Hamilton and Burr: What's the real story?

[Jackknifed_Juggernaut]

In History class, we were always taught that Hamilton was the good guy and Burr was the bad guy. Now that the anniversary of the famous duel is approaching, I think that it’s a good time to straighten out the story. Anyone have the facts? I ask this since Burr’s descendents seem to be contradicting the traditional story that Burr was in the wrong. And we know that the way politics works, we may not be getting the full story.

[Garfield226]

I highly recommend Joseph Ellis’ Founding Brothers. It includes an entire chapter on the Burr-Hamilton duel, and is (IMO) quite thorough and detailed.

[Garfield226]

P.S. I don’t own the book, else I’d actually answer the question.

Just from remembering it though, I think I may go out and buy it, it was so good. If I do, I’ll be back.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

I liked Ellis’ book very much, but why limit yourself to a chapter when you can read Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and the Future of America, by Thomas Fleming?

However, as a historical issue this is a GD question, and not a GQ. There can be no factual statement of right and wrong. Historians can be found on every side and in between, and like every other subject pertaining to the Founding Fathers, fads and fashions in the world of history come into play. Whatever is said about the matter today will be looked at in a different light in another generation, just as we look at last generation’s ideas differently today.

[Garfield226]

Ok, I went out and bought it.

Ellis’ final conclusion (after LOTS of (interesting) backstory, some of which I’ll probably get into) is:

@Joseph J. Ellis

Hamilton did fire his weapon intentionally, and he fired first. But he aimed to miss Burr, sending his ball into the tree above and behind Burr’s location. In so doing, he did not withhold his shot, but he did waste it, thereby honoring his preduel pledge. Meanwhile, Burr, who did not know about the pledge, did know that a projectile from Hamilton’s gun had whizzed past him and crashed into the tree to his rear. According to the principles of the code duello, Burr was perfectly justified in taking deadly aim at Hamilton and firing to kill.

Ellis goes on to debate whether or not Burr meant to kill Hamilton, eventually concluding that it is impossible to know for sure, but likely that Burr had only meant to injure, if to hit Hamilton at all. His evidence is that "Burr’s initial reaction to Hamilton’s collapse, as described by [both men’s seconds], was apparent surprise and regret, Burr wished to speak to Hamilton just after the duel, Burr had previously stated that one doctor would be sufficient at the duel but “even that unnecessary,” and that a popular target for one wishing to wound rather than kill was the hip, and Burr had been only a few inches off that mark (Ellis also describes the inherent inaccuracy of the pistols being used: a custom-made pair owned by Hamilton’s brother-in-law which were smoothbore, took a .54 calibre ball, and required 20 pounds of force to pull the trigger with the hair-trigger not set. The hair-trigger was a secret catch which Hamilton knew about but Burr (probably) didn’t, and which was set on neither of the pistols.)

The REASON for the duel is interesting as well, and something which is rarely touched on in high school U.S. History courses.

Sometime in April of 1804, one Dr. Charles Cooper had a letter published in the Albany Register, which focused on Burr’s candidacy for governer of New York and concluded with “I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General HAMILTON has expressed of Mr. BURR.”

Burr then asked Hamilton to explain: “You might 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.”

According to Ellis, since niether letter (Cooper’s or Burr’s) contained a specific libelous statement,

All Hamilton had to do at this propitious moment was deny having said anything that could possibly fit that description, then express his personal regret that such slanderous insinuations had been attributed to him in the press. Burr would have had little choice but to accept his explaination.

But Hamilton didn’t. He apparently sent back a fiery letter saying that he couldn’t deny or acknowledge the statement, and moreover, the word “despicable” “admits to infinite shades, from the very light to very dark. How am I to judge of the degree intended?”

Ellis continues:

After delivering a brief lecture on the vagaries of grammar and syntax, calculated to irritate Burr, Hamilton went on the offensive. He felt obliged to object “on principle, to consent to be interrogated as to the justness of inferences, which may be drawn from others, from whatever I have said of a political opponent in the course of a fifteen year competition.”
…Hamilton was certain that, once Burr recovered his wits and sense, “you will see the matter in the same light as me.” If not, then, “I can only regret the circumstances, and must abide the consequences.”

