Joseph J. Ellis (43 page)

13.
Martin Smelser, “The Federalist Period as an Age of Passion,”
American Quarterly 1
0 (Winter 1958): 391–419; see also John R. Howe, Jr., “Republican Thought and the Political Violence of the 1790s,”
American Quarterly 1
9 (Summer 1967): 147–165.

14.
Whitehead’s assessment is reported as a conversation with Perry Miller in Miller’s collection of essays,
Nature’s Nation
(Cambridge, 1967), 3–4. For a convenient overview of the ninety-nine men who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, see Richard D. Brown, “The Founding Fathers of 1776 and 1787: A Collective View,”
WMQ
33 (July 1976): 465–480.

15.
Douglass Adair, “Fame and the Founding Fathers,” in Trevor Colbourn, ed.,
Fame and the Founding Fathers: Essays by Douglass Adair
(New York, 1974), 3–26.

  1.
The most original and recent interpretation of the duel is Joanne Freeman, “Dueling as Politics: Reinterpreting the Burr-Hamilton Duel,”
WMQ
53 (April 1996): 289–318. The fullest narrative of the story is W. J. Rorabaugh, “The Political Duel in the Early Republic,”
JER 1
5 (Spring 1995): 1–23. All the biographers of Burr and Hamilton obviously cover the duel. The standard collection of documents is Harold C. Syrett and Jean G. Cooke, eds.,
Interview at Weehawken
(Middletown, Conn., 1960). The authoritative collection, with an accompanying introductory note of considerable grace and wisdom, is Syrett, vol. 26, 235–349.

  2.
The standard Burr biography is Milton Lomask,
Aaron Burr
, 2 vols. (New York,
1979–1982). Still helpful because of its original material is James Parton,
The Life and Times of Aaron Burr
(New York, 1864).

  3.
There are several excellent Hamilton biographies. The standard account is Broadus Mitchell,
Alexander Hamilton
, 2 vols. (New York, 1957–1962). For sheer readability, John C. Miller,
Alexander Hamilton and the Growth of the New Nation
(New York, 1964), is quite good, now joined by Richard Brookhiser,
Alexander Hamilton, American
(New York, 1999). The most incisive and sharply defined portrait is Jacob Ernest Cooke,
Alexander Hamilton: A Biography
(New York, 1979). Old but reliable, and with an excellent account of the duel, is Nathan Schachner,
Alexander Hamilton
(New York, 1946).

  4.
“Statement on Impending Duel with Aaron Burr,” Syrett, vol. 26, 278–281.

  5.
Parton,
The Life and Times of Aaron Burr
, 349–355, offers a splendid description of the site as it still appeared about fifty years after the duel.

  6.
On the history of the duel as an institution, the works I found most helpful were: Edward L. Ayers,
Vengeance and Justice: Crime and Punishment in the 19th Century American South
(New York, 1984); V. G. Kiernan,
The Duel in European History: Honor and the Reign of Aristocracy
(Oxford, 1986); Lorenzo Sabine,
Notes on Duels and Dueling …
(Boston, 1855); Bertram Wyatt-Brown,
Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South
(New York, 1982).

  7.
Merrill Lindsay, “Pistols Shed Light on Famed Duel,”
Smithsonian
, November 1971, 94–98; see also Virginius Dabney, “The Mystery of the Hamilton-Burr Duel,”
New York
, March 29, 1976, 37–41.

  8.
Syrett, vol. 26, 306–308.

  9.
David Hosack to William Coleman, 17 August 1804, ibid., 344–347.

10.
Joint Statement by William P. Van Ness and Nathaniel Pendleton on the Duel Between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, 17 July 1804, ibid., 333–336.

11.
Benjamin Moore to Coleman, 12 July 1804, ibid., 314–317.

12.
Ibid., 322–329.

13.
William Coleman,
A Collection of the Facts and Documents, Relative to the Death of Major-General Hamilton
(New York, 1804), which reviews the newspaper coverage and multiple eulogies for Hamilton. I have also looked over James Cheetham’s editorial assaults on Burr in the
American Citizen
during July and August of 1804, as well as the pro-Burr editorials in the
Morning Chronicle
at the same time. The story of the wax replica of Burr in ambush comes from Parton,
The Life and Times of Aaron Burr
, 616.

14.
See the exchange of letters between Van Ness and Pendleton, then “Joint Statement,” Syrett, vol. 26, 329–336.

15.
See the several documents and notes in ibid., 335–340.

16.
The scholarly consensus accepts the Hamilton version of the duel, primarily because that version dominated the contemporary accounts in the press, and also because it is the only version that fits with Hamilton’s purported remarks about the still-loaded pistol. While absolute certainty is not within our grasp, what we
might call “the interval problem” strikes me as an insurmountable obstacle for the Hamiltonian version. For that reason, while the mystery must remain inherently unsolvable in any absolute sense of finality, the interpretation offered here seems most plausible and most compatible with what lawyers would call “the preponderance of the evidence.” It also preserves what the Hamilton advocates care about most; namely, Hamilton’s stated intention not to fire at Burr. There is a pro-Burr version that argues otherwise. See Samuel Engle Burr,
The Burr-Hamilton Duel and Related Matters
(San Antonio, 1971).

