Palaces Out Of Paragraphs

There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the wellbeing^[1], I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:

1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head^[2].

2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice^[3].

3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment^[4], and

4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community^[5].

These are the Pillars on which the glorious Fabrick of our Independency and National Character must be supported; Liberty^[6] is the Basis, and whoever would dare to sap the foundation, or overturn the Structure, under whatever specious^[7] pretexts he may attempt it, will merit the bitterest execration^[8], and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured Country^[9].

Under the first head, altho’ it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition^[10] of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress^[11], or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives^[12], they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic^[13], without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithfull and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America^[14], and the Authors of them treated accordingly, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence^[15] of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure^[16] have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation^[17], and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain. Many other considerations might here be adduced^[18] to prove, that without an entire conformity to the Spirit of the Union, we cannot exist as an Independent Power; it will be sufficient for my purpose to mention but one or two which seem to me of the greatest importance. It is only in our united Character as an Empire, that our Independence is acknowledged^[19], that our power can be regarded, or our Credit supported^[20] among Foreign Nations. The Treaties of the European Powers with the United States of America, will have no validity on a dissolution of the Union. We shall be left nearly in a state of Nature^[21], or we may find by our own unhappy experience, that there is a natural and necessary progression, from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of Tyranny^[22]; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness^[23].

 

Annotations:

• The four core concepts Washington outlines in this letter are importance of a strong federal government, paying off the debt accrued by the nation during the war, establishing a well-trained militia in each state and promoting unity between the states despite their differences. Thirteen years later he would echo several of these points in his Farewell Address. There he reemphasizes the importance of balancing the nation’s budget, as well as unity in multiple forms, encouraging it between the states and discouraging the development of political factions and parties. He also praises the Constitution as an improvement on the Articles of Confederation, as it had created the strong federal government he advocated for in this letter (Washington).

 

• When this letter was written in 1783, the Constitution had not been adopted yet and the government system being used was the Articles of Confederation. The AoC government had no executive branch on the federal level and was instead governed by a congress of representatives from each state. The main functions of the federal government were foreign affairs and minting money, while most other matters were left up to the individual state governments (Samson).

 

• Although the meaning behind this statement is not immediately obvious to a modern reader, Washington late elaborates on this point, making it clear he is referring to the country’s debt. Both the federal and state governments were in substantial debt to foreign and domestic powers by the end of the war. In 1790, Alexander Hamilton would estimate that the US was $54 million in debt, with about $42 million of that being do domestic creditors (Hamilton).

 

• It was important to Washington that each state have a well-armed and trained militia. Washington feared that an armed rebellion could uproot the fragile new government unless there was a capable militia to prevent that. Washington’s vision of armed uprising would come to pass twice before his death, in Shays’ Rebellion (1787) and the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794). Shays’ Rebellion, prompted by high taxes and a bad harvest year, was successfully quashed by the Massachusetts state militia (Shays’…). The Whiskey Rebellion occurred when Pennsylvania farmers violently protested a newly implemented federal grain tax. Washington himself led an army of 13,000 troops to put down the rebellion and enforce the federal government’s right to taxation that it had recently gained after the ratification of the Constitution (“So, what…”).

 

• Washington’s fourth point is not so much a concrete policy suggestion as it is an appeal to the people of the United States to put aside their differences and work towards national unity. Today it is taken for granted that the United States is one cohesive nation, but that was not the case during the revolution and the survival of the early United States as an independent nation was far from guaranteed. Differences between urban and rural, north and south made merging the colonies into a unified nation a difficult task (Jaffee).

 

• Washington’s concept of liberty stemmed from the philosophy of John Locke, an Enlightenment Era thinker generally regarded as the “Father of Liberalism”. Locke believed that a just government could only exist with the consent of the citizens. Locke viewed society as a contract where the citizens agree to obey societal rules in exchange for the security provided by government. Unlike philosopher Thomas Hobbes, Locke believed that people willingly enter this contract and, if the government does not uphold their end, it is within the people’s rights to break the contract through revolution. Governments can fail to uphold the contract by either failing to provide stability or by infringing on the people’s “natural rights”. Locke believed that humans were endowed by God with a set of “natural rights” which are both universal and inalienable, chief among those being “life, liberty and property”. To Locke, unless a government upheld these rights for all its citizen, those citizens would have the right to overthrow that government and establish a new one (Cranston, 85).

