Why did Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr duel and which one issued the challenge?

Answer 1

(The pbs article that Carritt-lover cut and pasted the whole of is here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande17.html It is well-written and helpful on a number of details. But it also misses key points.)


A FASCINATING story. Unfortunately, there is much that is uncertain and highly debated by scholars.. and there is a LOT of popular confusion. I have my own take, but I'll try to be fair, and especially to get the FACTS we DO know straight.

One big caveat -- many have bought into a caricature of Burr as a scheming villain. Whatever your final opinion of him might be that's too convenient, and doesn't fit with a number of facts.

_____________________

The basic story:

Hamilton had opposed Burr politically for years, thinking Burr an unprincipled opportunist, but there had never been any open, bitter rivalry (they were NOT 'frequently at each others throats') -- it seemed to be "just politics". Burr appears never to have responded. . . till the spring of 1804.

During the NY governor's race that year, Hamilton (a Federalist) made serious accusations against Burr (the Republican candidate and sitting Vice President). Burr, after losing the race, heard about these charges and challenged H. Negotiations by intermediaries failed. Hamilton wrote privately of planning NOT to fire (but Burr did not know this). H may have fired, Burr's shot hit the mark. Burr was charged with murder (since dueling was illegal in NJ where they fought), and Federalists both mourned and railed against Burr.

Many think this ended Burr's career. Perhaps. But it wasn't that simple. Passions subsided and within the year Federalists were GRATEFUL to Burr for the role he played as President of the Senate (just before he left office) in the acquittal of Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase, whom Jefferson's supporters had targeted and impeached in their efforts to remove or weaken Federalist judges.

(Burr's LATER troubles -- including Jefferson charging him with treason, and the battle between Jefferson and Supreme Court Justice John Marshall -- are their own fascinating story. Check the books at the end for more on this.)

_____________________

Some more details, esp. corrections of popular mistakes (and notes on debated points). These are important if we are trying to get the WHY question straight.


1) After the publication, during Burr's 1804 campaign for governor of New York, to serious remarks H had made against B at a dinner party. Burr demanded that H specifically apologize or deny he had made such remarks. The letters between them are a bit confusing, but H seems oddly to have pulled back from several opportunities Burr offered (which undercuts the notion he was simply bent on revenge). It may be that H could find no way that he could accept any of B's terms and still 'save face'.

2) Many misunderstandings here about how duels generally, and this duel in particular, worked.

In short, there was usually MUCH effort to avoid the duel itself, mostly through the agency of the "seconds" who acted as intermediaries. (So most challenges were resolved before reaching this final stage.) There was a great effort in this case, but it failed.

Also, there was NOT a simple tradition of sacrificing one's shot. . . H left a note saying he planned NOT to shoot (and therefore expected to himself be shot), but it's highly debated whether that was his resolved intent, since the note was meant to be ride only if he DIED, and may have had in mind the impression he wanted to leave of his own nobility? and/or of Burr's guilt.

In any case, there is NO evidence Burr knew of any such intent, and H apparently fired first, even if not directly at Burr. Further, when Burr saw he had hit him he apparently at first tried to run to his aid (not the act of a cold-blooded killer!) but was pulled away by his second.

3) Some depict the two as openly bitter rivals for years. This is not accurate.

(a) First, though it is true that as New York lawyers they faced each other in court, their interactions there were hardly hostile; they even entertained each other. (They also on occasion worked on the SAME side of a case.)

(b) Their political rivalry OF ITSELF is also not enough to explain things. (That is, it does not seem simply to have been because they were on opposite sides in political struggles, but because of what H perceived, or thought he perceived, in all these.) PERHAPS Burr's defeat of Schuyler, Hamilton's father-in-law was a factor, but that is not at all certain.

Also, Hamilton participated in some rather rough political fights - esp. against Jefferson. And in these BOTH sides gave as good as they took.. if you look at the slanderous articles, pamphlets, etc. In fact, what is ODD in all this is that there seems to be no evidence that BURR took a significant role in this sort of warfare (unlike Hamilton and Jefferson).

Now you MAY read in GENERAL histories or articles that Burr had Hamilton's anti-Adams pamphlet of 1800 published. In fact, we do not know who did it and there are some other good candidates. It appears that the main reason Burr is accused (though, as noted, he did NOT have a record of doing this sort of thing) is various historian's personal ASSUMPTIONS about Burr's character. No facts to back it up. . . no evidence H thought Burr did it. (And even the very pro-Hamilton view of Ron Chernow, H's latest and perhaps best biographer, does not argue that Burr was behind this act.)

(c) it appears then that the main animus had long come from HAMILTON'S side.

Why did Hamilton become so anti-Burr? If we take his own evaluation at face value, much of Hamilton's antagonism toward Burr was based on his conviction that Burr was totally UN-principled, a mere OPPORTUNIST looking for power. Though Hamilton fought Jefferson by many means, fair and foul, he viewed him as acting out of principles (even if mistaken ones!)

