Читать книгу Complete Works - Hamilton Alexander - Страница 16

Table of Contents

HAMILTON'S prejudice against duelling was sincere, and the result of his growing conviction, which he reluctantly disregarded under the pressure of the exigencies of the time and the feeling that his prestige, as the head of a great though demoralized party, would suffer by his refusal to meet his adversary. Nearly two years before he had told his son Philip to fire his first shot in the air when he was called upon to meet Eacker at Paulus Hook, and his several communications leave no doubt as to his extreme reluctance to run the risk of taking the life of another. In fact, during the years 1798 and 1799 he had, among other reforms, advocated anti-duelling laws. In earlier years the duel was so much a matter of course, and so necessary an institution of social life, that we find he not only appeared as a second, but gave advice to others who contemplated this method of vindicating their honor. As is known, he was the second of the younger Laurens, when he met General Charles Lee on June 28, 1778, after the battle of Monmouth, when the latter had spoken disrespectfully of Washington. Hamilton's attitude upon this occasion was extremely fair and sensible, and he did his best to adjust matters without a resort to extreme consequences. Major Edwards attended Lee. When six paces apart the principals fired simultaneously, and Lee received a slight wound. When he proposed a second exchange of shots, and Laurens agreed, Hamilton said that, "unless the General was influenced by motives of personal enmity, he did not think the affair ought to be pursued any further; but as General Lee seemed to persist in desiring it, he was too tender of his friend's honor to persist in opposing it. It was then that Major Edwards interfered, and explanations were made that were satisfactory." A minute narrative of the entire proceedings, concluding with the statement that, "upon the whole, we think it a piece of justice to the two gentlemen to declare that after they met their conduct was strongly marked with all the politeness, generosity, coolness and firmness, that ought to characterize a transaction of this nature," was drawn up by Hamilton and agreed to by Edwards.

In 1779 Hamilton, when a lieutenant-colonel, was slandered by a Reverend Doctor William Gordon,2 of Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, who spread a story to the effect that Hamilton at a "public coffee house," had abused Congress. This was at a time when the latter was withholding the pay of the army, and when there was much discontent among the troops, although there was more trouble in 1781. Hamilton was reported to have said, in the presence of other officers, "that the army would, by-and-by, turn their arms upon the country and do themselves justice," and again, "that it was high time for the people to rise, join General Washington and turn Congress out of Doors." Hamilton was apprised of this alleged seditious language imputed to him by a Lieutenant-Colonel Brooks, and he quickly traced the libel to Francis Dana, who, however, denied the responsibility for the accusation, and gave the name of Gordon as that of the culprit. When cornered, the latter admitted the existence of a mysterious witness and informant, and his letters to Hamilton were notably evasive and exasperating. Two are presented, one of which embodied the clergyman's determination that Hamilton should not be permitted to challenge his traducer, and another from Hamilton which shows, even at this early date, that he did not look upon a duet as an adequate cure for wounded honor.

It appeared that nothing came of all this correspondence, and that Gordon was a fussy mischief-maker. Colonel David Henly, who was Hamilton's representative, had a poor opinion of the clergyman, for in a letter of September 1, 1779, he said: "I do think Col. Hamilton you will find Doctr. Gordon the cause of this mischievous and false Report -- the other Day he was prov'd a Lyar in the publick Street, and had it not have been for his Cloth, I am sure would have been more severely dealt with -- he more than once has occasioned Quarrels by his Conduct." And again, "Yesterday I delivered your Letter to Doctr. Gordon and hope you will receive such satisfaction, as is due you either in wounding him in his honor, or by treating the man with contempt that has endeavored to injure your Reputation."

Reverend William Gordon to Alexander Hamilton

JAMAICA PLAINS,

August 25, 1779.

SIR: Upon my return home from a visit on the Monday evening I received yours without a date. However common the principle may be, on which you urge me, to an immediate direct and explicit answer as tho' the least hesitation or reserve might give room for conjectures, which it can be neither your wish nor mine to excite -- it is certainly a false one.

In many cases a gentleman may receive information from persons of indisputable character which it may be highly proper for him to communicate, without discovering the informer; and I am convinced you will think with me, when you have been more conversant with the world and read mankind more. Neither will such gentleman, when conscious of his own integrity and of established character regard the conjectures of those who are almost or altogether strangers to him.