 

• “Specious” Adjective: having a false look of truth, fairness or genuineness (Webster’s…, 888).

 

• “Execrate” Verb: A. to declare to be evil or detestable B. to detest utterly (Webster’s…, 313).

 

• The severest punishment a person can receive, capital punishment, has an interesting history in the United States. While in modern times the US is one of the few developed nations to still use the death penalty, its law were comparatively progressive in the colonial era. The use of capital punishment in the pre-revolution colonies and the Articles of Confederation U.S. was largely based on British practices of the time. Leading up to the American Revolution, Britain was steadily increasing the number of crimes that could warrant execution, eventually peaking with 220 different capital crimes. After independence, the laws regarding capital and corporal punishment were not uniform across the states and they have not been since. By 1800 majority of northern states had reduced the number of capital crimes to less than five. On the other hand, many southern states had increased their list of capital crimes, adding many that only pertained to slaves. The mid-19^th century saw a thriving death penalty abolitionist movement push for significant reforms and even abolition of the death penalty in some states (Reggio).

 

• “Disquisition” Noun: a formal inquiry or discussion (Webster’s…, 260).

 

• The issues of state’s rights and the balance between federal and state power have been present throughout American history. Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, used “state’s rights” as an explanation for the South’s secession and the fundamental motivation of Confederate soldiers. Davis held strong to the claim that the Civil War was not motivated by slavery, but by the North and the Federal Government exerting unfair control over the South (Davis). In modern times “state’s rights” arguments have figured prominently in issues as diverse as marijuana legalization and LGBT discrimination laws.

 

• “Prerogative” Noun: A. a special privilege or advantage B. a right attached to an office, rank or status (Webster’s…, 713).

 

• Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, the US was considered a confederation of states. A confederation is a union of independent nations or states, all of which have an inherent right to secede from the confederation. This differs from a federation, which is a union of only partially independent states under a weak federal power (“Confederation”). Defining the US as a confederation rather than a federation emphasizes just how little power the federal government held under the Articles of Confederation, although in a pure confederacy there would be no federal government. Principally, the United States was a group of sovereign states voluntarily united for the purpose of achieving a common goal (Batts). There are many historical examples of confederation governments including multiple examples in the pre-colonial Americas (one notable example being the Iroquois) and the Confederacy formed of secessionist states during the Civil War, at least in name. Due to their inherent instability, true confederations are very rare. The closest modern analogue to the Articles of Confederation system is probably the European Union, although it straddles the line between federation and confederation but is not legally classified as either (“Confederation”).

 

• Here Washington describes any action taken to separate states from the Union or lessen the power of federal sovereignty as hostile to the U.S. itself because, as he has said earlier in this letter, it is essential to the survival of the nation that the states remains unified. Significant conflict between the states or further weakening of the federal government could have spelled the doom of the young nation.

 

• “Concurrence” Noun: A. agreement in action, opinion or intent B. a coming together (Webster’s…, 185).

 

• Blood and treasure here refer to the casualties and financial costs of the war, respectively. Throughout the war approximately 4,500 servicemembers were killed and 6,200 were nonfatally wounded, for a total of 10,700 casualties. Casualties made up just under 5% of U.S. servicemembers by the war’s end (US Department…). The financial cost of the war was also significant,

 

• The word compensation is used very intentionally here. Only three months prior to this letter’s distribution Washington’s officers had raised a petition to mutiny due to inadequate compensation. The officers had not been paid during the war and Congress still had not paid them those wages or given them the pensions they were owed. Washington spoke to these officers in his Newburgh Address where he sympathized with their plight and pledged to help them, but denounced their intentions to mutiny (“Newburgh…”)

 

• “Adduced” Verb: to offer as example, reason, or proof in discussion or analysis (Webster’s…, 12)

 

• At the time this letter was written, only a handful of countries acknowledged the United States as an independent nation rather than as a British colony in revolt. Ostensibly the first country to acknowledge the United States’ independence from Great Britain Morocco. However, this recognition was in name only and was not formalized until 1786 when a treaty of peace was signed between the two nations (Dolan). So, the first country to officially acknowledge the United States as an independent nation was France in 1778. Although this treaty was established under the French monarchy, it was maintained after the French Revolution. Additionally, the United States had been recognized by The Netherlands, Spain and Sweden (“Countries”).

