s statement is, neglecting to explain what was said, who heard it, or when and where it was. In Hamilton’s mind it would be impossible to read into Dr. Cooper’s words more.

[18]

Hamilton again illustrates that the exact meaning of “still more despicable” is impossible to know. It could mean very little, but could also mean lines were crossed. As a lawyer, Hamilton knew how to avoid questions. Here instead of responding to Burr’s question with an answer, he questions Burr’s question.

[19]

Hamilton is using rhetorical questions to show Burr how he does not know what Dr. Cooper’s vague claim of a “more despicable opinion” could even mean. He cannot “judge” what “more despicable” means. Furthermore, Hamilton says he cannot even form a precise idea that could answer Burr’s demands concerning Dr. Cooper’s statement. Hamilton is not giving Burr the answer he wanted and in fact responds with a question, possibly aggravating Burr even more.

[20]

In the 19th century, the word gentlemen was not used as a polite term for any group of men like it is used today. According to David Cody, Professor at Hartwick College, “The concept of the gentleman (in 1800’s) was not merely a social or class designation… (but a gentlemen showed) gentleness and sympathy, or kind disposition and fine imagination” (Cody). This is the meaning of the word Gentlemen in Hamilton’s letter to Burr, even choosing to capitalize it for more emphasis. Hamilton skillfully uses it here as a double-edged sword to in essence, manipulate Burr. Hamilton blatantly states that a gentleman would not distinguish between the vague levels of despicableness. On one side, because this distinction was exactly what Burr demanded, Hamilton is insulting Burr by calling this action as un-gentlemen like, robbing Burr of the little honor he still held. He knows that obviously Burr considered himself a gentleman. On the other side, Hamilton possibly challenges Burr to drop his demands, because a true gentleman with a capital “g” would never have such demands.

[21]

In this paragraph, and most of the remaining letter, Hamilton argues that speculating what Dr. Cooper meant by the infamous line, “a still more despicable opinion” of Hamilton’s could be shared, would be impossible. Furthermore, he states that it would even be painful. Hamilton’s childhood was full of excruciating emotional and physical pain. Abandoned by his father, poor, and inflicted with the same disease that killed his mother right before is eyes in his early years is an amount of pain that few who have lived could match (Chernow 24). Hamilton’s pivotal role in the Revolutionary war no doubt caused him pain as well. He also faced arguably the worst emotional pain of his life when his first-born son, Phillip, died in a duel three years earlier (Sanderson 207). Hamilton most likely did not use the word pain lightly. When he uses it in this letter to Burr he is making it very clear that further speculation of Dr. Cooper’s meaning would truly cause pain, possibly out of realization that this issue could escalate into a duel. Ironic when considering this is the issue that inevitably led to Hamilton’s death and the death of any public respect for Burr in the North (Sanderson 211).

[22]

Again using his lawyer background, Hamilton attacks Burr’s demands. Here he claims that Burr, in his rashness, merely demanded a true or false statement concerning Dr. Cooper’s accusations. He claims Burr is not “interrogating” him about what he specifically said. Due to Burr’s law background as well, upon reading this letter he must have noticed Hamilton’s avoidance of the question, giving him more reason to believe Dr. Cooper (Hess).

[23]

“animadversions” means criticisms (Dictionary.com). Here, Hamilton is stating that he must believe Burr views what he said as appropriate words spoken from a rival politician because Burr does not “interrogate” him for the specific opinion that Dr. Cooper wrote about. Burr asked for a true or false reply, not an opinion. This technical point reflects Hamilton’s current occupation as a lawyer and mastery of the written language (Hess).