I do not mean by advancing those sentiments to refuse you aid in detecting the inventor of a calumny. Mr. Dana mentions his having the declaration, alluded to in his letter from me. He communicated to me Col. Brook's letter to you, and yours to himself and the substance of what he intended to write. I objected to nothing regarding myself, excepting its being said public coffee house in which I supposed him mistaken. I understood it was a public house, but rather thought it was not the coffee house. That excepted the sentiment was as he had represented, whether the words were identically the same or not. I am glad to find by what you have wrote, that you have lost all remembrance of it; as it serves to shew that it was the effort of a sudden transport, and not of a depraved judgment. You will infer from hence, that I supposed the sentiment to have been spoken. I do: upon the belief, that my informer was a person of veracity, and could not be mistaken. The reasons are these, his general character, and his declaring that it was uttered in his hearing. I saw him on his way from Philadelphia. He left the City sometime after the inhabitants had been undivided by Mr. Dean's1 imprudent address, in which he promised us great discoveries, tho' he had made none; and by which he raised a jealousy of Congress, and put many upon clamouring against them. In this crisis, and I conjecture thro' conversation leading to it, you was betrayed into a speech tantamount to the representation made me. You was not the only one that spoke unguardedly all this season. Persons of equal or with superior talk are known to have done it, and many in the military department having been soured by the hardships they had undergone and an apprehended neglect of their grievance and on the part of Congress backwardness, to redress them, seemingly took a part with Mr. Dean; and the unguarded expressions that fell from them, then and afterwards, proved alarming to weak but good minds. I was much hurt in my own feelings because of the wrong, I am convinced, it led some to do his Excellency, in fearing that such sentiment were dropt in his presence, without meeting with a further check. My informer told me, that he took notice to you of the unsuitableness of such like expressions, with which you was rather displeased, but that he insisted further upon it, and that then it ended. I should infer from its representation given me that, there were others in Company. I have not mentioned his name; but if you cannot possibly recollect having said anything like what he reported; continue to view it as a calumny; and insist upon knowing him, I do not imagine he would object to it, but, whether he do or not, shall mention him, upon your assuring me upon your honour, that you will neither give nor accept, cause to be given nor accepted, a challenge upon the occasion, nor engage in any recounter that may produce a duel -- for tho' do not in general produce more than the honorable settlement of a dispute, yet they may be the unhappy cause of the publick's losing good and useful members; and upon the principles of religion I am totally averse to them. You must further assure me, that you will admit of the matter's being thoroughly examined into by Congress, or individuals of the first character. The oversight of individuals too often raise prejudices against a whole body. It is common, and yet commonly condemned. I am convinced that notwithstanding the natural tendency of martial manners, there are as good citizens in the military line, as out of it; and I hope that the event will ever show that by far the majority of our officers love the liberties of citizens more than any earthly command whatsoever. I as earnestly wish, that the citizens of the United States may do justice to the army, and their own engagements by keeping it up to the spirit of them wherein it is possible, that so our brave brothers may not have any just cause of complaint when affairs are brought to a settlement.

Sir

Your most obedient humble servant

William Gordon

Alexander Hamilton to the Rev. William Gordon

DEAR SIR: I have received your letter of the 25th of August which you will probably not be surprised to hear is by no means satisfactory. Instead of giving up the author of the accusation, you charitably suppose me guilty, and amuse yourself in a stream of conjecture (which whatever ingenuity it may have was certainly unnecessary) -- about the manner in which the affair happened and the motives that produced it. Your entering a volunteer to apologize for me is no doubt a mark of your condescension and of your benevolence, and would make it ungrateful as well as indecent to suspect, that the conditions with which you fetter a compliance with my request, proceed from any other cause than a laudable, though perhaps in this instance, an officious zeal, for the interests of religion and for the good of society. It shall never be said, that you had recourse to a pitiful evasion, and attempted to cover the dishonor of a refusal under a precious pretence of terms, which you know as a gentleman, I should be obliged to regret -- I venture however with every allowance for the sanctity of your intention and with all possible deference for your judgment to express my doubts of the propriety of the concessions you require on my part, as preliminaries to a discovery, which I still think you are bound to make as an act of justice. This is a principle from which I can never depart; and I am convinced I shall have the common sense and feelings of mankind on my side. An opinion of my inexperience seems to have betrayed you into mistakes -- Whatever you may imagine Sir, I have read the world sufficiently to know that though it may often be convenient to the propagator of a calumny to conceal the inventor, he will stand in need of no small address to escape the suspicions and even the indignation of the honest and of the disinterested. Nor can I but persist in believing that, notwithstanding the confidence which from a very natural partiality you place in your own character, the delicacy of your sentiment will be alarmed at the possibility of incurring this danger and will prevent your exposing yourself to it, by refusing, or delaying any longer to comply with so reasonable a demand.