 

• Due to the federal governments inability to tax under the Articles of Confederation, its only recourse to address the national debt was to print money. However, with nothing backing it, the Continental Dollar collapsed, leaving the federal government to borrow money domestically to pay off its foreign debt. This situation was greatly improved after the adoption of the Constitution which allowed the federal government to tax and impose tariffs. The national debt was greatly decreased during Hamilton’s term as Secretary of the Treasury and continued to decrease until the War of 1812 (Phillips).

 

• This is a direct reference to the “State of Nature”, a concept developed by Thomas Hobbes in his 1651 book Leviathan. Hobbes describes it as the natural condition of mankind, where there is no government or civilization. Humans living in the State of Nature are constantly in conflict with each other in pursuit of power and resources. With no greater power to control them, mankind would exist in a perpetual state of war. Hobbes believed that life in that state is “nasty, brutish and short”. In Leviathan, Hobbes posits that government arises out of human desire to escape the brutality of the State of Nature (Merriam, 154).

 

• This is an example of the cyclical theory of history and periodic revolution. This concept was popular among the American Revolutionaries, many of whom believed that it was important for a society to go through periods of revolution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s [sic] natural manure” (Jefferson). The cyclical theory posits that corruption and unjust governments are inevitable and when they arise the people with inevitably revolt. The new government established by the revolutionaries will inherently have flaws, leading to corruption and injustice and eventually, another overthrow of power (Lienesch).

 

• “Licentious” Adjective: loose and lawless in behavior; esp : lewd, lascivious (Webster’s…, 516)

 

Citations:

1. BATTS, ROBERT LYNN. “THE NEW CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.” American Bar Association Journal, vol. 5, no. 4, 1919, pp. 584–601. JSTOR, JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/25700621.
2. “Confederation.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 June 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation.
3. “Countries.” U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, history.state.gov/countries.
4. Cranston, Maurice. “Locke and Liberty.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), vol. 10, no. 5, 1986, pp. 82–93. JSTOR, JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/40257094.
5. Davis, Jefferson. “The Doctrine of State Rights.” The North American Review, vol. 150, no. 399, 1890, pp. 205–219. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25101937.
6. Dolan, Kerry A. “Why Morocco Matters To The U.S.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 21 Nov. 2013, forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2013/11/21/why-morocco-matters-to-the-u-s/#635e4fe14f75.
7. Hamilton, Alexander. “Founders Online: Report Relative to a Provision for the Support of Public Credi …” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-06-02-0076-0002-0001.
8. Jaffee, David. “Religion and Culture in North America, 1600–1700.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art, I.e. The Met Museum, Oct. 2004, www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/recu/hd_recu.htm.
9. Jefferson, Thomas. “Thomas Jefferson to William Smith.” Library of Congress, loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html.
10. Lienesch, Michael. “Historical Theory and Political Reform: Two Perspectives on Confederation Politics.” The Review of Politics, vol. 45, no. 1, 1983, pp. 94–115. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1407276.
11. Merriam, Charles Edward. “Hobbes’s Doctrine of the State of Nature.” Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, vol. 3, 1906, pp. 151–157. JSTOR, JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/3038543.
12. “Newburgh Address: George Washington to Officers of the Army, March 15, 1783.” George Washington’s Mount Vernon, mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/article/newburgh-address-george-washington-to-officers-of-the-army-march-15-1783/.
13. Phillips, Matt. “The Long Story of U.S. Debt, From 1790 to 2011, in 1 Little Chart.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 14 Nov. 2012, theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/the-long-story-of-us-debt-from-1790-to-2011-in-1-little-chart/265185/.
14. Reggio, Michael H. “History of the Death Penalty.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/history.html.
15. Samson, Steven Alan, “Articles of Confederation” (1990). Faculty Publications and Presentations. 256.http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/gov_fac_pubs/256
16. “Shays’ Rebellion.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2009, history.com/topics/shays-rebellion.
17. “So, What Was the Whiskey Rebellion, Anyway?” George Washington’s Mount Vernon, mountvernon.org/george-washington/biography/washington-stories/what-exactly-was-the-whiskey-rebellion/.
18. US Department of Veterans Affairs. “America’s Wars.” Office of Public Affairs, May 2017.
19. Washington, George. “Avalon Project – Washington’s Farewell Address 1796.” Avalon Project – Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp.
20. Webster’s School Dictionary. Merriam-Webster Inc.,Publishers, 1986.