[24]

Comparable to today’s bipartisanship between Republicans and Democrats, in 1804 the two competing parties were the Democratic-Republicans, to which Burr belonged to, and the Federalist party, where Hamilton held his loyalties. (Hess) These two parties opposed each other on every issue, constantly battling for control of the nation’s fate. Hamilton correctly labeled his and Burr’s political relationship as a competition. Dinner parties were very common forms of political gatherings at the time (“The Dinner Table Bargain, June 1790”). For example, many dinner parties were held to finalize the national banking system, taxes, and the location of the Nation’s capital ((“The Dinner Table Bargain, June 1790”). Burr was invited to none of them. Many of these meetings outcomes affected him directly, such as Jefferson’s promise to nominate George Clinton for Vice President, replacing Burr. Not attending dinner parties really frustrated Burr, expressed in the song “Room Where It Happened” (Manuel). Burr’s frustration gives more perspective to what he must have felt when negative words at a closed dinner party were published for the public in the Albany Registry, days before the election.

[25]

In annotation twelve it was stated that the dinner table Dr. Cooper wrote about was concerning possibly giving Aaron Burr the Federalist’s support in the run for Governor. A few Federalist leaders, including Hamilton were discussing giving their nomination to Burr, an opposing party member, because they had no strong candidate of their own (Founders Online: Speech). At the time Lansing and Burr were the two competing democratic republican candidates, with Lansing still holding the nomination before he dropped out (detailed in annotation 12). Hamilton spoke vehemently against him, with notes of the overall dinner found here: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0155#ARHN-01-26-02-0001-0155-fn-0001

[26]

After establishing that Burr’s demands are based on petty hearsay, Hamilton asks Burr what exactly will Burr use to justify his next move. By referring to Burr’s “future conduct,” Hamilton is addressing the possible duel that might result between him and Burr. He refers to it subtly because at the time it was frowned upon in society and illegal in New York (Drake). Hamilton clearly did not miss the severity of these letters and knew that the correspondence he had received and the correspondences to come were concerning a possible duel. The fact that a second delivered the letter and Burr demanded to know if Hamilton disrespected him were easy preludes to the duel that an intelligent man such as Hamilton could pick up on (Stemke). By recognizing Burr’s intentions through this question, Hamilton informs Burr that if this issue were to lead to a duel, Burr could not justify it, because there was no clear evidence to support his case.

[27]

The speech notes (link in annotation 25), labeled Burr as a man with nothing more than a desire for power. The backbone of the speech’s argument is the fact that Burr “has steadily pursued democratic policies” (Founders Online: Speech). It furthers its argument by saying giving Federalist support to Burr will only result in a loss of power for the Federalists, the already weaker party. Another interesting attack on Burr’s campaign that was made was the fact the a fellow democratic-republican, Thomas Jefferson, who was also the President at the time, had an “ill opinion” of Burr (Founders Online: Speech). If members of his own party did not trust him, than certainly Federalists shouldn’t either.

[28]

“‘. . . my ardent sword I rear’d, And rush’d to combat in my country’s cause;(For thus was call’d my passion for applause—)Yet was I left, neglected, and alone, While HE, capricious Fortune’s favorite son, Lost be the memory of his hated name! Who still precedes me in the walks of fame; Who, as I mount, still tow’rs above my flight, With Jacob-craft, despoil’d me of my right. (2.12–13)’ This passage is fascinating in its own right as an eerie foreshadowing of the fatal conclusion of the Burr-Hamilton rivalry, but in the context of the poem’s main purpose, Aristus’s (Burr’s) bitterness here serves as an occasion to satirize Burr as utterly consumed by ambition and self-interest. Even what was arguably Burr’s most virtuous act, his service in the Revolution, is attributed merely to a ‘‘passion for applause.’ (Wells 564). Citing “Aristocracy”, Wells eloquently explains its meaning, revealing that a despicable opinion of Burr is justified, giving more evidence that explains the reasons for Hamilton’s hatred of him.

