details on aaron burr killing hamilton 1804?

Question

this isnt for an assignment, im reviewing.. all answers are welcome

but if you really want to be chosen i suggest explaining things in your own words and not copy and pasting.. i couldve dont that haha

thankks errryone

Answer 1

It seems appropriate to begin with a correction -- Burr was NOT some big duelist (that would be someone more like Andrew Jackson) and, more importantly, he had NOTHING to do with Hamilton's son's death in a duel.

This is one, and scarcely the greatest of MANY popular errors about the duel, esp. about Aaron Burr.

The truth is difficult to sort out, and highly debated, but it's a fascinating story -- MUCH more complex, confusing and interesting than the popular simplistic portraits of Burr as a thorough and scheming villain. (I confess he remains an enigma to me.)

If you're interested in the whole debate, numerous books in the past dozen years or so have explored Hamilton, Burr and Jefferson and their relationships (more at the end). I find it fascinating (I've READ a lot of those books!), and I have my own take, but I'll try to be fair, and especially to get the FACTS we DO know straight.
_________________

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 (dueling being officially illegal in Northern states, though not often prosecuted), and Federalists both mourned and railed against Burr.

Many think this ended Burr's career. Perhaps. But I doubt it. 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. [See more at the end])

__________________

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 of a report of remarks H had made against B at a dinner party -- a dinner held during Burr's 1804 campaign for governor of New York-- 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', since it was well known that he had OFTEN made accusations against B.


2) Many misunderstand how duels generally, and this duel in particular, worked.

First, 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.) The letters exchanged (which we have), and the accounts of the seconds demonstrate such an effort WAS made, but it failed.

Some say there was a "tradition of sacrificing one's shot" and Burr violated. There is NOT such a tradition.

Rather, what happened in THIS case was that 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 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.

(Note that this case indicated Burr was a power JEFFERSON had to reckon with, someone who might THREATEN Jefferson's own plans, esp. those to put in place a succession of Virginians [as he managed to do -- Madison, Monroe].)

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 handing the Presidency to Burr, as they considered doing, but it's not clear how much H influenced the vote.

More than that, it's not at all clear any of this even 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 B's 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.

_____________________

As I promised, here are a handful of books on the subject (some of the ones I have enjoyed, and that helped shape MY own views) :
Thomas Fleming,*Duel*
Arnold Rogow, *A Fatal Friendship*
Roger Kennedy, *Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson : a study in character*

A new one recently 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.

One on Jefferson & Burr that may help in sorting out the larger picture --
Joseph Wheelan, *Jefferson's Vendetta* [more about the subsequent trial of Burr for treason]

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

Reportedly this argument was due to the fact that Hamilton had opposed Burr's campaign for governor of New York, not by running against him, but by remarks Burr considered libelous.
It revolved around a letter written to a newspaper in Albany, not by Hamilton, but by someone commenting on remarks made by Hamilton at a dinner. In the initial challenge, Burr demanded a retraction, Hamilton said he had no control over anyone else's interpretation of his remarks. When this was unsatisfactory, Burr's subsequent demand was dismissed.

As a bit of a backstory, Burr was quite a duelist. He had killed Hamilton's son in a duel prior to this incident.

You know the rest, Hamilton dies.

I am attaching a link to wikipedia, and another from the bicentennial of the duel produced by the city of Weehawken New Jersey.