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

1. 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.”[1] 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[2] 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[3] 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[4] 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.[5] 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

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.[6]

 

I stand ready to avow or disavow promptly[7] and explicitly any precise or definite opinion which I may be charged with having declared to any gentleman. More than this cannot fitly be expected from me; and especially it cannot 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

1. 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.[8]

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.[9] The time “when” is in your own

 

knowledge but no way material to me, as the calumny[10] 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[11].

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

1. 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.[12] 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[13],

 

 

 

 

you have increased the difficulties to explanation[14], 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.[15]

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

1. Hamilton

 

Van Ness to Pendleton[16], 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[17]. 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[18].

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.

1. P. Van Ness

[19]

[1] Is the letter about Hamilton

[2] Hamilton just mentions the implications of “still more despicable” but then he says that those implications do not matter. Why does he mention it in the first place?

 

[3] Means criticism

[4] Uses the phrase “still more despicable” again

[5]  Saying this make it seem like he is saying that the statement was nothing bad

[6] .  It seems like he keeps claiming that his statements were taken the wrong way, but he refuse to say what he meant

[7]  Earlier he said that he could not avow or disavow the opinion statement burr asked him to look at

[8] I agree his letter seemed very insincere

[9] Even though I agree with Burr, is he really allowed to personally question Hamilton about his statement? Is Hamilton not replying because of legal problems?

[10]  Meaning: the act of damaging the good reputation of someone

[11]   Burr says this because Hamilton did claim that he knew what he meant when he said the statement that Burr asked about

[12] In my opinion, Burr’s “demand” was very professional and sincere. His language seemed appropriate (unlike Hamilton’s language)

 

[13] He keeps taking offense to Burr’s letter and claiming that they are “improper” and “unwarrantable”, but Burr’s letters are very

[14] Hamilton also claims that he is finding it hard to explain but never provides any explanation for what Burr is asking about

[15] Hamilton is probably trying to find excuses not to answer Burr because what he meant in the statement would make him look bad

[16] Who are they?

[17] Does this means is on Burr’s?

[18] Who asked for the personal interview?

[19] Is Pendleton the one dealing with the claims between Burr and Hamilton?

Works cited

 

Washington, G. (1796). George Washington’s Farewell Address.

 

Van Ness, William P. Received by Nathaniel Pendleton, 26 June 1804, New York, New York.

 

Cooper, Charles D. Received by Philip Schuyler, 23 Apr. 1804, Albany, New York

 

Burr, Aaron. “Hamilton to Burr.” Received by Alexander Hamilton, 22 June 1804, New York, New York.

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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/.

 

“Alexander Hamilton.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 23 June 2018,        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton.

 

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

 

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

 

Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, John Jay. “The Federalist Papers.” The Federalist

 

Hamilton, Alexander. “Hamilton–Burr Duel Correspondences.” Received by Aaron Burr, Hamilton–Burr Duel Correspondences, 20 June 1804, en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamilton–Burr_duel_correspondences.

 

“Kent Family Papers, 1785-1901. .” The Columbine Shooting Case Study, Quartz, www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/archival/collections/ldpd_4078978/index.html.

“The Duel.” Depression-Era Soup Kitchens, Online Highways LLC, 2018, www.u-s-history.com/pages/h494.html.

 

Owen, Diana. “New Media and Political Campaigns.” Oxford Handbooks, Oxford University Press, 2 Apr. 2018, www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199793471-e-016.

“Charles D. Cooper.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 June 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_D._Cooper.

