Palaces Out Of Paragraphs

 

Lin-Manuel Miranda is a huge hip-hop and rap fan. He has said before that he was inspired by Eminem and Common. Also, speaking at a White House event Miranda said that he thinks Alexander Hamilton “embodies hip hop”. Through a combination of Miranda’s love of theater and classic rap Hamilton contains several references to some older rap hits.

   “My Shot” which gives a more in depth of Hamilton and his motivations contains two classic rap references.  The first reference is to is to a song called “Shook Ones Pt II” by Mobb Deep.  In “My Shot” Hamilton sings “Only nineteen but my mind is older” while in “Shook Ones Pt II” Prodigy sings “I’m only nineteen but my mind is old”.  Speaking about this reference Miranda says, “It was a no brainer to put that line in because that is something Hamilton would absolutely say. There’s a lot of ‘90s references in that opening tune; it’s the stuff I grew up falling in love with. Hamilton is just like a ‘95 Prodigy. “Shook Ones Pt. II” by Mobb Deep is one of my favorite hip-hop tunes period.”

The second reference is to The Notorious B.I.G.’s “Going Back to Cali”. Hamilton spells out his name in “My Shot” just like The Notorious B.I.G. does in “Going Back to Cali”.  The lyrics to both are reproduced here:

 

“My Shot”-   A-L-E-X-A-N-D                                                           

E-R—we are – meant to be

“Going Back to Cali”-    N-O-T-O-R-I-O

U-S—you just—lay down slow

 

The easiest rap reference to spot in Hamilton is probably the whole song “The Ten Duel Commandments”. This song is so similar to Biggie Smalls’ “The Ten Crack Commandments” that it could almost be a parody. Listing the similarities here would be kinda silly so I encourage you to listen to the songs.

 

An important question to ask at this point is why do these references matter? These references can add additional meaning to the work. An example is above where Miranda says Hamilton is just like Prodigy. If all of the references were analyzed so much meaning could be added to these lines.

Also references give Miranda a chance to give some of his favorite artists sort of a respectful nod and pay tribute to them. In this way references allow important expression for the writer.

Finally, references are opportunities to connect with the audience. Some fans of classic rap may be drawn to the play through these references. If nothing else someone watching could sit back and say “Hey that was pretty cool.”

By: Max Jarck

 

I choose the correspondences between Hamilton and Burr for the annotation project.

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^[1]. 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^[2].

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^[3].

I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. S^t

A. Burr^[4]

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^[5].

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.”^[6] 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^[7]. 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.”^[8] 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^[9]. ‘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.^[10] Or how should I annex any precise idea to language so vague?^[11]

Between Gentlemen despicable and still more despicable are not worth the pains of a distinction ^[12]. 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 ^[13]. 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^[14]? How could you be sure that even this opinion had exceeded the bounds which you would yourself deem admissible between political opponents^[15]?

But I forbear further comment on the embarrassment to which the requisition you have made naturally leads^[16]. The occasion forbids a more ample illustration, though nothing would be more easy than to pursue it^[17].

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 ^[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 at any time have conceived that import of my expressions differently from what I may then have intended, or may afterwards recollect^[19].

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^[20]. 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^[21]. I trust upon more reflection you will see the matter in the same light with me^[22]. If not, I can only regret the circumstances and must abide the consequences^[23].

The publication of Dr. Cooper was never seen by me ‘till after the receipt of your letter^[24].

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

A. Hamilton

1. The first letter of the correspondence is brief and sets the tone for the rest of the letters. Burr references a letter that was bought to his attention by his colleague. The letter was published in the Albany Register by Charles D. Cooper. In the letter, the Cooper directly attacked Burr and quoted Hamilton describing Burr “to be a dangerous man, and one who ought not be trusted with the reins of government”.

2. Burr employs ethos and grants a credible source, his friend Van Ness as the narrator of the tale. He does this in order to prevent Hamilton from passing his accusations off as rumors or small talk. Burr was running in the New York gubernatorial race at the time and Hamilton publicly opposed his campaign. The sentence that particularly bothered Burr in the letter was that Mr. Cooper “could detail . . . a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.”

