The Essential Hamilton, page 42
2nd The use of all lawful means in concert to promote the election of fit men. A lively correspondence must be kept up between the different Societies.
3rd The promoting of institutions of a charitable & useful nature in the management of Fœderalists. The populous cities ought particularly to be attended to. Perhaps it will be well to institute in such places 1st Societies for the relief of Emigrants—2nd. Academies each with one professor for instructing the different Classes of Mechanics in the principles of Mechanics & Elements of Chemistry. The cities have been employed by the Jacobins to give an impulse to the country. And it is believed to be an alarming fact, that while the question of Presidential Election was pending in the House of Rs. parties were organized in several of the Cities, in the event of there being no election, to cut off the leading Fœderalists & sieze the Government.
An Act of association to be drawn up in concise general terms. It need only designate the “name” “objects” & contain an engagement to promote the objects by all lawful means, and particularly by the diffusion of Information. This act to be signed by every member.
The foregoing to be the principal Engine. In addition let measures be adopted to bring as soon as possible the repeal of the Judiciary law before the Supreme Court. Afterwards, if not before, let as many Legislatures as can be prevailed upon, instruct their Senators to endeavour to procure a repeal of the repealing law. The body of New-England speaking the same language will give a powerful impulse. In Congress our friends to propose little, to agree candidly to all good measures, & to resist & expose all bad. This is a general sketch of what has occurred to me. It is at the service of my friends for so much as it may be worth. With true esteem & regard
Dr Sir Yours AH
“REFUGE OF A DISAPPOINTED POLITICIAN”
To Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Grange (NY)
My Dear Sir Decr. 29. 1802
A garden, you know, is a very usual refuge of a disappointed politician. Accordingly, I have purchased a few acres about 9 Miles from Town, have built a house and am cultivating a Garden. The melons in your country are very fine. Will you have the goodness to send me some seed both of the Water & Muss Melons?
My daughter adds another request, which is for three or four of your peroquets. She is very fond of birds. If there be any thing in this quarter the sending of which can give you pleasure, you have only to name them. As Farmers a new source of sympathy has risen between us; and I am pleased with every thing in which our likings and tastes can be approximated.
Amidst the triumphant reign of Democracy, do you retain sufficient interest in public affairs to feel any curiosity about what is going on? In my opinion the follies and vices of the Administration have as yet made no material impression to their disadvantage. On the contrary, I think the malady is rather progressive than upon the decline in our Northern Quarter. The last lullaby message, instead of inspiring contempt, attracts praise. Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture.
But a difficult knot has been twisted by the incident of the cession of Louisian and the interruption of the Deposit at New Orleans. You have seen the soft tun given to this in the message. Yet we are told the President in conversation is very stout. The great embarrassment must be how to carry on war without taxes. The pretty scheme of substituting œconomy to taxation will not do here; and a war would be a terrible comment upon the abandonment of the Internal Revenue. Yet how is popularity to be preserved with the Western partisans if their interests are tamely sacrificed? Will the artifice be for the Chief to hold a bold language and the subalters to act a public part? Time must explain.
You know my general theory as to our Western affairs. I have always held that the Unity of our empire and the best interests of our Nation require that we should annex to the UStates all the territory East of the Mississippia, New Orleans included. Of course I infer that in an emergency like the present, Energy is Wisdom.
Adieu My Dear Sir Ever Yrs A H
Mrs. H joins me in affectionate Compliments to Mrs. Pinckney.
“A WORLD FULL OF EVIL”
To Elizabeth Hamilton
March 1803
I thank you My Betsy for your letter from Fish Kill. I hope the subsequent part of your journey has proved less fatiguing than the two first days.
I have anticipated with dread your interview with your father. I hope your prudence and fortitude have been a match for your sensibility. Remember that the main object of visit is to console him; that his own burthen is sufficient, and that it would be too much to have it increased by the sorrows of his Children.
Arm yourself with resignation. We live in a world full of evil. In the later period of life misfortunes seem to thicken round us; and our duty and our peace both require that we should accustom ourselves to meet disasters with christian fortitude.
Kiss Kitty for me & give my love to Angelica, & all the friends & connections round you.
Adieu My excellent wife. A H
Your Children are all well. I write your father by this oppy.
March 17, 1803
EXPLAINING A PLAN OF GOVERNMENT
To Timothy Pickering
New York September 16
My Dear Sir 1803
I will make no apology for my delay in answering your inquiry some time since made, because I could offer none which would satisfy myself. I pray you only to believe that it proceeded from any thing rather than want of respect or regard. I shall now comply with your request.
The highest toned propositions, which I made in the Convention, were for a President, Senate and Judges during good behaviour—a house of representatives for three years. Though I would have enlarged the Legislative power of the General Government, yet I never contemplated the abolition of the State Governments; but on the contrary, they were, in some particulars, constituent parts of my plan.