“James Kent.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 17 June 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kent.

“New York Gubernatorial Election, 1804.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 June 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_gubernatorial_election,_1804.

Letters from Alexander Hamilton to Elizabeth Schuyler

By Ye Jun Kim

[Camp near Dobbs Ferry, New York, July 10, 1781]

The day before yesterday, my angel, I arrived here, but for the want of an opportunity could not write you sooner^[1]. Indeed, I know of none now, but shall send this to the Quarter Master General to be forwarded by the first conveyance to the care of Col. Hughes^[2]. Finding when I came here that nothing was said on the subject of a command, I wrote the General a letter and enclosed him my commission^[3]. This morning Tilghman came to me in his name, pressed me to retain my commission, with an assurance that he would endeavor by all means to give me a command nearly such as I could have desired in the present circumstances of the army^[4]. Though I know my Betsy would be happy to hear I had rejected this proposal, it is a pleasure my reputation would not permit me to afford her^[5]. I consented to retain my commission and accept my command^[6].

I hope my beloved Betsy will dismiss all apprehensions for my safety^[7]; unhappily for public affairs, there seems to be little prospect of activity, and if there should be Heaven will certainly be propitious to any attachment so tender, so genuine as ours^[8]. Heaven will restore me to the bosom of my love and permit me to enjoy with new relish the delights which are centered there^[9]. It costs me a great deal to be absent from them, but the privation is certainly only temporary^[10]. I impatiently long to hear from you the state of your mind since our painful separation^[11]. Be as happy as you can, I entreat you, my amiable, my beloved wife. But let not absence deprive me of the least particle of your affection^[12]. Always remember those tender proofs I have so frequently given you of mine and preserve for me unabated the only blessing which can make life of any value to me^[13]…

 

Head of Elk, [Maryland] September 6, 1781.

Yesterday, my lovely wife, I wrote to you, inclosing you a letter in one to your father, to the care of Mr. Morris^[14]. To-morrow the post sets out, and to-morrow we embark for Yorktown^[15]. I cannot refuse myself the pleasure of writing you a few lines. Constantly uppermost in my thoughts and affections, I am happy only when my moments are devoted to some office that respects you^[16]. I would give the world to be able to tell you all I feel and all I wish, but consult your own heart and you will know mine^[17]. What a world will soon be between us! To support the idea, all my fortitude is insufficient^[18]. What must be the case with you, who have the most female of female hearts^[19]? I sink at the perspective of your distress, and I look to heaven to be your guardian and supporter^[20]. Circumstances that have just come to my knowledge, assure me that our operations will be expeditious, as well as our success certain^[21]. Early in November, as I promised you, we shall certainly meet^[22]. Cheer yourself with this idea, and with the assurance of never more being separated^[23]. Every day confirms me in the intention of renouncing public life, and devoting myself wholly to you^[24]. Let others waste their time and their tranquility in a vain pursuit of power and glory; be it my object to be happy in a quiet retreat with my better angel^[25].

A Hamilton

 

[Camp before Yorktown, Virginia, October 10, 1781. On October 12, 1781,^[26] Hamilton wrote to Elizabeth Hamilton: “I wrote you two days since.” Letter not found.]