3. Burr demands confirmation of Dr. Cooper’s statement. He requests clarification because his honor is hurt due to the accusation. Burr considers his honor to be in jeopardy because of said letter, so he demands a black and white answer in order to secure his ego. Honor is a big part of politics in this age, and Hamilton speaking ill of Burr hinders his honor and shows a lack of respect for Burr’s work. This is also why Burr signs off the letter with “I have your honor to be”.

4. Hamilton and Burr both sign off each letter as your “Obdt. S”, which means “obedient servant”. This greeting was commonly used during this time period and serves to give an ironic flare to the tone of the letters, which are hostile in nature. This is also referenced in the song, “Obedient Servant” in the play.

5. In this letter, Hamilton neither confirms nor denies the accusations Burr has placed upon him. Instead, he belittles Burr and amuses himself with circular talk. Instead of openly agreeing to speaking ill of Burr, Hamilton states that he cannot respond to this accusation without “manifest impropriety”. His hatred for Burr stems politically, but it also seems to be personal in this exchange of letters. Although this rivalry started with Burr defeating Hamilton’s father in law in the race for senate in 1791 and continued to deepen with more political turmoil, the taunting tone of these letters hints at personal turbulence between the two.

6. Here, Hamilton uses Burr’s own tactics of drawing upon his source to further highlight his own point. He quotes exactly what Cooper says as if to portray that he himself is not hiding any secrets. In fact, he recalls exactly the sentence that started this dispute as part of his retaliation.

7. Hamilton’s tone here is sarcastic and defensive. His “endeavor” to get to the bottom of the statements made by Cooper in the letter is half hearted, and he acts as though recalling this issue which is important to Burr is a meaningless hassle for himself. Hamilton acts as if he does not remember the statements he made in order to belittle Burr.

8. Hamilton directly quotes the letter again to remind Burr what was said about him. Hamilton is adding fuel to the fire here and it is very apparent that he has no intentions of solving this conflict. I can only imagine how fired up Burr would have been reading his part of the article. Hamilton was not afraid of making people know his opinion, and certainly wanted Burr to know what he thought about him.

9. Hamilton fights Burr in this sentence by using pathos, or feelings. He turned the accusation around and tried to shift the blame from himself to Dr. Cooper. In his next sentence, he explains that whatever Burr heard that was paraphrased by Dr. Cooper is just a reflection of how Dr. Cooper feels, not how Hamilton feels because the word “despicable” has an ambiguous nature and Dr. Cooper decided to use it to describe Burr. I can only imagine how angry Burr would feel while reading this sentence because it just accuses Burr’s character more to assume that Dr. Cooper feels this way about him.

10. Here, Hamilton distracts Burr from the issue at hand with talk of grammar. He takes the role of a teacher and drills the possibility of the various meanings of the word “despicable” into Burr’s head. This task is unnecessary and exists to belittle Burr. This sentence also functions to Hamilton’s subconscious desire to avoid duel. He changes the subject and dwells on a tangent instead of facing the consequence of his action- this confrontation.

11. Hamilton states here that has a very specific opinion about Burr that he clearly communicated with Cooper; however, he is stating that he cannot articulate that opinion based on the word “despicable”. He says this word does not accurately convey this very precise opinion. He does not tell Burr exactly what this opinion is, and instead employs vague language to criticize the use of vague language.

12. It is interesting here that Hamilton employs the term “between gentlemen” to a man who has been his political enemy for 15 years. This sentence is a comical jab at Burr. He basically is telling Burr that he called himself despicable, and asking him what really is the difference between “despicable” and “still more despicable”. This arrogance did not sit well with Burr, who demanded a duel with the still reluctant Hamilton after just eight days of negotiations.

13. Hamilton says that the statements made about Burr are typical of what political opponents say of each other and should not warrant a justification. This is a change from the accusations in the rest of the letter, which attack Burr’s personal character. Now, Hamilton brings up politics to remind Burr that they are political opponents and that he has been planning on ruining Burr’s campaign. This stems from the fact that Hamilton considered Burr to be a threat to the Federalist party had he become New York’s governor in the gubernatorial election of 1804.

14. Hamilton is extremely rude here and belittling Burr. He is basically challenging him and asking what exactly he is going to do if Hamilton does indeed tell him the “still more despicable” opinion. He is also saying that the opinion already revealed in the letter was already despicable enough to warrant a reaction from Burr. Hamilton is clearly not afraid of Burr and is trying to draw a response from Burr here.