[29]

Why would Burr attack Hamilton with the clear intentions of dueling over an extremely vague accusation? As explained both previously and in future annotations, Hamilton had caused Burr many disappointments. Landers recounts Burr’s reaction to Dr. Cooper’s published letter writing, “At last, exclaimed Burr, here was ‘sufficiently authentic’ proof to enable him to act against his longtime adversary” (Landers). Burr had been itching for revenge on Hamilton for a long time. After Burr’s recent loss of the election for New York’s governor, at an all-time low, he saw Dr. Cooper’s words as a chance to satisfy his itch. Landers also believes that Hamilton refused to apologize for his words because “A humble apology was sure to be made public, destroying whatever influence he had in the New York Federalist Party” (Landers). Landers also viewed Hamilton’s and Burr’s hatred for one another as a “competition for the… Bonaparte of America,” drawing parallels to Napoleon Bonaparte, the absolute ruler of France, shedding negative light on both parties involved.

[30]

Now Hamilton rhetorically asks Burr how he knows what Hamilton said was crossing the line of established political etiquette in the 1800s. Hamilton is accusing Burr of jumping to conclusions. With the background detailed earlier about Burr’s state during this time, he most likely did jump to conclusions. After the revolutionary war, Burr also began practicing law in New York City (Burr and Davis). Referenced by Lin Manuel in “Non-Stop”, Burr was also a better lawyer than Hamilton because he had restraint (Burr and Davis). With this in mind, it can be seen that Hamilton’s rhetorical questions were extremely insulting to Burr because they pointed out Burr’s lacl of restraint, the very quality he held so dearly. A good lawyer would never jump to conclusions, and would especially not place an accusation without proof. Hamilton again takes another shot at an already beaten Burr. Hamilton is holding true to his character displayed in Lin Manuel’s’ musical, not throwing away his shots.

[31]

In typical Hamilton fashion, a man who wrote 51 out of 85 of the federalist papers and countless other important documents, he continues to write a response to Burr (Hamilton et al). The last paragraph already conveys that he believes Burr’s demands are ridiculous and any future actions would have no justification. Yet, Hamilton starts another strain of thought saying “But I forbear further comment” on this issue. Hamilton writes relentlessly, a mannerism that Burr never understood, illustrated in Lin Manuel’s Hamilton musical, specifically in the song “Non-Stop”, “Why do you write like you’re running out of time?
Write day and night like you’re running out of time?
Ev’ry day you fight, like you’re running out of time. (Manuel)”
Clearly Hamilton’s constant writing aggravated Burr, escalating the tensions once again. All of these little annoyances add up in Burr’s head, helping understand why this issue did result in a duel.

[32]

The requisition refers to Burr’s demand that has been detailed earlier. Where this requisition “naturally leads” is another reference to a duel. In the early 19th century, “Dueling focused primarily on the preservation of a man’s honor… The duel began when one man felt his honor had been insulted by another and decided to challenge his offender to a duel” (20). This is exactly how Burr felt, that Hamilton had disgraced his honor. In 1801, Hamilton had tragically experienced his son Phillip’s death. A death caused by a duel fought over Phillip’s desire to protect his father’s honor, which he believed had been insulted by George Eacker during a speech (22). Duels were fought over the exact issue Burr wrote to Hamilton about. This is important to note because, as briefly mentioned in previous annotations, at the time Hamilton was writing this reply He knew without a doubt that a duel was very possible. With this knowledge established, it is also worth noting that Burr referred to the future duel as an “embarrassment”, insulting Burr again. Hamilton foreshadowed the outcome of their duel correctly, it made Burr and “embarrassment.”

[33]

Hamilton acknowledges here that escalating this issue, possibly into a duel, would be very easy. Hamilton knew Burr’s current disposition of the time, a despondent, aggravated man who had just lost the race for the governor’s seat. In the wake of the death of his political career, a distraught Burr wrote to Hamilton angrily about his words that night in Albany. Clearly Burr believed that Hamilton played a role in his failure. Hamilton was a well-respected public figure at the time (Sanderson 208). In an attempt to deal with his failure, Burr put the blame on Hamilton, who he believed crossed the line. Whether or not Hamilton deserves some of the blame still is a mystery, but he definitely did not single handedly ruin Burr’s campaign. By saying that escalating this issue would be easy, Hamilton suggests to Burr that blaming Hamilton for his failure is easier than dealing with the failure on his own. He insults Burr once again.

