Complete Works. Hamilton AlexanderЧитать онлайн книгу.
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