15. Here, Hamilton plays the accusation as negligible. He tells Burr that even he would probably deem this statement as fair amongst adversaries like themselves. Here, Hamilton seems to back off of Burr a bit. He does not want to duel, and the tone in this part of the letter becomes more of Hamilton’s consolation to Burr for his actions. His response to Burr’s letter is conflicted, as clearly seen in the juxtaposition of this sentence and the previous one. But, Burr needed to defend his honor against Hamilton after the lost election and the personal attacks Hamilton was casting, so Burr was ready and willing to duel.

16. Hamilton, after insulting Burr the entire letter, acts as though he is the bigger man by doing Burr the favor of halting his insults. This larger than life talk was ironic from Hamilton, who told his friends King and Peddleton that he does not want to fire at Burr the first time, but rather receive the blow himself. His friends were shocked and reluctant to let Hamilton fight, but he did so anyway.

17. Here, Hamilton tells Burr that if he wished, he could expand on this situation further. He says this endeavor is simple and that Hamilton could effortlessly explain the request to Burr. This further circular talk demonstrates Hamilton’s reluctance to duel. I can only imagine that this makes Burr want to duel even more. When Burr and Jefferson tied in the presidential election of 1800 and the House of Representatives had to pick the winner, Burr knew that Hamilton sided with Jefferson even though he hated both Burr and Jefferson. This was a stab to Burr’s honor as Hamilton picked Jefferson over him, and Jefferson won presidency while Burr was the vice president. This letter and Burr’s knowledge of Hamilton’s political sabotage led to Burr requesting a duel.

18. Here, Hamilton draws on their history. They have fifteen years of animosity and uncomfortable political relations. After Hamilton aided Burr’s competitor to win the presidency, he also ran against Burr himself in 1804. The two men were further pitted against one another when their competition lead to a third party, Morgan Lewis, winning the presidency. He does this in order to justify his actions. He is basically saying that whatever he said to Dr. Cooper should be forgiven because they have a history of hatred, so he should be excused from his mishap. He is saying that it is not fair that Burr ask him to confirm or deny the accusation, and that Hamilton will not to so because he does not deem it necessary to dismay Burr’s suspicions.

19. Here, Hamilton uses vague language, which he objects to in the previous part of this letter, to shift the blame away from himself once more. He is acting as if Burr is drawing these conclusions and coming to this scenario without reason. But given the fifteen years of political history between Burr and Hamilton in which they are enemies, this accusation is not without cause. Furthermore, Hamilton criticized Burr at this dinner party, which lead to the letters and then finally the duel when Hamilton refused to apologize.

20. Hamilton acts as if he is very honorable and that had this claim been specific, he would have agreed or disagreed with it and given Burr the satisfaction he asked for with this letter. He also told his friends that he would not fire the first shot during the duel, but some critics think Hamilton did not throw away his shot! Even though he did not fire directly at Burr, he did shoot the first shot, which meant Burr followed and shot Hamilton in the abdomen shortly after. This fake citizenship is interesting on Hamilton’s part, and it is unclear to me still why Hamilton was so weary of a duel that he himself instigated with the tone of this letter.

21. Hamilton is the Secretary of the Treasury of the united states but he acts clueless. He acts like an explanation cannot be expected of him because he doesn’t understand the limitations of the word disgusting. He does back to the beginning of his letter here and makes a full circle. He goes from teaching Burr, to reminding him of their uncomfortable political past, and then again to teaching him about the word and really delving into the specifics of the accusation instead of clearly responding to the letter. Hamilton is weary of fighting, but obviously adamant on not apologizing.

22. What light? This letter has been very ambiguous. Hamilton does not want to fight, but he was instigating with this letter and did not give a clear response to the claims in order to defend himself or come clean at his actions. He spun the accusations around in circles, beat around the bush a few times, and then arrived at no conclusion. He then asks Burr is he agrees with this conclusion. It is quite comical and exactly what i would expect from a politician.