This plan was in my conception comformable with the strict theory of a Government purely republican; the essential criteria of which are that the principal organs of the Executive and Legislative departments be elected by the people and hold their offices by a responsible and temporary or defeasible tenure.
A vote was taken on the proposition respecting the Executive. Five states were in favour of it; among those Virginia; and though from the manner of voting, by delegations, individuals were not distinguished, it was morally certain, from the known situation of the Virginia members (six in number, two of them Mason and Randolph possessing popular doctrines) that Madison must have concurred in the vote of Virginia. Thus, if I sinned against Republicanism, Mr. Madison was not less guilty.
I may truly then say, that I never proposed either a President, or Senate for life, and that I neither recommended nor meditated the annihilation of the State Governments.
And I may add, that in the course of the discussions in the Convention, neither the propositions thrown out for debate, nor even those voted in the earlier stages of deliberation were considered as evidences of a definitive opinion, in the proposer or voter. It appeared to me to be in some sort understood, that with a view to free investigation, experimental propositions might be made, which were to be received merely as suggestions for consideration.
Accordingly, it is a fact, that my final opinion was against an Executive during good behaviour, on account of the increased danger to the public tranquility incident to the election of a Magistrate of this degree of permanency. In the plan of a Constitution, which I drew up, while the convention was sitting & which I communicated to Mr. Madison about the close of it, perhaps a day or two after, the Office of President has no greater duration than for three years.
This plan was predicated upon these bases—1 That the political principles of the people of this country would endure nothing but republican Government. 2 That in the actual situation of the Country, it was in itself right and proper that the republican theory should have a fair and full trial—3 That to such a trial it was essential that the Government should be so constructed as to give it all the energy and stability reconciliable with the principles of that theory. These were the genuine sentiments of my heart, and upon them I acted.
I sincerely hope, that it may not hereafter be discovered, that through want of sufficient attention to the last idea, the experiment of Republican Government, even in this Country, has not been as complete, as satisfactory and as decisive as could be wished.
Very truly Dear Sir Yr friend & servt A Hamilton
* Witness the 40 for 1 scheme a most unskilful measure, to say the best of it.
† Would it be believed after all this, that Mr. Jefferson Vice President of the United States would write to this Fraunces friendly letters? Yet such is the fact as will be seen in the Appendix, Nos. XLIV & XLV.
‡ He cooperated in obtaining a law to permit Aliens to hold & convey lands.
§ It is always very dangerous to look to the vices of men for Good.
¶ He has quoted to me Connecticut as an example of the success of the Democratic theory, and as authority, serious doubts whether it was not a good one.
** Yet he has lately by a trick established a Bank, a perfect monster in its principles; but a very convenient instrument of profit & influence.
†† Unprincipled selfishness is more apt to seek rapid gain in disorderly practices than slow advantages from orderly systems.
‡‡ My letter to Mr Morris states some of them.
§§ He trusts to their prejudices and hopes for support.
THE DUEL
1804
Hamilton’s political excesses and personal recklessness came to a head when he became entangled in an affair of honor with Aaron Burr. The two had known each other for decades; meeting during the war, mingling with the same friends, attending the same parties, even acting as co-counsel in court. As Hamilton had admitted in 1800, they liked each other personally. But politically, they clashed time and again.
In 1804, their ongoing rivalry reached its fatal culmination. Burr’s political career was foundering. Denied the possibility of a second term as vice-president by Jefferson, he had run for Governor of New York and lost. Eager to redeem his name and prove himself a leader worth following, he took notice when someone put a newspaper clipping in his hand reporting that at a dinner, Hamilton had claimed that Burr was unfit to hold the reins of government, and then said something “still more despicable” that the writer refused to put on paper. As Burr well knew, risking one’s life for one’s reputation in an affair of honor was considered a powerful display of leadership.
With this in mind, Burr seized at the word “despicable” and demanded an explanation, sending Hamilton the opening letter of a formal affair of honor (June 18, 1804). Hamilton’s response (June 20, 1804) was an unfortunate blend of hedging and bravado; he debated the meaning of the word “despicable” and then declared himself responsible for anything he had said. Outraged at Hamilton’s tone and grammar lesson, Burr accused him (June 21, 1804) of not behaving like a gentleman, an insult that Hamilton couldn’t ignore (June 22, 1804). For ten days, the two men negotiated through their seconds, hoping to find a way out of the tangle, until Burr—desperate to redeem his name—did what many grievously insulted gentlemen did during affairs of honor: he demanded an impossible apology to force his opponent to fight. When Burr asked Hamilton to apologize for every insult offered during their fifteen-year rivalry (June 22, 1804), Hamilton refused (Response to a Letter from William P. Van Ness, June 28, 1804), and their duel was on.