[34]

Hamilton begins the prior sentence saying, “I forbear further comment,” and then opens the next sentence with “Repeating,” two contradictory statements. Hamilton’s “writing like you’re running out of time” ironically continues (Lin Manuel). He also acknowledges that what he is about to say is a repetition of what has already been written, emphasizing his main message to Burr, that he cannot tell Burr if he did display a “more despicable opinion” of him because that sort of distinction is extremely vague. Hamilton never stops writing, even if he is repeating himself. Naturally in order to annotate his letter properly, a similar mantra must be accepted in order to convey his relentless nature.

[35]

Again Hamilton continues writing, “add(ing)” to his argument even more, adding to Burr’s frustration. Despite Hamilton knowing of the possible duel, he does not change his ways. He is not treading lightly as to avoid a duel, but true to his character stands up for himself without backing down. His courageous character was illustrated well in Hamilton the play, especially in the song, “Right-Hand Man” where Washington sings,” Your reputation precedes you,” (Manuel). Hamilton established his character to the public by successfully commanding his battalion, stealing several cannons from Great Britain (Randall). Hamilton’s stand also supports Chernow’s biography of Hamilton, making him out to be an ambitious self-made hero (Chernow). Hamilton does not provide Burr a simple apology or console him at all because it is not within his nature. This letter illustrates his relentless and courageous character, explaining why he failed to de-escalate the tension, only escalating it further.

[36]

Born out of wedlock, deemed a bastard, abandoned by his father, detested by his “step” father, and a witness to his mother’s death, Hamilton faced countless tragedies in his early life. So many in fact that Chernow wrote in his biography, “Such repeated shocks must have stripped Alexander Hamilton of any sense that life was fair” (7). Hamilton’s lack of belief in “fairness” further explains why he could not reconcile with Burr over this issue. It explains the principle he is referring to here. He did not belief in reconciliation because he was never able to experience it himself.

[37]

During the Presidential election of 1800, it is believed, both now and by some during the time, that Aaron Burr “schemed” behind the scenes to seal his victory of the 1800 Presidential election, a victory he never received. In fact, “New York lawyer William P. Van Ness laid out a secretive scheme for throwing the election in the House of Representatives to his home-state favorite (Burr)” (Baker 2). At the time nobody could prove that Burr took part in this scheme, but upon further review today it is almost certain that Burr was involved. “There is a compelling pattern of circumstantial evidence, much of it newly discovered, that strongly suggests Aaron Burr did exactly that (authorize Van Ness’ scheme) as part of a stealth campaign to compass the presidency for himself (Baker4)” Burr approaches Hamilton for words he believed disrespected his honor, an honor that he seemed to have tainted himself. Seeing that this information was known to the public (Baker 2), there is no doubt Hamilton knew of it, possibly explaining his lack of respect for Burr’s character.

[38]

Throughout Burr’s and Hamilton’s fifteen years of political opposition, a lot of events have led to the massive amount of disdain they hold for each other. As Robertson states in his peer reviewed journal, Hamilton was a “brilliant, ambitious… (man who played) a” role as a creator and manager of mass-based popular movements, the forerunners of political parties” (Robertson 142). Needless to say Hamilton had a major influence on the public. An influence that when coupled with his ambitious spirit was constantly used to spite Burr’s political endeavors. Although this letter mainly concerns Hamilton’s opposition to Burr’s campaign for governor of New York, the biggest political lost Burr faced was his lost of the 1800 presidential election. With tied electoral college votes between him and Thomas Jefferson, Burr lost when the House broke the tie in Jefferson’s favor (Robertson 143). Hamilton played a big role in his defeat, swaying the Federalist party to support the strongly Democrat-Republican, the opposing party, Jefferson, in order to avoid Burr, a “man with no beliefs,” from winning (Hess). As Robertson puts it, “Aaron Burr… was perceived as having played a double game against Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton…(who formed) a ferocious attack on Burr’ (Robertson 143). Hamilton and Burr’s 15 year history left plenty of scars on Burr that climaxed when he lost the election for Governor.