It often happens that our zeal is at variance with our understanding. Had it not been for this, you might have recollected, that we do not now live in the days of chivalry, and you would, have then judged your precautions on the subject of duelling, at least useless -- The good sense of the present times has happily found out, that to prove your own innocence, or the malice of an accuser, the worst method you can take is to run him through the body or shoot him through the head. And permit me to add, that while you felt an aversion to duelling on the principles of religion, you ought in charity to have supposed others possessed of the same scruples -- of whose impiety you had had no proofs. But whatever may be my final determination on this point, ought to be a matter of indifference. Tis a good old maxim, to which we may safely adhere in most cases, that we ought to do our duty and leave the rest to the care of heaven. The crime alleged to me is of such enormity, that if I am guilty it ought not to go unpunished, and, if I am innocent, I should have an opportunity of vindicating my innocence. The truth in either case should appear, and it is incumbent upon you, Sir, to afford the means, either by accusing me to my civil or military superiors, or by disclosing the author of the information.

Your anxiety to engage me "to admit of the matter's being thoroughly examined into by Congress or individuals of the first character" was equally superfluous. I am at all times amenable to the authority of the state and of the laws; and whenever it should be the pleasure of Congress, the means of bringing me to justice for any crime I may have committed are obvious and easy, without the assistance of a formal stipulation on my side. I shall not expose myself to the ridicule of self-importance by applying to Congress for an inquiry, nor shall I invite the charge of impertinence, by promising to do what I have no power to refuse. I shall only declare for my own satisfaction, that so far as concerns myself, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to undergo the strictest scrutiny in any legal mode in the rectitude of my conduct, on this and on every other occasion as a soldier or as a citizen. With respect to an examination by individuals of character, whenever I have it in my power to confront my accuser, I shall take care to do it in presence of witnesses of the first respectability, who will be able from what they see and hear, to tell the world that I am innocent and injured and that he is a contemptible defamer.

It is, no doubt, unfortunate for me that you have prejudged the case and are of a different opinion. You profess to give credit to the story, because, you say, your informer "is a man of veracity and could not be mistaken." From this description he is probably not a soldier, or you would have been more inclined to suppose him fallible. But whoever he may be you have certainly shown a facility in believing that does honor to your credulity at the expense of your candour. I protest, Sir, this is the first time I have heard my own veracity called in question. Had you not given a sanction to the contrary by your example, I should have indulgently flattered myself, that I had as much right to be believed as another, and that my denial was a counterballance to the assertion of your informant, and left the affair in suspense to be decided by the future circumstances. You persue a different line, and in the overflowing of your pious hatred to political heresy, have determined, that I must be guilty at all events. You ascribe the denial to a deficit of memory, and pretend to think it more likely that I should have lost all recollection of the fact, than that you should have been misinformed. Far from accepting, I absolutely reject the apology you make for me, and continue to believe it impossible, I could have made a declaration similar to the one reported; for I abhor the sentiment, it contains, and am confident it never could have had a momentary place in my mind, consequently never could have dishonored my lips. The supposition is absurd, that I could have used the expressions when I cannot recognize the remotest trace of an idea, at any period, that could possibly have led to them.

In this consciousness, I again appeal to you, and demand by all the ties of truth, justice, and honour, that you immediately give up your author. I stake my life and reputation upon the issue, and defy all the craft of malevolence, or of cabal, to support the charge. If you decline a discovery, I shall then not have it in my choice to make any other than one conclusion.

You have blended several matters foreign to the purpose, which might as well have been omitted. I shall only answer in general, that I religiously believe the officers of the army are among the best citizens in America, and inviolably attached to the liberties of the community; infinitely more so, than any of those splenetic patriots out of it, who endeavour for sinister purposes, to instil jealousies and alarms, which they themselves know to be as groundless as they are impolitic and ridiculous. But if any individuals have been imprudent, or unprincipled, let them answer for themselves. I am responsible only for my own conduct. Your fears for the injury which the indiscretion of such persons might do to the general, were kind, but I hope unnecessary. The decided confidence of Congress, and the hearts of the people of America, are the witnesses to his integrity. The blame of the unmeaning petulance of a few impatient spirits, will never rest upon him; for whoever knows his character, will be satisfied, that an officer would be ashamed to utter, in his hearing, any sentiments, that would disgrace a Citizen.

West Point, Sep. 5, 1779.

The Rev. Dr. Gordon, Esq.

Hamilton, when practising law in New York, was appealed to for advice by Lieutenant-Colonel Stephen Rochefontaine while the latter was in command at West Point. Rochefontaine had been a brilliant engineer officer, and had distinguished himself at Yorktown, but seems to have been unpopular with his comrades and, at times, hyper-sensitive. General Joseph Gardner Swift, the first graduate of the United States Military Academy, ambiguously said of him:

"It is to be admitted that whatever may have been the talents of Colonel Rochefontaine, he had occupied many good positions with his narrow redoubts, and also that such works were more commensurate with the views of Congress at the time, than in accordance with those of the Colonel." Quarrels at West Point seem to have been frequent, and as a rule were settled by a passage at arms. There probably was some friction between the French and American officers, and the fighting proclivities of one of the latter were notorious. This was Lieutenant William Wilson, then at West Point, who seems to have been a very disagreeable person. In 1795 he was tried by court-martial, ordered by Major Lewis Tousard, but escaped punishment.

