A Fatal Rivalry -- Hamilton vs. Burr

www.americanthinker.com

What do you get when you put together two gifted politicians from different parties, a fledgling nation, a code of honor, and a lot of personal grievances? You get Hamilton vs. Burr. Both were New York lawyers who played major parts in state as well as national politics. Many, however, are still unaware of the events that led to the death of one of our Founding Fathers and the ruin of a man who was almost our third president.

Gen Zers who no longer use cash may have forgotten Alexander Hamilton, the man on the ten-dollar bill. Born in the British West Indies, he was a colonel and aide-de-camp to George Washington during the Revolutionary War. Later, as Secretary of the Treasury, he was the architect of the nation’s financial system and a leader of the Federalist party.

Aaron Burr also served with distinction as a colonel in the Revolution. He was a member of the Democratic-Republican party, a faction of which evolved into the modern Democrat party twenty years later under Andrew Jackson. Burr was elected senator from New York and became Thomas Jefferson’s vice-president.

Hamilton and Burr feuded over more than a decade, culminating in a deadly duel on July 11, 1804, in Weehawken, New Jersey. How did it reach this point?

Despite some commonalities in their histories and operating in the same elite post-war circles, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr had different temperaments and political visions. Burr was a charming opportunist and flexible from an ideological standpoint. Personal advancement was his main interest. Hamilton was a visionary who held firm views supporting a strong central government and had a cautious mistrust of pure democracy.

If they lived in different states, this may not have developed into a heated rivalry. New York politics, however, would ignite the long fuse to an explosive chain of events. In 1791, Burr defeated Hamilton’s father-in-law, Philip Schuyler, in the race for senator. Taking this family defeat as an insult, Hamilton began to actively oppose Burr’s ambitions. In 1792, he wrote: “it is my religious duty to keep this man from office.” He would make efforts to block Burr from high-level positions for the next decade.

The rivalry intensified during the presidential election of 1800. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr ran together as Democratic-Republicans against Federalist incumbents John Adams and Charles Pinckney. Under the Constitution at the time, electors voted for two people without specifying who should be president or vice president. Because every Democratic-Republican elector cast both votes for Jefferson and Burr, they tied at 73 electoral votes each.

Ties were resolved by the outgoing House of Representatives, which was majority Federalist. Each state delegation was allotted one vote. After six days and 36 ballots, Jefferson was finally elected president over Burr (who became vice-president) on February 17, 1801. This deadlock was resolved after Hamilton lobbied his party to support Jefferson (whom he despised) as more trustworthy. Jefferson, for his part, marginalized Burr during their term for not conceding the presidency to him.

The aftermath of the election wasn’t pleasant for either. Hamilton’s Federalists would never win another presidential election. Burr failed in a later bid for governor of New York, partially thanks to Hamilton’s efforts against him. Private letters from Hamilton described Burr as dissolute and corrupt enough to break promises for power.

The straw that broke the camel’s back came when a letter from a Mr. Cooper was published in the Albany Register. The letter said Hamilton referred to Burr as dangerous and untrustworthy, as well as a further unpublished “despicable” opinion. Given this public embarrassment, Burr demanded a response from Hamilton.

What followed was a formal exchange of letters governed by the “code duello,” elaborate rules of honor that governed disputes among gentlemen. Hamilton replied evasively on June 20, refusing to be held responsible for Cooper’s interpretation or to detail past private conversations, while declaring himself ready to “abide the consequences.”

Burr continued to insist on a full retraction of remarks about his character. Hamilton maintained that his comments concerned political principles, not personal conduct, and refused to offer any broad apologies. By late June, Burr issued a formal challenge to a duel. Hamilton accepted.

Hamilton would have been wise to decline. His son Philip was killed in a duel defending his father’s honor a few years before. Hamilton himself opposed dueling on religious and moral grounds. He had a family to support and little to gain but felt bound by the code of honor at the time.

The duel took place at dawn on July 11, 1804, in Weehawken, New Jersey (dueling was illegal in New York). Each man had a “second” (supporter); a physician was present as well. The dueling pistols belonged to Hamilton’s brother-in-law; they were the same used in his son’s duel and, ironically, in another duel that Burr fought with the brother-in-law five years earlier (ending when both men missed).

Accounts of the event are disputed. The story is told that Hamilton had resolved beforehand to deliberately miss, consistent with his moral qualms. Most evidence suggests this was the case: His shot struck a tree well above and behind Burr. Burr fired and struck Hamilton in the abdomen. The ball fractured a rib, damaged the liver and diaphragm, and lodged in the spine. Paralyzed, he told the physician: “This is a mortal wound, Doctor.” Hamilton was rowed back across the Hudson to the home of William Bayard Jr. in Manhattan, where he received last rites and died the following afternoon.

Alexander Hamilton was given a hero’s funeral. His family, in considerable debt, received financial support from his many admirers. Despite the ill fortunes of the Federalist party, Hamilton’s ideas endured: A strong central government and economic nationalism helped shape America’s future

Burr was unharmed, but the long-term consequences were catastrophic. A pariah politically, he was decisively defeated in the 1804 governor’s race. Seeking to re-invent himself, he turned westward. Allegedly, he plotted to detach the western frontier from the U.S. under his leadership or, perhaps, establish a nation from Spanish-held lands. Arrested, he was put on trial for treason in Richmond, Virginia in 1807. The law, however, required an overt act of treason to be witnessed by at least two individuals; none could be found, so Burr was exonerated.

The United States was toxic to Burr, however, and he spent four years self-exiled in Europe. Returning to New York in 1812, he practiced law (possibly under an assumed name). He married a wealthy widow, only to have her divorce him; Alexander Hamilton Jr. was hired to be her lawyer (not a coincidence). He died from a stroke in a boardinghouse on September 14, 1836, the day the divorce was finalized. He was 80 years old.

The Hamilton-Burr duel was less about party and irreconcilable policy differences than about clashing egos, accumulated slights, and the inability of two proud men to back down from the code of honor of the era. Can parallels be drawn to today’s world? You be the judge.

Hamilton’s dream of a powerful, commercially oriented nation largely prevailed in the long run through the institutions he helped create. Burr remains a brilliant but flawed opportunist whose pursuit of power led to ruin and obscurity. A fatal rivalry, yes, but also a cautionary tale.

Joe Alton, MD is a physician, medical preparedness advocate, and NY Times bestselling author of The Survival Medicine Handbook: The Essential Guide For When Help Is NOT On The Way and other books on austere medicine.

Image: Library of Congress