[39]

Before the American Revolution, defamation laws were adopted from England, known at the time as “Libel cases” (“The Trial of John Peter Zenger”). A “libel” is a published false statement that damages someone’s reputation, leading to their harm (Dictionary.com). Being lawyers, Hamilton and Burr were familiar with the terminology, “injurious imputations,” another term for defamation. For further understanding, Burr’s quarrel with Hamilton is one of injurious imputations, believing that Hamilton hurt his public image, causing the loss of the election. These two words are extremely important because Hamilton flips the table using them, no longer defending his actions but attacking Dr. Cooper’s. He is the victim of “injurious imputations from every person.” He does not accuse anyone directly, but is claiming that while Burr views Dr. Cooper’s words as evidence of Hamilton’s defamation of his character, really Dr. Cooper is defaming Hamilton, causing Burr to accuse Hamilton unjustly. Hamilton is claiming that the true victim is himself, only receiving this backlash because of Dr. Cooper’s damaging words of his character. Sadly, Hamilton seems to be foretelling the future again, for through Hamilton’s perspective Dr. Cooper’s harmful words lead to his death.

[40]

Hamilton distinguishes between “what I may have intended” and what he “may afterwards recollect,” revealing that what he remembers might not be exactly what happened. As a lawyer he must know that this statement hurts his argument, discrediting his word a little bit by admitting that he might not have the best recollection of the dinner party. When Burr replied to this letter written by Hamilton he closed saying, “Your letter has furnished me with new reasons for requiring a definite reply” (Hamilton and Burr). The distinction between Hamilton’s recollection and actual events seems to be the most obvious part of this letter that raised Burr’s suspicions, explaining Burr’s closing remarks quoted above. Hamilton once again escalated the situation.

[41]

Hamilton states that he is willing to answer Burr’s demands if he can provide a specific utterance Hamilton spoke that crossed the line. To this day, no such specific utterance exists, again showing the secrecy of a dinner table meeting. Burr always seemed to be left out of the political conversation that decided issues (Sanderson 206-211).   Reading Hamilton’s willingness to “avow or disavow” a definite opinion that he spoke that night must have irritated Burr because both of them knew that such a definite opinion would be impossible to find, leaving Burr without the satisfaction he desired. Hamilton’s lawyer side makes an appearance once again, stating that Burr must approach Hamilton with the specific utterance for an answer. Hamilton will not simply admit to something without proof, nor will he help Burr’s investigation.

[42]

Hamilton’s word choice of “charge” again illustrates the perspective he is writing from. Charged is commonly used to describe the action of someone being “charged” with a crime. This is similar language he used when defending Croswell in Albany (People v. Croswell). Hamilton defends himself as a lawyer would against Burr’s charges. As stated throughout these annotations, Hamilton was a master writer. He is using his writing skills and attorney knowledge to skillfully avoid Burr’s demands, while also going on the offensive.

[43]

Despite stating the same opinion multiple times throughout this letter, Hamilton expresses it once more in this final paragraph. While most musicals are known for their drama, Lin Manuel’s Hamilton does not dramatize Hamilton’s relentless writing at all. Once Hamilton’s mom died, his step-father went to court in order to strip Hamilton and his brother of any inheritance from his mother (Chernow 26).  According to Chernow, “Alexander was held in painful suspense by the probate court and perhaps absorbed the useful lesson that people who manipulate the law wield the real power in society” (25), explaining his career in law and political ambitions. Hamilton’s relentless writing could be the embodiment of this subconscious view of Hamilton’s as well, always writing more in order to ensure that he gets his point across, winning the argument and therefore gaining power of the situation. His view held true because after all writing turned a “bastard, orphan, son of a whore” into a founding father of the United States (Manuel).