A year later Rochefontaine had a quarrel with him growing out of the court-martial, and wrote two letters to Hamilton, but it is to be regretted that the responses of the latter are not available.

Lieutenant-Colonel Stephen Rochefontaine to Alexander Hamilton

WEST POINT, April 28th, 1796.

DEAR SIR: Give me leave to apply to you for advice in a very disagreeable case which happened to me here a few days ago, it perhaps has been misrepresented to you by those who form a party against me in the corps, but you may rest assured that my honor has not been stained in the least; and I hope that if you find me guilty, it will only be of imprudence, and of no dishonourable act.

The cause of dislike of the officers to me may be ascribed to their being collected at West Point, while I was absent, and altho' unknown to most of them, they took such a wrong turn against me, that I hardly did receive marks of common politeness when I first came to join them here last January; add to that the general antipathy of most of the individuals of this country for any sort of subordination, and you will know pretty near the principle of that great and most general dissatisfaction of the officers towards me. A Mr. Wilson, Lieut. in the Corps, as contemptible a character as can be found anywhere, was particularly charged with the honourable trust of provoking me. (Mr. Wilson has killed a Brother officer in a Duel about a 12 months ago.)

On the 21st of this month, two officers only were at Parade and 2 were absent without cause; instead of acting with the Rigidity of the Law, I sent from Parade a message to the absents, one only came, and the others refused to accede to the request.

After the Evening Roll Call, as I was returning home passing before Mr. Wilson's quarters, I saw him out of his window calling very loud to the Major who was also in sight, by the name of John, his christening name, adding some injurious expressions to it. At last my own name was pronounced with the epithet of Damned Rascal, and other expressions intended to be very provoking. I thought Mr. Wilson intoxicated, or at least out of his senses, two officers within the Room were exciting Mr. Wilson by loud fits of Laughing. I felt very much discontented, and for an hour I did remain uncertain about the part I should take; -- a court martial composed of officers contrary to me, would not find any proofs of my accusation against Wilson, and it would only be giving publicity to gross Insults, which an officer dared to offer without any punishment. I thought the mode of punishing him by a private Interview, which would deter other officers from further insults of that kind was preferable. As I was going to impart my resolution on that head to Major Rivardi, I met Mr. Wilson taking a Walk by himself -- he stopped at a little distance from me, expecting as I suppose, that he would be spoken to by me. I called on him and I Inquired of him if he was the man who an hour before that, had so loudly and so shamefully expressed himself in pronouncing my name; his answer was that he did not.

I told him that I was very glad that he did deny it, or else it would have been pronouncing himself a vilain and a scoundrell, -- that if had something against me he might call on me at any time, and may be assured that I would grant him any redress that a gentleman might wish from another gentleman & a brave man. Mr. Wilson had a Small Cane in his hands, and at the expression of Scoundrell, which I suppose he did think himself very deserving of, he lifted it up as to strike at me. I had a Sword Sheathed in the Scabbard, and raped over with a Large belt, provoked by the former Insult, by the shameful denial of Expressions intended to be very publick outrages, for I heard them 300 yards off, -- and they were issued out in presence of a Dozen of Servants or Waiters playing in front of the house, and Enraged at the Idea that he was going to strike me, I discharged once on his shoulder a Blow with the hilt of my Sword. I felt instantly that I had been imprudent, and to repair it as well as it lay'd in my power, I did offer him on the Spot the satisfaction that he might wish for, the moon shone very bright, and I observed that if he had had his Sword on as a Man who has Insulted another ought always be ready to give satisfaction, I would fight him. He called to his servant to bring him his Sword, but he did observe that he did not know how to make use of it. I proposed him then to fight him with any weapons he wished to propose, and pistols were agreed upon, and 15 minutes were required before we met with a Second on each side; the agreement after we met was, that in order to avoid the formality of a Duel, we should settle the dispute by a Rencounter with two loaded pistols each and a Sword. The fires were to be given at pleasure and the distance be such as it suited the two adversaries; the first fire went off almost at the same time on both sides. My second Pistol went off unaware and I remained against my antagonist who had yet a Loaded pistol against me. He came up to me within three steps and missed fire, it is a general rule in such occasions to lose the chance when the pistol has not gone off, yet my adversary cocked up and missed his fire a second time, in order to prevent his firing a third time, I fell on him to try to prevent him from cocking his piece, but he did it notwithstanding, and his pistol missed fire again, the muzzle touching my breast. The two wittnesses came up then and separated us, my noble adversary enraged at not assassinating me on the spot, was furiously asking powder of his second, to kill said he that S -- of a B --, this was his noble expression on that occasion.

