Palaces Out Of Paragraphs

Title: Hamilton–Burr Duel Correspondences

Author: Alexander Hamilton

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

By: Rahmel Bailey

N York 20 June 1804

Sir:

I have maturely reflected on the subject of your letter of the 18th Instant, and the more I have reflected, ^[1] the more I have become convinced that I could not without manifest impropriety make the avowal or disavowal which you seem to think necessary.[2]

The clause pointed out by Mr. Van Ness is in these terms: “I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.” [3] To endeavor to discover the meaning of this declaration, I was obliged to seek in the antecedent part of the letter for the opinion to which it referred, [4]as having been already disclosed. [5]I found it in these words: “Genl. Hamilton and Judge Kent have declared in substance that they looked upon Mr. Burr to be a dangerous man, and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of Government.”[6] The language of Dr. Cooper plainly implies that he considered this opinion of you, which he attributes to me, as a despicable one; but he affirms that I have expressed some other still more despicable; without, however, mentioning to whom, when or where. ‘Tis evident that the phrase “still more despicable”[6] admits of infinite shades from very light to very dark. How am I to judge of the degree intended. Or how should I annex any precise idea to language so vague?[7]

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

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

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

[20]I stand ready to avow or disavow promptly and explicitly any precise or definite opinion which I may be charged with having declared to any gentleman.[21] More than this can not fitly be expected from me; [22] and especially it can not reasonably be expected that I shall enter into an explanation upon a basis so vague as that which you have adopted.[23] I trust upon more reflection you will see the matter in the same light with me. If not, I can only regret the circumstances and must abide the consequences.[24]

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

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

A. Hamilton

 

1.

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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