Thus he began to feel himself OBLIGATED to block Burr from gaining power (which is not necessarily the same thing as "hate"), fearing he could not be trusted with power. This is what accounts for his urging Federalist representatives to vote for Jefferson, not Burr, when the House had to settle the election of 1800.

NOTE: This is not to say that Hamilton's assessment was balanced. It might as well be argued that Burr was more of a "centrist" to the Republican and Federalist extremes and could work, to some extent with BOTH sides. He was more of a 'coalition builder', at least on specific issues, and more willing to compromise.

Hamilton's concern seems to have blossomed through the various political contests of the 1790s, in which Burr often showed considerable political acumen, esp. in New York politics... which often brought the two men into direct competition. MAJOR case -- Burr's outmaneuvering Hamilton in lining up candidates for the NY legislative races in April 1800. This victory essentially meant Jefferson would win New York's electoral votes --which he NEEDED-- that fall, and also secured Burr's place on the ticket with Jefferson.

Burr also behaved oddly when he and Jefferson, by accident (and a flaw in the Constitution) ended up tied for electoral votes and the election was sent to the House of Representatives. H worked to prevent Federalists from throwing the election to Burr, though his effect is hard to gage. And I'm not so sure this bothered Burr, because it was actually in HIS hands! Several Federalist were prepared to vote for him if he simply offered a few assurances about policies that concerned them (assurances Jefferson's people later DID offer!). But Burr chose not to, staying in New York, preparing for his daughter's wedding. This seriously undercuts the caricature, and perhaps H's own view (and Jefferson's), of Burr as just a power-hungry schemer.

Without passing final judgment on Burr -- whose secretiveness, subtlety and terse communication complicate the matter-- it is fair to say that Hamilton INTERPRETED his careful, coy and 'calculating' mode (esp of doing politics) as evidence of insincerity. But whether they actually WERE or not is another matter. (The support and respect Burr enjoyed from other men of character suggests that he could hardly have been so completely devoid of principle as H seemed to believe. That is pure caricature.)


4) So what remark(s) LED Burr to respond at this time?

Now THAT is debated!! We really do not know.

But there is NO basis for saying that Hamilton's remarks against Burr at this time were some "minor" insult that Hamilton could not recall or that they were a pretext for Burr's 'revenge'. That makes no sense. Even those who believe Burr made the choice to confront Hamilton for his own ends, or out of general exasperation, generally acknowledge that Hamilton's attacks against Burr were, and had LONG been, virulent.

Again, what specific slurs Hamilton was said to have made on this occasion are sheer speculation. I am, however, intrigued by the suggestion of one recent writer. He claims that it may have been not a 'simple' charge of something like 'womanizing' -- an accusation made many times (against Burr and many others!). He thinks, rather, that is might have been an insinuation about an inappropriate relationship between Burr and his beloved daughter, Theodosia... bringing HER honor into play. Again, not provable, but certainly the sort of thing that could explain Burr's inability to let this slight pass, when he had let SO many pass before.

_____________________


In the last dozen years there have been a number of good books on these two men and their relationship (some also including Jefferson in the mix). Each has its own take, so I generally advise checking out more than one

Here are some I have enjoyed, and that helped shape MY take :
Thomas Fleming,*Duel*
Joseph Wheelan, *Jefferson's Vendetta* [more about the subsequent trial of Burr for treason]
Arnold Rogow, *A Fatal Friendship*
Roger Kennedy, *Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson : a study in character*

A new one JUST came out which takes a VERY pro-Burr reading (Nancy Isenberg *Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr*). I look forward to checking it out.

For more on Burr's dealings with Jefferson check out Warren Burger's article, "Thomas Jefferson and the Court"
http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c09_m.html
It goes far afield from the immediate question but is very helpful for getting the context and some sense of the man.)

Answer 2

4.Hamilton may have convinced New Yorkers not to vote for Burr. Alexander Hamilton voiced a despicable slur upon the name and reputation of Aaron Burr. What Hamilton exactly said was not printed at the time, but rumors and newspaper reports reached Burr, who wrote Hamilton and demanded an apology. Hamilton waffled in his response, Burr protested in another letter, and after receiving no satisfaction challenged Hamilton to a duel.

Answer 3

They had been rivals for years and with words were frequently at each others throats. It was Burr who challenged Hamilton to a duel and since 'gentlemen' usually settled such duels with a glancing wound at best and often simply shot their single shot pistol into the ground to satisfy 'honor,' due to the fact that Burr's bullet killed Hamilton, many of their mutual friends & antagonist insisted it was Murder.

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/jb_date.cgi?day=11&month=07
"Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr Dueled to the Death
July 11, 1804
On the morning of July 11, 1804, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr raised their dueling pistols and took aim. Hamilton, the former secretary of the treasury, and Vice President Burr were longstanding political rivals and personal enemies. Burr might have been the president instead of vice president, had it not been for Hamilton's interference. When Burr's term as vice president was almost over, he ran for governor of New York. Hamilton, once again, prevented Burr from winning by opposing his candidacy. Burr retaliated by challenging Hamilton to a duel. ""

Hamiltons loss was a great tragedy he would have been a splendid President though a b+stard of East Indian Origin.