It is to be remarked that that affair which among men of honour is generally kept a Secret, was known thro'out the garrison, and we were immediately surrounded by people whom Mr. Wilson had informed of it, the reason why would be impossible for me to guess at.

We all retired to our quarters, my second and myself persuaded that the Rencounter having taken place, it put a stop to all further proceedings, and had made up all difficulties agreeably to stipulation. Two days afterwards I received a written challenge from Mr. Wilson thro' his former second. I answered him that according to our agreement, we had made up for the Insults and that I requested he would not mention that matter any more.

Here begins the perfidious agency of the officers who form a Party against me. Mr. Wilson, tho' a man of a very contemptible character, has been pushed forward and promised the support of all the officers if he would prosecute that affair against me. They assembled together upon my answer, and then Informed me that on hearing of my refusing satisfaction to Mr. Wilson, my Brother officer, for a gross Insult offered to him, they were going to publish my infamous conduct to the world. I refused that paper because it was not signed, and it did not bear any mark of authenticity about it. They did not return it. Sunday last was the day it was brought to me. Mr. Lovel one of the Ring Leaders, went on that day to New York -- perhaps to have it published; on Monday -- a Mr. Elmer another Ring Leader, went up to Goshen to begin against me, as I understand, a civil prosecution for the blow. On that same day I did inform the officers that I was sorry that they had not had confidence enough in me to let me know the object of their meeting, and that in explaining to them the affair, with its causes and all the circumstances, I might have prevented the Breach from opening between us, and that they perhaps would have been convinced that a full atonement had been granted for the Insult, agreeably to stipulation, and that it was unjust to carry judgments without hearing but one party, but at all events, I proposed a way to come regularly and without passion to a Settlement, -- which was to leave the matter to the decision of three officers of the army well acquainted with the rules generally observed in affairs of honor, and that if they did determine that I owed farther satisfaction to Mr. Wilson I would follow their decision to all its extent, upon that proposition they altered their former plan and changed it into an accusation before the Secretary of War.

I am now arrived to a few Queries which I would wish you to favor with your opinion upon and as soon as convenient, in order that I may avoid if possible the Inconveniency of a writ, which may be served against me upon the application of my adversaries.

When two military characters happen to have a difference between them, which has been the cause of a Breach of the law short of murder, and when that affair of honor has been agreed upon as a Sufficient atonement, is one of the two Liable to be prosecuted by the other before the Tribunals of the State?

Is an offense passed on a Spot within the territory of the United States as West Point is, amenable before the tribunal of the State of New York?

Is an officer accused before a Military Tribunal for an offense, by the person who received it, liable to be prosecuted at the same time before the civil authority, by the same person or by anybody else for him?

If an officer is tryed before a Military Tribunal, and acquitted or condemned, is he liable to be prosecuted again before the civil tribunal?

Can I with the challenge which I have possession of, check the writ against me, if any there is? I must own to you Sir,

that I would consider that Mode of clearing myself as Shameful, the perfidy of the act perpetrated against me would be the only reason that would make me pass over it, and the disagreeable situation of being under the weight of an arrest from the Civil Authority would be a further reason in favor of it.

I will dispense Sir, with any further Queries upon the subject laid before you, I have tried to detail it as much as I could, in order that you may be led by the circumstances, and that you may give me explanations upon points which, the essential, I have not perhaps insisted on or even perceived.

The most delicate point which I would be glad you would favor me with your opinion upon, is that of honor, my firm determination is to give full and ample satisfaction if wanted, even was it unasked, for I conceive that a man is the most unhappy of wretches, if he is convinced that his honor and delicacy have received a check.

I am with great Esteem and Respect, Dear Sir

You obedt. humble Servant

STEP. ROCHEFONTAINE

Lt. Col. Com'dr. of the Artr. & Engr.

Alex. Hamilton, Esqe., Attorney-at-law, New York.

On May 10 he again wrote:

WEST POINT BY PEEKSKILL.

DEAR SIR: I have had the honor to transmit to you in the course of last week, a letter detailing the affair which passed between Mr. Wilson, a Lieut. in the Corps, and myself; the Injuries offered on both sides had been settled agreeably to the rules of honor adopted by gentlemen, and in consequence of a Particular agreement made by the two Seconds. Two days after I received a challenge from Mr. Wilson by his second, Mr. Lovel, a Lieut. also, -- my answer was that I looked on that affair as settled. Some of the officers who are far from being my friends, and who are too Prudent to

Expose themselves without danger, -- they assembled the officers who, thro' hatred to me, others thro' fear of their Brother-in-Arms, many without any other motive but insubordination, which is generaly impregnated in the minds of the people under a Free Government, signed a sort of libel. in which they declare that they will publish to the world, that after insulting Mr. Wilson, I refused to give him satisfaction; I refused the paper which was not authenticated by any signature and I did not receive it back, but they sent me a copy of some charges laid against me before the Secretary of War.