[44]

Hamilton’s diction here accuses Burr of “adopting” Dr. Cooper’s words as truth. Adoption means to take or assume as one’s own (Dictionary.com). In the context of the orphaned Hamilton, he knew the value of this word all too well, never being able to experience the full meaning of it (Chernow 23-26). With two fathers who wanted nothing to with him, and a dead mother, Hamilton and his brother did not have a place to call home, living with his mom’s cousin before quickly moving into a friend’s house while working full time at 11 years old (Gerson). Gerson also states that Hamilton became a man at 11, explaining Hamilton’s rigid exterior that left little room for sympathy.  Calling Burr’s belief in Dr. Cooper’s word an adoption is another way Hamilton is attacking Burr for is rash actions against him.

[45]

Hamilton sends his final insult towards Burr, suggesting that if Burr were to simply reflect more on the situation, he will see that Hamilton is right! That’s what an enraged Burr with a dwindling career wants to hear. His nemesis Alexander Hamilton, opposing him all his life, who played a significant role in his defeat in the 1800 election of the Presidency and in his defeat of his campaign for Governor of New York, was right and that if given a little more time he would see that too. Clearly Burr did not come to this conclusion, replying the following day to Hamilton saying that he is even more suspicious of Hamilton and wants further explanation, ultimately killing Hamilton in a duel for all the built-up injustices Burr believed Hamilton had committed (Sanderson 211). It also shows each of their striving for a legacy. Neither of them could see past this, only able to support whatever furthered their striving (Landers).

[46]

In closing remarks Hamilton admits that he “regrets the circumstances,” offering possibly the only sympathetic words he writes towards Burr. This is highly unlikely considering his view of the situation. The circumstances he is referring to are most likely his own, again bringing up the idea that he is the victim of this issue, the one being defamed. Showing his upbringing, exhibiting no understanding of the word fair, he says he “must abide the consequences,” directly referring to the duel once more (Chernow 26). Hamilton and Burr again act in opposing ways. While Hamilton will face the consequences he believes are resulting from Burr’s accusations and Dr. Cooper’s words without being rectified, Burr is demanding an apology he believes he deserves. Hamilton never contacted Dr. Cooper for an explanation like the one Burr demanded of Hamilton.

[47]

Why would Hamilton simply abide by the consequences? He was not known for abiding with anything he disagreed. In search of reconciliation for his son Philip’s death, it is believed that a distraught Hamilton converted to Christianity (Landers). Landers believes that his new found faith led Hamilton to abide to the consequences, because Hamilton wrongly believed that being a Christian meant he must “abjure self-defense”. He also believes that Hamilton was “unconsciously seeking to atone for having advised his 19-year-old son… to throw away his shot.” Hamilton may have thrown away his shot as a way to honor his fallen son.

[48]

As stated in the previous annotation, the consequences Hamilton is referring to is the Duel, and unknowingly his death. Little did Burr no that there would be major consequences for him as well. As writes, “Once a rising star (Burr) in the Democratic-Republican ranks… (his) political career came to an ignominious end with the killing of Alexander Hamilton” (Wells 553). Burr’s life in northern politics ended, taking him to start a fresh career in the South, leading to another conspiracy adding a stain to Burr’s reputation, attempting to gain control of the south and start a new nation (Wells 554). This conspiracy has never been able to be proved, for most of Burr’s “papers” have been destroyed, making his later life a mystery to historians (Lewis).