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

1. Early in 1871, Hamilton requested a position in the military, hoping to ensure a spot and win glory on the battle field, since the end of the war was imminent. However, Washington’s lukewarm responses encouraged Hamilton to ride to Dobbs Ferry.
2. The Quarter Master General, Nathaniel Greene, was hesitant on accepting the Quarter Master position at first, because he was a businessman and thought that it didn’t prepare him for a job regarding the military.
3. After arriving at Dobbs Ferry looking for a military position, Hamilton had written a resignation letter since there weren’t any military roles he could find.
4. Tilghman did not accept Hamilton’s resignation and assured Hamilton that Washington would aspire to find a position for Hamilton here “by all means”. Later in the month, Washington comes back to Dobbs Ferry and grants Hamilton the command of a New York light infantry battalion in control under Colonel Alexander Scammell.
5. Although Hamilton was liked by a lot of people, there were some who did not like Hamilton, one of which was John Adams. Adams much rather preferred Aaron Burr to be in a general position, but Washington did not appoint Burr as general. This led to the relationship between Hamilton and Burr to become more hostile.
6. Since he did go all the way to Dobbs Ferry in hopes for a position, after the struggle, when he was offered a position, he was able to retain the resignation and decide to remain at Dobbs Ferry.
7. Betsy is Elizabeth Schuyler’s childhood nickname. While Alexander Hamilton was away, “Betsy” stayed at parent’s home in Albany. There, Hamilton wrote her letter, this being one of the many he wrote, urging her not to worry about his safety and confidential military secrets.
8. The quote, “Heaven will certainly be propitious to any attachment…”, implies that God will be on his side in the Revolution if any activities or disputes come up to end the war.
9. Hamilton seems to be very poetic when he speaks to Elizabeth Schuyler and expresses his feelings for her. Hamilton says, “Heaven will restore me to the bosom of my love,” implying that God has made the couple a fate, referring to Elizabeth as the “bosom of my love”.
10. Hamilton knows the two being apart will only be temporary because he firmly believed that the war will end soon. However, he is still in pain in the fact that he is not able to enjoy the “delights” with his wife.
11. Right after marriage, the couple had to split due to Hamilton having to leave for the military. However, they soon got back together at New Windsor. They then moved to Albany, to Elizabeth’s parents’ house. A couple months after that, they had to separate again, Leaving Elizabeth at Albany while Hamilton left for Dobbs Ferry.
12. Here, Hamilton uses a hyperbole to ask her not to forget about him. He says, “let not absence deprive me of the least particle of your affection,” and to always remember the affections that Hamilton poured on her. One’s particle can’t simply be deprived, but in this context, Hamilton is just urging her to remember every part of the love he gave her.
13. The latter half of this sentence is also a hyperbole when Hamilton says, “blessing which can make life of any value to me,” to imply that the “tender proofs” the couple has shown each other is a great blessing and something they cannot forget about. However, if this sentence were to be taken literally, this means that if these blessings were not present, he would have not a purpose of life. This use of hyperbole leads the readers to conclude that the love Hamilton had for his wife was tremendous.
14. Hamilton not only wrote to Elizabeth Schuyler while he was away, but he also wrote to his father-in-law, and all the Schuyler sisters. This implies that he had good relations with all the members of his in-laws, adding to the reason why he writes to his wife with overpowering love and affection.
15. The start of the embark on Yorktown began by encircling Cornwallis and Yorktown with both colonists and French soldiers. About a month and a week after the start of the surrounding of the location, the siege began, ending up leading to the end of the Revolutionary War.
16. Hamilton reminds his wife of his unrelenting love and how she is in every piece of his life. He says, “I am happy only when my moments are devoted to some office that respects you,” meaning that he is not willing to work with people that doesn’t respect his wife as well.
17. The phrase, “I would give the world to be able to tell you all I feel and all I wish,” is a hyperbole to once again express Hamilton’s love for Elizabeth Schuyler. Realistically, it is impossible to “give the world”, but using the hyperbole, Hamilton exaggerates the things he would do for his wife.
18. “What a world will soon be between us!” refers to the time that will come when the war is over, which Hamilton believes is after this Siege on Yorktown.
19. This is a rhetorical question with an obvious answer, which once again praises Elizabeth Schuyler. Elizabeth Schuyler helped Hamilton with his campaign regarding military affairs, helping him write speeches while giving care to eight children, keeping the home live spirited.
20. Connected to the last annotation, Elizabeth Schuyler has played a very important role in shaping Hamilton’s career, supporting him and helping him get through situations that might have been hard to handle alone. Since he is aware of this, he wishes to give back and be the same support she was to him.
21. Hamilton says, “Our operations will be expeditious, as well as our success certain,” talking about the events that will lead up to and the event Battle of Yorktown Hamilton firmly believed that this will end the war, thus writing to his wife in this tone throughout the whole letter.
22. This refers to the Battle of Yorktown, the battle that led to victory for the colonies. As mentioned in a previous annotation, Hamilton told his wife confidential secrets regarding military matters.
23. Hamilton once again reassures his wife that the end of the Revolutionary War is imminent, hinting at the Battle of Yorktown the colonists are preparing. He does this by repeating the fact that the couple doesn’t have to be separated anymore after November.
24. Hamilton seems to make an analogy, comparing his wife to a deity. Hamilton says, “devoting myself wholly to you”. The word “devote” is primarily used in a religious context, which leads the readers to suggest that Hamilton is looking at his wife as a God, but more realistically someone he appreciates and respects wholeheartedly.
25. Hamilton continues with the theme of religion in this sentence. Looking at most religions, the religious people often say that their God alone is enough. Similarly, Hamilton is saying that Elizabeth Schuyler alone is enough and he is not afraid of missing out on anything else if he is with her.
26. Between October 10 and October 12, the French troops and the colonists opened batteries, aiming to reach closer to Yorktown, consuming a frigate and three larger transportation modes.