Mr. McHenry has sent me the copy of the accusation, and has not informed me yet what plan he expected to proceed upon, -- I desired him by this post to grant me a Court of Inquiry instead of a Court Martial. The Court of Inquiry may investigate the whole affair which will throw the accusation to the ground, -- a Court Martial on the contrary cannot conceive any disposition upon facts, let them be so near related to the head of accusation, if they are not materialy in the charges, it begins also by a Punishment, the arrest. This is at least the principle upon which our officers have acted, for they are most of them Lawyers of the worst Kind, viz: full of those low means, which are dishonorable in the eyes of an honest man. I have another evil to contend with, that of preventing the officers from gaining or otherwise hindering the witnesses that I may call upon to prove certain facts, from telling what they saw or heard. The general saying among those people is, that it will bring trouble unto those who will take any part for me.

I will not take up any more of your time to read my scribbling, my first letter has gone as fully as I thought necessary on the details of that affair, -- I wish you would oblige me with your advice, both as to my conduct towards the civil or military prosecution, to avoid the evils prepared against me by baseness, and cowardice; any expense attending the prosecution of my enemies and my defense upon the delicate point of honor, I will bear with a great deal of pleasure, I wish therefore you would inform me what will be necessary,

and the Sums will immediately be forwarded thro' the Bank at New York.

I wish very much for your answer, and I am very anxious to know if you will condescend to take my defense in that affair, in which I may again assure you that my honor has not received the least attack or blemish.

I am with great Respect

Dear Sir

Your most obedt. Servant

STEP. ROCHEFONTAINE.

Lt. Col. Com'd'r. of 7th Corps of Art'r. & Eng'rs.

It does not appear that anything came of all this, and it is probable that through Hamilton's efforts matters were adjusted.

From this time on he underwent a decided change of heart regarding this method of settling personal difficulties. Many of the old army and some of his friends had fallen in the field of honor, for toward the end of the century encounters of this kind were too often the result of trivial affronts and tavern brawls. When his own beloved firstborn perished in this way his horror of the duello became so great that he, whenever possible, forced his clients and those who consulted him to settle their difficulties in some less extreme way.

Brave as he was, it may be, therefore, perceived how his encounter with Aaron Burr was one that he was reluctantly drawn into, and quite inconsistent with the stand he had taken for the last two years before his death.

Though much misconception exists as to the relations of Hamilton and Burr, it cannot be denied that destiny shaped their lives in such a way that their paths forever crossed, and that one always affected the other in some manner during their eventful careers. The thought certainly suggests itself to the fatalist that the subsequent death of Hamilton and the disgrace and poverty of Burr were preordained. A study of the parallel of their lives becomes, therefore, one of interest. They were born within a year of each other. Burr entered Princeton College in 1769 when but thirteen, and graduated in 1772. He subsequently studied the Gospel, but eventually became an atheist. Hamilton entered the Continental Army when seventeen, Burr when nineteen.

Both were brave and dashing young soldiers. Burr accompanied Arnold in his expedition to Quebec, and was present at the famous assault on the city, although he later quarrelled with General Montgomery. From May, 1776, he was, for a few weeks, a member of Washington's staff, where he must have been associated with Hamilton. Here he was detected in "immoralities" by Washington, and his resignation as an aide demanded. He subsequently tried to injure the Commander-in-Chief by taking sides with Gates and Lee, and being proxy to their treachery. He behaved well at the battle of Monmouth.

Hamilton's military duties undoubtedly brought him in close contact with Burr, as he, too, was attached to Washington's staff.1 His disagreement with the Commander-in-Chief occurred, but because of nothing worse than wounded vanity, and he was not only loyal, but we find that he attacked both Lee and Gates in defence of Washington. Physically Hamilton and Burr were slight men, and both gifted with extraordinary powers of fascination. As Oliver has pointed out, Burr exercised this gift to win any one and every one. Hamilton discriminated, and charmed the worthy minority.

After the war, both began the practice of law in the same year, and were associated or opposed to each other in many local cases. According to his biographers Burr had no rival but Hamilton. He finally, after eight years in the Legislature, came to New York and took a magnificent house known as Richmond Hill. From the first he prospered, not only in Albany, but in New York, and lived luxuriously, while Hamilton was not so well favored, and got along as well as he could on much smaller emoluments, bringing up his large family. When the former began his legal practice in Albany he was twenty-six. Hamilton was twenty-five.

