Online Book Reader

Home Category

You Did What__ Mad Plans and Great Historical Disasters - Bill Fawcett [28]

By Root 1046 0
discovered him rifling through his correspondence before the general had even read it yet).

After the war he returned to his legal practice, entering politics and eventually rising to the offices of both state attorney general and eventually U.S. senator.

Burr was a masterful politician who knew how to manipulate the political machine at both the local and national levels, usually to his own benefit, as evidenced by his manipulation of the electoral process, which resulted in his blocking John Adams’s bid for reelection as well as his own securing of the vice presidency in the administration of Thomas Jefferson, despite the new president’s personal wariness and distrust of him.

Burr was efficient and knew how to get things done politically, and his number-one priority was simple — Aaron Burr looked out for Aaron Burr.

And it was only a matter of time before someone made public the ruthlessness of his nature, which only his friends and competitors were aware of.

The Disagreements

The discord between the two men had been constant since both had come to prominence and was probably not helped by the differences in their birth and manner — Hamilton the priggish bastard with airs, Burr the roguish gentleman with a penchant for slyness — nor by their common experience as officers under Washington during the Revolution.

While Hamilton was picked by Washington to be the first secretary of the treasury, Burr won his U.S. Senate seat over Hamilton’s father-in-law, and from that point on Hamilton was hell-bent on making sure that Burr was kept in check — from throwing his New York support behind Burr’s opponent (John Jay) in a gubernatorial race to his veto of Burr’s appointment as quartermaster general in the U.S. Army. Hamilton even went so far as to support Jefferson in the presidential race, despite the fact that Jefferson’s democratic philosophy was in diametric opposition to Hamilton’s own conservative way of thinking. Such matters, though frustrating to Burr, had to be viewed by him as pure politics and, in point of fact, were similar to actions that he himself had taken on numerous occasions.

Hamilton, however, was not content with thwarting his opponent politically — he demanded the moral high ground as well, questioning the man’s morals and integrity, often referring to him as Cataline, the infamous and degenerately traitorous Roman politician, all along claiming that he was merely protecting the public good from Burr, loudly stating, “I feel it is a religious duty to oppose his career.” When Burr decided to try another run at the governorship of New York (probably as a prelude to a run for the presidency), Hamilton increased his attacks against the former vice president with poisonous comments on his ethics and morality as well as his private life, despite the fact that Hamilton himself was guilty of more than a few sexual indiscretions.

It is even alleged that Hamilton in private meetings hinted that Burr might have performed unnatural acts with his own daughter and that Burr “was a dangerous man who ought not to be trusted with the reins of government.”

When these allegations started to appear in print, Burr had no choice but to demand a retraction and apology from Hamilton, who weaseled around the matter in a lawyerly way, refusing to refute his statements or take responsibility for them, while also refusing to apologize or even recognize the situation required clarification.

Faced with a recalcitrant Hamilton having poisoned the waters of public opinion against him, Burr was left with no choice but to protect his “good name” and political career, and challenge Hamilton to a duel.

The Duel

Burr prepared for the duel by practicing his marksmanship.

Hamilton prepared for the duel by telling as many of his and Burr’s mutual acquaintances that he bore no ill will toward the vice president and that he intended to withhold fire during the duel. He still did not, it must be noted, offer a recant, refutation, or apology for the remarks attributed to him that were the cause for the disagreement.

The actual accounts

Return Main Page Previous Page Next Page

®Online Book Reader