After a few more exchanges, Nathaniel Pendleton, Hamilton’s second, was working hard to find a way out of the escalating conflict, as required by the code duello. Pendleton persuaded Hamilton to agree to a statement that the conversation with Dr. Cooper (which inspired the original letter), “consisted of comments on the political principles and views of Col. Burr . . . without reference to any instance of past conduct, or to private character” and “turned wholly on political topics and did not attribute to Colo Burr, any instance of dishonorable conduct, nor relate to his private character.”

According to code duello, Burr should have “felt obliged to accept Hamilton’s explanation as the equivalent of an apology,” since according to Ellis, “affairs of honor were supposed to involve only personal charges. Political and ideological disagreements, no matter how deep, lay outside the field of honor on which a gentleman could demand satisfaction.”

But Burr’s blood, as Ellis has put it, was now up. Through his second, William Van Ness, he relayed the following message:

@Burr

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 have originated with Genl Hamilton or have been fairly inferred from anything he has said. . .

. . .A retraction or denial therefore of all such declarations or a disavowal of any intention to impeach Col Burr without reference to time and place is the only reparation that can be made.

More correspondence ensued, Hamilton basically saying that Burr had completely changed the terms of his original grievance. Finally, on June 27, 1804, only nine days after Dr. Cooper’s letter was originally published, Burr, through Van Ness wrote

@Burr

The length to which this correspondence has extended only tending to prove that the satisfactory redress. . .cannot be obtained. . .he deems it useless to offer any proposition except the simple Message which I shall now have the honor to deliver.

The duel.

There is much much more to this story, and those are only the basics. Ellis’s work is brilliantly written (and footnoted), so if you’re at all interested in this, please do go out and find the book in a library or buy it. It covers some other very interesting events – from Amazon.com’s review:

Through an analysis of six fascinating episodes–Hamilton and Burr’s deadly duel, Washington’s precedent-setting Farewell Address, Adams’ administration and political partnership with his wife, the debate about where to place the capital, Franklin’s attempt to force Congress to confront the issue of slavery and Madison’s attempts to block him, and Jefferson and Adams’ famous correspondence–Founding Brothers brings to life the vital issues and personalities from the most important decade in our nation’s history.

[Garfield226]

I realize now that I had intended to explain something else and forgot. In this quote:

@Ellis

Hamilton did fire his weapon intentionally, and he fired first. But he aimed to miss Burr, sending his ball into the tree above and behind Burr’s location. In so doing, he did not withhold his shot, but he did waste it, thereby honoring his preduel pledge. Meanwhile, Burr, who did not know about the pledge, did know that a projectile from Hamilton’s gun had whizzed past him and crashed into the tree to his rear. According to the principles of the code duello, Burr was perfectly justified in taking deadly aim at Hamilton and firing to kill.

The “preduel pledge” that Ellis is referring to was explained by him previously:

@Ellis

The previous evening, [Hamilton] had drafted a personal statement, which he enclosed with his last will and testament, declaring that he had sincerely hoped to avoid the interview [interview being a codeword for duel]. Moreover, he claimed to feel

@Hamilton

no ill-will to Col. Burr, distinct from political opposition, which, as I trust, has proceeded from pure and upright motives
. . .
I have resolved, if our interview is conducted in the usual manner, and it pleases God to give me the opportunity, to reserve and throw away my first fire, and I have thought even of reserving my second fire – and thus giving a double opportunitty to Col. Burr to pause and to reflect.

[Cervaise]

What’s the real story?

Well, you could watch the re-enactment and take notes.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

As usual, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the duel, and conflicting testimony even from people who were there.

I don’t have Duel with me, but in Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow, the fat, new bestseller, Chernow draws more or less the same conclusion as Ellis, but also shows why there may be different interpretations drawn.

He writes that Hamilton’s friend Nathaniel Pendleton:

was adamant that Burr had fired first and that Hamilton’s shot was merely “the effect of an involuntary exertion of the muscles produced by a mortal wound…”

Hamilton himself seemed to confirm this as he was being rowed away from the site:

Hamilton spotted the pistol he had used in the duel and, apparently convinced that he had never fired it, said, “Take care of that pistol. It is undischarged and still cocked. It may go off and do harm.”

However, this was said to Pendleton, who may or may not be believable.

What is the “real” story? We’ll never know.

[Horatio_Hellpop]

There is a theatrical tradition that they duelled over a lady, the actress playing “Polly Peachum” in a then-current production of The Beggar’s Opera.