23. I think this sentence- a form of pure innocence that makes Hamilton seem unaware of the savage nature of his letter, is what convinced Burr of a duel. This long letter does not answer the simple accusation. It is interesting though that although the battle between Hamilton and Burr was just by the laws of the time, that Burr’s political career died when Hamilton died. Both men were huge influences in their time to the formation of the united states government, but their duel wiped both of them out of the political sphere.

24. This sentence is interesting. It is the very last sentence of the letter and it is the only clear response Hamilton has given. It is defensive and he rejects the claim, but this is the first i have noticed of a clear rejection. He did not blame Dr. Cooper or the word “despicable” in this sentence. He did not blame their political history or say he is just in speaking ill due to this history. Here, he clearly states that he does not know what Dr. Cooper is talking about. It is an interesting way to close such a passive aggressive letter with a political enemy, and it shows how reluctant hamilton was to duel. He also ends it with “Your Obdt. S” to close.

Citations:

Burr, Aaron, and Matthew Livingston Davis. Memoirs of Aaron Burr: with miscellaneous selections from his correspondence. Vol. 2. Harper & brothers, 1837.

“Burr–Hamilton Duel.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 26 June 2018,         en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr%E2%80%93Hamilton_duel.

Cochran, Hamilton. Noted American Duels and Hostile Encounters. Chilton Books, 1963.

Fleming, T. J. (2000). Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and the Future of America. Basic Books.

Ellis, Joseph J. Founding brothers: The revolutionary generation. Vintage, 2002.

Freeman, Joanne B. “Dueling as Politics: Reinterpreting the Burr-Hamilton Duel.” The William and Mary Quarterly 53.2 (1996): 289-318.

Freeman, Joanne B. “The Election of 1800: A Study in the Logic of Political Change.” The Yale Law Journal 108.8 (1999): 1959-1994

“Founders Online: Introductory Note: The Duel Between Aaron Burr and Alexander H …” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration,   founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0201.

Hamilton, Alexander. The Works of Alexander Hamilton: Volumes. Henry Cabot Lodge. New York: GP Putnam’s Sons, 1904.

Hamilton, John Church. Life of Alexander Hamilton: A History of the Republic of the United States of America, as Traced in His Writings and in Those of His Contemporaries. Vol. 7. Houghton, Osgood and Company,  1879.

Jefferson, Thomas, James P. McClure, and Barbara B. Oberg. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 29: 1 March 1796 to 31 December 1797. Vol. 29. Princeton University Press, 1950.

Kennedy, Roger G. Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson: A study in character. Oxford University Press, 2000.

Knudson, Jerry W. Jefferson and the Press. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2006.

O’Neill, Barry. “Mediating national honour: lessons from the era of dueling.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE 159.1 (2003): 229-247.

Rogow, Arnold. A Fatal Friendship: Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Macmillan, 1999.

Rorabaugh, William J. “The Political Duel in the Early Republic: Burr v. Hamilton.” Journal of the Early Republic 15.1 (1995): 1-23.

Shneidman, J. Lee, and Conalee Levine-Shneidman. “Suicide or Murder? The Burr-Hamilton Duel.” The Journal of  Psychohistory 8.2 (1980): 159.

Syrett, Harold C., and Jacob E. Cooke. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. Vol. 1987. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961.

“Today in History – July 11.” Apple Computers: This Month in Business History (Business Reference Services, Library of Congress), Victor, www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/july-11/.

Wheelan, Joseph. Jefferson’s Vendetta: The Pursuit of Aaron Burr and the Judiciary. Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2005.

White, Kathy. “The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History.” Nat Turner’s Rebellion, 1831 | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, www.gilderlehrman.org/content/hamilton-v-burr-story-behind-duel.

Hamilton-Burr correspondences

Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr

1804

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

 

Hamilton-Burr correspondences

Burr to Hamilton, June 18, 1804[edit]

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. S^t

A. Burr

Hamilton to Burr, June 20, 1804[edit]

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. S^t

A. Hamilton

Burr to Hamilton, June 21, 1804[edit]

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. S^t

A. Burr

Hamilton to Burr, June 22, 1804[edit]

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. S^t

A. Hamilton

Van Ness to Pendleton, June 26, 1804[edit]

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

Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr

June 18, 1804

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

 

Hamilton-Burr 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. S^t

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. S^t

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. S^t

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. S^t

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