[49]

Similarly, Aaron Burr did not see the article until after his disappointing lost in the election for Governor. The delay can be contributed to their law practices. Both Burr and Hamilton ran had their own practice centered in New York City. At the time, the New York Supreme Court Justice was located in Albany, New York, causing both Burr and Hamilton to make frequent trips to Albany. Cooper’s letter was published in the Albany Register, a local paper in Albany. It did not reach Burr until after the election most likely because Burr was in New York City. It had not reached Hamilton until Burr wrote to him for the same reason.

[50]

Standing for, “Your Obedient Servant,” This formal closing remark was very popular during this period (early 1800’s). Today it would be analogous to the common “sincerely” or “best” (“Personal Letters”). This closing remark was used between respected colleagues or to show superiors respect. In fact, George Washington used it when addressing John Hancock concerning the development of the new nation (Washington). This letter and many like it showing the esteem held within “your humble servant” can be found here: <http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/george-washington-to-john-hancock-circular-11-june-1783/>.Hamilton ends his letter to Burr with a respectful, proper remark, showing again the interesting relationship they share that encompasses respect and hatred in one. With closer analyzation of the letters found on the link above, George Washington actually uses more words than just “Your Obedient Servant.” In the letter to Hancock, the direct quote reads, “I have the honor to be with the greatest esteem & respect Sir Your Excellency’s Most Obedient and very Humble Servant” (Washington). It can easily be seen that while Hamilton did show some respect in his closing, it was the bare minimum when compared to George Washington’s. Hamilton rarely does the bare minimum in anything, showing the disdain he held for Aaron Burr.

 

Works Cited

1. “Alexander Hamilton Chronology.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/alexander-hamilton-chronology/.

 

2. “Alien and Sedition Acts.” com, A&E Television Networks, 2009, www.history.com/topics/alien-and-sedition-acts.

 

3. BAKER, THOMAS N. “An Attack Well Directed” Aaron Burr Intrigues for the Presidency.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 31, no. 4, Winter2011, pp. 553-598. EBSCOhost, proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=67091090&site=eds-live&scope=site

 

4. Bielinski, Stefen. “Charles De Kay Coopercolor>.” gov, exhibitions.nysm.nysed.gov//albany/bios/c/chcooper462.html.

 

5. Burr, Aaron, and Matthew L. Davis. The Private Journal of Aaron Burr. Vol. 1, Harper & Brothers, Cliff-Street., 1838, The Private Journal of Aaron Burr, During His Residence of Four …, Volume 1.

 

6. Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. Penguin Press, 2017.

 

7. Cody, David. “The Victorian Web.” The Gentleman, Hartwick College, victorianweb.org/history/gentleman.html.

 

8. “Competing Visions: Federalists and Democrat-Republicans.” Lumen, Open SUNY Textbooks, courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1os2xmaster/chapter/competing-visions-federalists-and-democratic-republicans/.

 

9. com, www.dictionary.com/.

 

10. “The Dinner Table Bargain, June 1790.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/hamilton-dinner-table-bargain-june-1790/.

 

11. Drake, Ross. “Duel!” com, Smithsonian Institution, Mar. 2004, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/duel-104161025/.

 

12. “Founders Online: Enclosure: Charles D. Cooper to Philip Schuyler, [23 April 1804].” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0203-0002.

 

13. “Founders Online: Speech at a Meeting of Federalists in Albany, [10 February 1804].” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0155#ARHN-01-26-02-0001-0155-fn-0001.

 

14. “Freedom of Speech Clause.” Revolutionary War and Beyond, revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/freedom-of-speech-clause.html.

 

15. Gerson, Michael. “Overcoming Adversity: The Childhood of Alexander Hamilton Page 3.” Varsity Tutors, www.varsitytutors.com/earlyamerica/early-america-review/volume-6/alexander-hamilton-childhood-3.

 

16. Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, John Jay. “The Federalist Papers.” The Federalist Papers, New York Press, 1787. www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/.

 

17. Hamilton, Alexander. Burr, Aaron. “Wikisource, the Free Online Library.” Received by Aaron Burr, Wikisource, the Free Online Library, 20 June 1804, en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamilton–Burr_duel_correspondences.