In political life Burr was always a consistent and bitter anti-Federalist, although, for a time, he pretended a half-hearted attachment to this party. Later he was more or less of a sycophant to Jefferson, until the latter grew tired of him. His atheistic ideas made him a warm partisan of the cause of the French Republic. Hamilton detested the French

[This page intentionally left blank.]

revolutionists. Burr was selfish, Hamilton altruistic, devoting his talents to the good of all.

So far as is known, Burr never openly wrote anything, and there are no literary remains except his diary, which is a curious and eccentric production. All unite in praising his eloquence, his shrewdness and cleverness, his "dauntless resolution," and his great self-possession.

His engaging manners, which have been referred to, gave him all the power of a demagogue, and, for a time, he was a master of men, such as they were. "In his case," says a critic, "the finest gifts of nature and fortune were spoiled by unsound moral principles, and the absence of all genuine convictions. His habits were licentious. He was a master of intrigue, though to little purpose."

In later years the paths of the two men diverged to a still greater degree, the course of Burr being marked by flagrant trickery and conscienceless immorality. In contrast to this was Hamilton's purity of motive and honest consistency.

Though Burr and Hamilton were nearly always on opposite political sides, this was most marked during the end of the eighteenth century, when the Federalists were effectually overthrown and beaten. Though defeated by General Schuyler in 1797, when the latter was elected senator, Burr in 1800 became Vice-President, and Jefferson President, there being a tie which was broken by the election of the latter to chief office. It was at this time that Hamilton's pent-up indignation found the fullest vent in a series of letters both from his pen and those of his friends.

Burr was a member of the convention to revise the Constitution, and was unanimously elected chairman. While it is true that Hamilton for a time favored Jefferson's election as President, his advocacy was half-hearted, and the mistaken idea arose from political exigencies, for he could not tolerate Burr or his methods.

In this connection he wrote to Theodore Sedgwick, in December 22, 1800:

I entirely agree with you, my dear sir, that in the event of Jefferson and Burr coming to the House of Representatives, the former is to be preferred. The appointment of Burr as President would disgrace our country abroad. No agreement with him could be relied upon. His private circumstances render disorder a necessary resource. His public principles offer no obstacle. His ambition aims at nothing short of permanent power and wealth in his own person. For heaven's sake, let not the federal party be responsible for the elevation of this man!

It is unfair to say that Burr was only a "respectable lawyer and speaker," as has been alleged. He was really brilliant, able, and full of resources.2 Hamilton was associated with him in many cases, and Burr often had a great deal to do with the ultimate success of the particular action -- the Le Guen case being an example -- and he took good care to get the lion's share of compensation.

While Hamilton's chief success was before juries, it would appear, from the few carefully reported cases that went to appeal, that Burr was more often successful there.

In the early days of the acquaintance, and even for many years after, their relations were not unfriendly, and Hamilton, doubtless, admired and respected the mental qualities of his adversary, and was fair enough to admit it; but he was placed, upon many occasions, in the disagreeable position of appearing against Burr for clients who had been the victim of the latter's dishonest practices.

Much speculation has been indulged in regarding Hamilton's action in meeting Burr, despite his strong and often expressed prejudices against duelling, and many conscientious people are inclined to censure him for this. There can be no doubt, however, that he deliberately sacrificed himself for his patriotic principles, and I prefer to take the view held by a few persons that he met Burr only because he knew that his future usefulness as the leader of his party would have been hurt by any exhibition of what might have been, in any degree, regarded by the mob as the white feather. It is unnecessary to call attention to the obligations of the code in those days. In fact, until a very late period in the history of some States, the refusal to accept a challenge would have been paramount to a confession of cowardice. Even forty years later the kind-hearted and peaceful-minded Abraham Lincoln prepared himself to fight a duel with broadswords, and actually went to meet his adversary, who ingloriously retired when he saw his huge opponent slashing the grass with his enormous weapon.1 As Lodge has intimated, Hamilton knew that the time might come when civil war, or the insults of the French nation, would precipitate a conflict, and that as one likely to be major-general his prestige as a commander would be seriously hurt if he had not gone out to fight with Burr. Although Hamilton, in his later life, hated the very idea of settling disputes of personal wrongs in this way, he, as a soldier, could not entirely free himself from the customary obligations of his profession.

Rufus King,1 a temperate and cool-headed man, did his best to stop the duel, and in a letter to Charles King, April 2, 1819, said: "You cannot my Dr. Sir, hold in greater abhorrence than I do, the practice of duelling. Our lamented friend was not unacquainted with my opinion on the subject, but with a mind the most capacious and discriminating that I ever knew, he had laid down for the government of himself certain rules upon the subject of Duels, the fallacy of which could not fail to be seen by any man of ordinary understanding; with these guides it is my deliberate opinion that he could not have avoided a meeting with Col. Burr, had he even declined the first challenge."