Once the duel was agreed to, Hamilton struggled to put his affairs in order in case of his death. He wrote a financial statement (July 1, 1804) admitting that he was deeply in debt. He wrote not one but two farewell letters to Elizabeth (July 4 and 10, 1804). And remarkably, the night before the duel, he explained why he felt compelled to fight (Statement Regarding the Duel with Burr, c. July 10, 1804).
The next day, Hamilton rose at dawn and was rowed across the Hudson River to a dueling ground in Weehawken, New Jersey. Burr’s shot pierced Hamilton’s liver and lodged in his spine. Hamilton died the next day, surrounded by family and friends.
ORIGINS OF A DISPUTE
From Aaron Burr
Sir, Nyork 18 June 1804
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 might perceive, Sir, the necessity of a prompt and unqualified acknowledgment or denial of the use of any expressions which could warrant the assertions of Dr Cooper.
I have the honor to be Your Obt Svt A. Burr
SIR,
The malignant attack which my character has sustained in an anonymous hand-bill, to which your letter of the 21st inst. directed to the chairman of the Federal electioneering committee of this city is annexed; and in which you contradict certain facts contained in a letter, said to have been written by me to ANDREW BROWN, Esq. of Bern, will be my apology for repelling the unfounded aspersions which have been thus dishonorably obtruded on the public. My letter to Mr. BROWN was committed to the care of JOHAN J. DEITZ, Esq. of Bern; but to this gentleman, I hope, cannot be imputed the embezzling and breaking open of a letter, a crime which in England has met with the most ignominious punishment.
Admitting the letter published to be an exact transcript of the one intended for Mr. BROWN, and which, it seems, instead of being delivered according to promise, was EMBEZZLED and BROKEN OPEN; I aver, that the assertions therein contained are substantially true, and that I can prove them by the most unquestionable testimony. I assert that Gen. 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. If, Sir, you attended a meeting of federalists, at the city tavern, where Gen. HAMILTON made a speech on the pending election, I might appeal to you for the truth of so much of this assertion as relates to him. I have, however, other evidence to substantiate the fact. With respect to Judge KENT’s declaration, I have only to refer to THEODORUS V. W. GRAHAM, Esq. and Mr. JAMES KANE, of this city, whose veracity, I trust, will not be impeached; but should the fact have escaped their recollection, I am not in want of other evidence, equally respectable, to support it. Mr. VAN RENSSELAER, a few days before he left town for New-York, in a conversation with me, declared in substance what I communicated in the letter to Mr. BROWN, as coming from him; and I am perfectly willing to repose myself on his well-known candour for the truth of this declaration.
I asserted, in the letter which has been so disgracefully EMBEZZLED, and the BREAKING OPEN of which must be ranked with the lowest species of villainy, that many of the reflecting federalists would support Judge LEWIS. Will this be considered a rash assertion, when it is known, that two federal gentlemen, high in office in this city, have declared they would vote for him? Judge PENDLETON, of New-York, made the same declaration in this city, under the impression, however, that no federal candidate was to be offered. OLIVER PHELPS, when in this city, on his way to Canandaigua, stated, that Gen. HAMILTON, and about one hundred federalists in New-York, would not vote for Mr. BURR.
It is true, that Judge TAYLER intimated to me, the conversation Mr. VAN RENSSELAER had with him, to which you allude, but it was subsequent to my having written and dispatched the letter for Mr. BROWN.
I beg leave to remark, sir, that the anxiety you discovered, when his Honor the Chancellor was about to be nominated, induced me to believe, that you entertained a bad opinion of Mr. BURR, especially when taken in connection with General HAMILTON’s harangue at the city tavern; and although I have never suggested that you would act on the one side or the other in this election—yet, presuming on the correctness of your mind, and the reputation you sustain of an upright and exemplary character, I could not suppose you would support a man whom I had reason to believe, you held in the lowest estimation.
It is sufficient for me, on this occasion, to substantiate what I have asserted. I have made it an invariable rule of my life, to be circumspect in relating what I may have heard from others; and in this affair, I feel happy to think, that I have been unusually cautious—for really sir, I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General HAMILTON has expressed of Mr. BURR.
I cannot conclude, without paying some attention to your friend, Dr. STRINGER; I have to regret that this gentleman, so renowned for the Christian virtues, should have consented to dishonour your name, by connecting your letter with an anonymous production, replete with the vilest falsehood and the foulest calumny.
I am, Sir, with due respect, Your humble servant,
CHARLES D. COOPER.
April 23, 1804.
DECLINING TO AVOW OR DISAVOW
To Aaron Burr
Sir New York June 20. 1804
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.” To endeavour 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 “General 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 Doctor 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 dispicable” admits of infinite shades, from very light to very dark. How am I to judge of the degree intended? Or how shall I annex any precise idea to language so indefinite?