 

18. Hess, Peter. “The Albany Connections of Burr, Hamilton, and Schuyler …” The New York History Blog, 14 May 2015, bing.com/cr?IG=DBB6711998CA4608B0E5567BFE902968&CID=196E197D08266F1D10DB156C09DB6EAC&rd=1&h=iS9w-PCnSJMxgHBimByIQVZ3Fw-x3ilTPszM9rNKELA&v=1&r=http://newyorkhistoryblog.org/2015/05/14/the-albany-connections-of-burr-hamilton-and-schuyler/&p=DevEx.LB.1,5066.1.

 

19. “James Kent.” Child Support | NY CourtHelp, Historical Society of the New York Courts, nycourts.gov/HISTORY/legal-history-new-york/legal-history-eras-02/history-era-02-kent.html.

 

20. Landers, Robert K. “DUEL: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and the Future of America.” The Wilson Quarterly, no. 1, 2000. EBSCOhost, proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.59227692&site=eds-live&scope=site.

 

21. Lewis, James E., Jr. “Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr.” Journal of the Early Republic, no. 1, 2008, p. 132. EBSCOhost, proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.174322765&site=eds-live&scope=site.

 

22. Manuel, Lin. “Hamilton Original Broadway Cast Recording.” com, 25 Sept. 2015, genius.com/7854343.

 

23. “People v. Croswell.” Historical Society of the New York Courts, nycourts.gov/history/legal-history-new-york/legal-history-eras-02/history-new-york-legal-eras-people-croswell.html.

 

24. “Personal Letters.” Owl Purdue, owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/992/.

 

25. “Philip Hamilton’s Duel.” org, Public Broadcasting Service, web.archive.org/web/20160116011455/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande16.html.

 

26. Randall, Willard. “Hamilton Takes Command.” com, Smithsonian Institution, 1 Jan. 2003, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/hamilton-takes-command-74722445/.

 

27. Robertson, Andrew W. “The Deadlocked Election of 1800: Jefferson, Burr and the Union in the Balance.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 33, no. 1, Spring2013, pp. 140-144. EBSCOhost, proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=85127446&site=eds-live&scope=site.

 

28. “The World’s Favorite Online Thesaurus!” thesaurus.com, www.thesaurus.com/.

 

29. Sanderson, Edgar, et al. The World’s History and Its Makers: American Statesmen. Vol. 8, E.R. Dumont, 1902, books.google.com/books?id=A1U4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA410&lpg=PA410&dq=The World’s History and Its Makers: American statesmen&source=bl&ots=_QwYx_nu24&sig=-_KFTBrCOSFeLnH3h_RzGfNrne8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdwNmRxNvbAhXCmVkKHTB-CbwQ6AEISTAG#v=onepage&q=The World’s History and Its Makers: American statesmen&f=false.

 

 

30. Stemke, Carrie. “In the Defense of Honor: The Rise and Fall of Dueling in America.” The Ultimate History Project, ultimatehistoryproject.com/dueling.html.

 

31. “The Trial of John Peter Zenger.” org, Independence Hall Association, www.ushistory.org/us/7c.asp.

 

32. Washington, George. “Washington Papers.” Received by John Hancock, Washington Papers, University of Virginia, 11 June 1793, gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/george-washington-to-john-hancock-circular-11-june-1783/.

 

33. Washington, George. “Washington Papers.” Received by Thomas Jefferson, Washington Papers, University of Virginia, 4 Oct. 1795, gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/george-washington-to-thomas-jefferson-4-oct-1795/.

 

34. “Welcome to the Purdue OWL.” Welcome to the Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL), owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/653/01/.

 

35. Wells, Colin. “Aristocracy, Aaron Burr, and the Poetry of Conspiracy.” Early American Literature, no. 3, 2004, p. 553. EBSCOhost, proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.126715932&site=eds-live&scope=site.