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

1. “Alexander Hamilton.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 23 June 2018,        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton.
2. “Alexander Hamilton.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 23 June 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton.
3. ALEXANDER HAMILTON.(1804, 10). The Literary Magazine, and American Register (1803-1807), 2, 491.
4. AN ORIGINAL LETTER OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON.(1804, 11). The Literary Magazine, and American Register (1803-1807), 2, 647.
5. “Battle of Yorktown Begins.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/battle-of-yorktown-begins.
6. “Chronology of the Siege of Yorktown.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, nps.gov/york/learn/historyculture/siegetimeline.htm.
7. Connett, Ian. “Portrait of a Young Officer.” Dobbs Ferry Historical Society, May 2015, http://www.dobbsferryhistory.org/Ferryman_files/DFHSFerrymanSpring2015.pdf.
8. Dohla, Johann Conrad. “‘Battle of Yorktown Begins.’ History.com, A&E Television Networks, Www.history.com/This-Day-in-History/Battle-of-Yorktown-Begins.” Yorktown, resourcelibrary.history.org/sites/default/files/PSCollectionYorktown_0.pdf.
9. Florus, Wilhelm Heinrich. “Letter from Wlilhelm Heinrich Florus, Graf Von Schwerin, HIs Uncle.” Yorktown, resourcelibrary.history.org/sites/default/files/PSCollectionYorktown_0.pdf.
10. “From Alexander Hamilton to Elizabeth Hamilton, [10 July 1781],” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-02-02-1178. [Original source: The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 2, 1779–1781, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, pp. 647–648.]
11. “From Alexander Hamilton to Elizabeth Hamilton, [15–18 September 1781],” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-02-02-1196. [Original source: The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 2, 1779–1781, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, pp. 675–676.]
12. “From Alexander Hamilton to Elizabeth Hamilton, 10 October 1781,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-02-02-1198. [Original source: The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 2, 1779–1781, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, p. 677.]
13. Hamilton, A., & Hamilton, A. (2001). The Revolutionary Writings of Alexander Hamilton.
14. Hamilton, A. (1817, 12). LETTER FROM ALEXANDER HAMILTON, ESQ. TO THE MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE.The Port – Folio (1801-1827), 4, 469
15. “[July 1781],” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/01-03-02-0007-0003. [Original source: The Diaries of George Washington, vol. 3, 1 January 1771–5 November 1781, ed. Donald Jackson. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1978, pp. 388–404.]
16. Morgan, Curtis F. “Nathanael Greene as Quartermaster General.” Journal of the American Revolution, 28 Aug. 2016, allthingsliberty.com/2013/11/nathanael-greene-quartermaster-general/.
17. “October 1781,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/01-03-02-0007-0006. [Original source: The Diaries of George Washington, vol. 3, 1 January 1771–5 November 1781, ed. Donald Jackson. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1978, pp. 424–436.]
18. “September 1781,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/01-03-02-0007-0005. [Original source: The Diaries of George Washington, vol. 3, 1 January 1771–5 November 1781, ed. Donald Jackson. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1978, pp. 417–424.]
19. “The American Revolution.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, www.nps.gov/revwar/revolution_day_by_day/1781_main.html.
20. “Why Elizabeth Hamilton Is Deserving of a Musical of Her Own.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 25 Feb. 2016, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-elizabeth-hamilton-deserving-musical-her-own-180958214