After the duel, and even to-day, it is hard for some admirers of Burr to believe all this, and it has been repeatedly asserted that Hamilton did not throw away his first shot. Not only is this erroneous, but every utterance and action shows that he had absolutely no intention of shooting Burr, and though his pistol was discharged it was an involuntary act.2 The account of Dr. Hosack contains references to this, and his own letters and papers are convincing witnesses of his sincere good faith. In the statement Hamilton drew up before he fought he speaks not only of his desire to avoid the interview upon "religious and moral" grounds, the possible loss to his family, and a sense of obligation to his creditors, but he says: "It is also my ardent wish that I may have been more mistaken than I think I have been, and that he [ Burr] by his future conduct may show himself worthy of all confidence and esteem, and prove an ornament and blessing to his Country." If these words are not an indication that he believed Burr would survive, and intended he should, they mean nothing. Again, in the two last letters to his wife, there is a clearly expressed idea that he would himself fall.

This paper, written by him, is again worthy of reproduction and goes to prove all this:

On my expected interview with Col. Burr, I think it proper to make some remarks explanatory of my conduct, motives and views. I was certainly desirous of avoiding this interview for the most cogent reasons.

1. My religious and moral principles are strongly opposed to the practice of duelling, and it would ever give me pain to be obliged to shed the blood of a fellow creature in a private combat forbidden by the laws.

2. My wife and children are extremely dear to me, and my life is of the utmost importance to them, in various views.

3. I feel a sense of obligation towards my creditors; who in case of accident to me, by the forced sale of my property, may be in some degree sufferers. I did not think myself at liberty as a man of probity, lightly to expose them to this hazard.

4. I am conscious of no ill will to Col. Burr, distinct from political opposition, which, as I trust, has proceeded from pure and upright motives.

Lastly, I shall hazard much, and can possibly gain nothing by the issue of the interview.

But it was, as I conceive, impossible for me to avoid it. There were intrinsic difficulties in the thing, and artificial embarrassments, from the manner of proceeding on the part of Col. Burr.

Intrinsic, because it is not to be denied, that my animadversions on the political principles, character, and views of Col. Burr, have been extremely severe; and on different occasions, I, in common with many others, have made very unfavorable criticisms on particular instances of the private conduct of this gentleman.

In proportion as these impressions were entertained with sincerity, and uttered with motives and for purposes which might appear to me commendable, would be the difficulty (until they could be removed by evidence of their being erroneous), of explanation or apology. The disavowal required of me by Col. Burr, in a general and indefinite form, was out of my power, if it had really been proper for me to submit to be so questioned; but I was sincerely of opinion that this could not be, and in this opinion, I was confirmed by that of a very moderate and judicious friend whom I consulted. Besides that, Col. Burr appeared to me to assume, in the first instance, a tone unnecessarily peremptory and menacing, and in the second, positively offensive. Yet I wished, as far as might be practicable, to leave a door open to accommodation. This, I think, will be inferred from the written communications made by me and by my direction, and would be confirmed by the conversations between Mr. Van Ness and myself, which arose out of the subject.

I am not sure whether, under all the circumstances, I did not go further in the attempt to accommodate, than a punctilious delicacy will justify. If so, I hope the motives I have stated will excuse me.

It is not my design, by what I have said, to affix any odium on the conduct of Col. Burr, in this case. He doubtless has heard of animadversions of mine, which bore very hard upon him; and it is probable that as usual they were accompanied with some falsehoods. He may have supposed himself under a necessity of acting as he has done. I hope the grounds of his proceeding have been such as ought to satisfy his own conscience.

I trust, at the same time, that the world will do me the justice to believe that I have not censured him on light grounds, nor from unworthy inducements. I certainly have had strong reasons for what I may have said, though it is possible that in some particulars, I may have been influenced by misconstruction or misinformation. It is also my ardent wish that I may have been more mistaken than I think I have been, and that, he, by his future conduct, may show himself worthy of all confidence and esteem, and prove an ornament and blessing to the country.

As well because it is possible that I may have injured Col. Burr, however convinced myself that my opinions and declarations have been well founded, as from my general principles and temper in relation to similar affairs, 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 thoughts of even reserving my second fire -- and thus giving a double opportunity to Col. Burr to pause and to reflect.

It is not, however, my intention to enter into any explanations on the ground -- Apology from principle, I hope, rather than pride, is out of the question.

To those, who, with me, abhorring the practice of duelling, may think that I ought on no account to have added to the number of bad examples, I answer, that my relative situation, as well in public as private, enforcing all the considerations which constitute what men of the world denominate honour, imposed on me (as I thought) a peculiar necessity not to decline the call. The ability to be in future useful, whether in resisting mischief or effecting good, in those crises of our public affairs which seem likely to happen, would probably be inseparable from a conformity with public prejudice in this particular.

A. H.