Peace...

(oops this might be an M M S question // )
""

Answer 4

Burr was a jerk. Hamilton was younger, better looking and more admired, even though the portly Burr was a past VP. Burr resented Hamilton and challenged him to a duel when words errupted at a social event (dance in the capital). Hamilton shot in to the air like most gentelmen did and Burr aimed for Hamilton & hit him in the neck. Burr fled and ended up leaving the country and tried to start another nation but ultimately failed and died a ruined man.

Answer 5

The Burr-Hamilton duel was a duel between two prominent American politicians, former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and sitting Vice President Aaron Burr, on July 11, 1804. Burr shot and mortally wounded Hamilton.

The duel-challenge was formally offered by Burr and accepted by Hamilton.

enjoy~

Answer 6

Burr challenged Hamilton when Hamilton ruined Burr politically by supporting Jefferson instead of Burr in determining who became president.

Answer 7

I wasn't any one thing in particular, they had a long standing political feud and this sort of thing was often the result of such bickering. Although Burr is always painted as the bad guy, I believe he was not the challenger, but rather Hamilton. A little known fact is that Hamilton died because he was cheating. He'd had the trigger guard removed from his pistol and a hair trigger installed, both of which were prohibited. His pistol misfired, and Burr took advantage of the extra moment to aim a fatal fusillade.

Answer 8

Burr the Murderer issued the challenge. The long standing feud was over words, simply words, and classless Burr wanted Hamilton dead, not just silenced.

Answer 9

they 2 had lots to fight over Ham was that a ham and a classest... He felt that the Upper Class not just should rule but were the ony ones who could rule.....
Burr of humble beginning It was like Nixon and JFK but these 2 have fire and close connections....
They both wanted to be Pres...... both adored and tried to marry the same women..... not once but twice
They both were little men and would bad mouth each other in public. So they egged each other on and both felt that he would get the "important people" on their side. It did not happen.
The list is long but shows that what is said to be the reason for gun play was just one more thing of the slap came for the tall man Ham I think that he may have been 6ft he was close
burr was a smaller fellow.
Alexander did the challenge in the street for all to see
Oh ALex also felt that Arron would do anything to stop the bank and needed him out of the way

Answer 10

All because of political bad blood...Burr issued the challenge...

Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr's Duel


On July 11, 1804, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr met on the dueling grounds at Weehawken, New Jersey, to fight the final skirmish of a long-lived political and personal battle. When the duel was over, Hamilton would be mortally wounded, and Burr would be wanted for murder.

Hamilton was a Federalist. Burr was a Republican. The men clashed repeatedly in the political arena. The first major skirmish was in 1791, when Burr successfully captured a United States Senate seat from Philip Schuyler, Hamilton's powerful father-in-law. Hamilton, then Treasury secretary, would have counted on Schuyler to support his policies. When Burr won the election, Hamilton fumed.

In 1800 Burr obtained and had published "The Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq., President of the United States.," a document highly critical of Adams, a Federalist. Hamilton, its author, had intended it for private circulation. Its publication proved highly embarrassing to Hamilton and helped widen rifts in the Federalist Party. That same year, when Republicans Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson tied in balloting for the presidency, Hamilton lobbied Congress to decide the election in Jefferson's favor. Hamilton's campaign had little effect, but in the end, Jefferson emerged the winner.

It was the New York governor's race of 1804, however, that pushed the two men to violence. In that election, Burr turned his back on the Republicans and ran as an independent. Burr believed that if he won, he would regain power. The prospect of Burr leading New York mortified Hamilton, who despised and mistrusted Burr completely. In early 1804, Hamilton tried to convince New York Federalists not to support Burr.

Although Hamilton's campaign was probably not the deciding factor, the Burr campaign failed. Burr was crushed in the general election by Morgan Lewis, the Republican candidate, who was supported by George and DeWitt Clinton, powerful New York Republicans.

The battle for New York had been a bruising one, but in the end, a relatively minor slight precipitated the Burr-Hamilton duel. In February, 1804, a New York Republican, Dr. Charles D. Cooper, attended a dinner party at which Alexander Hamilton spoke forcefully and eloquently against Burr. Cooper later wrote a letter to Philip Schuyler in which he made reference to a particularly "despicable opinion" Hamilton expressed about Burr. The letter was published in a New York newspaper the "Albany Register."

Hoping that a victory on the dueling ground could revive his flagging political career, Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel. Hamilton wanted to avoid the duel, but politics left him no choice. If he admitted to Burr's charge, which was substantially true, he would lose his honor. If he refused to duel, the result would be the same. Either way, his political career would be over.

After Hamilton's and Burr's seconds tried without success to settle the matter amicably, the two political enemies met on the dueling grounds at Weehawken, New Jersey on the morning of July 11. Each fired a shot from a .56 caliber dueling pistol. Burr was unscathed; Hamilton fell to the ground mortally wounded. He died the next day.

Instead of reviving Burr's political career, the duel helped to end it. Burr was charged with two counts of murder. After his term as vice president ended, he would never hold elective office again. And his next plot to gain power would end with charges of treason.