17.
Burr to Van Ness, 9 July 1804, Syrett, vol. 26, 295–296. For the tradition of aiming to harm but not kill, see Hamilton Cochrane,
Noted American Duels and Hostile Encounters
(Philadelphia, 1963); Don C. Seitz,
Famous American Duels
(New York, 1919); and Evarts B. Greene, “The Code of Honor in Colonial and Revolutionary Times, with Special Reference to New England,”
Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts
26 (1927): 367–368.

18.
Charles D. Cooper to Philip Schuyler, 23 April 1804, Syrett, vol. 26, 243–246; see also Burr to Hamilton, 18 June 1804, ibid., 241–243.

19.
Hamilton to Burr, 20 June 1804, ibid., 247–249.

20.
Burr to Hamilton, 21, 22 June 1804, ibid., 249–250, 255.

21.
Burr to Van Ness, 25 June 1804; “Instructions to Van Ness,” 22–23 June 1804; Van Ness to Pendleton, 26 June 1804, ibid., 256–269.

22.
Burr to Van Ness, 25 June 1804, ibid., 265.

23.
Pendleton to Van Ness, 26 June 1804, ibid., 270–271.

24.
Burr to Van Ness, 26 June 1804; Van Ness to Pendleton, 27 June 1804, ibid., 266–267, 272–273. The Randolph quotation is in Syrett and Cooke, eds.,
Interview at Weehawken, 1
71.

25.
Burr’s “Instructions to Van Ness,” 26 June 1804; Van Ness to Pendleton, 27 June 1804, ibid., 266–267, 272–273.

26.
Mary-Jo Kline, ed.,
Political Correspondence and Public Papers of Aaron Burr
2 vols. (Princeton, 1983), vol. 2, 876–883, for the editorial note on Burr and the duel; see also Parton,
The Life and Times of Aaron Burr
, 352–353, for Burr’s state of mind on the eve of the duel.

27.
Douglass Adair, “What Was Hamilton’s ‘Favorite Song’?”
WMQ
1
2 (April 1955): 298–307, for Trumbull’s observation and the song Hamilton probably sang.

28.
Editorial notes in Syrett, vol. 26, 292–293; Hamilton to James A. Hamilton, June 1804, ibid., 281–282.

29.
Ibid., 279–281.

30.
Ibid., 280.

31.
Anthony Merry to Lord Harroby, 6 August 1804, Kline, ed.,
Burr Papers
, vol. 2, 891–893.

32.
Ayers,
Vengeance and Justice
, 8–15, 275; Bertram Wyatt-Brown, “Andrew Jackson’s Honor,”
JER
17 (1997): 7–8; Kenneth S. Greenberg, “The Nose, the Lie, and the Duel in the Antebellum South,”
AHR
95 (1990): 57–74.

33.
Henry Adams,
History of the United States of America During the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison
, 2 vols. (New York, 1986), vol. 1, 429–430.

34.
This summary of the political rivalry draws on multiple sources, but the most succinct synthesis is in Syrett, vol. 26, 238–239.

35.
Syrett and Cooke, eds.,
Interview at Weehawken
, 16–17.

36.
Hamilton to Oliver Wolcott, Jr., 16 December 1800, Syrett, vol. 25, 257–258.

37.
The most favorable interpretation on Burr’s behavior during the presidential drama of 1801 is Lomask,
Aaron Burr
, vol. 2, 268–295, and it does not find Burr innocent so much as conclude that he was not guilty.

38.
The best brief character portrait of Burr, simultaneously fair but critical, is Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick,
The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1787–1800
(New York, 1993), 743–746.

39.
Adams,
History
, vol. 1, 409–430; see also Henry Adams, ed.,
Documents Relating to New England Federalism, 1100–1115
(Boston, 1905), 46–63, 107–330, 338–365.

40.
Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick, 10 July 1804, Syrett, vol. 26, 309; see also the editor’s extensive notes in ibid., 310.

41.
The best book on the inherent tenuousness of American politics in this era is James Roger Sharp,
American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis
(New Haven, 1993).

42.
The case mentioned here was
People v. Croswell
, argued in February of 1804, in which Hamilton defended the editor of a small country newspaper, appropriately named
The Wasp
, for publishing libelous statements against Adams, Jefferson, and Washington. Hamilton argued that, despite lower court rulings against the principle, truth was a legitimate defense against libel. He lost the case, but the New York legislature enacted a new libel law the following year incorporating Hamilton’s language. See the account in Cooke,
Alexander Hamilton
, 359.

43.
The seminal essay on the volatile character of politics in the early republic is John R. Howe, Jr., “Republican Thought and the Political Violence of the 1790s,”
American Quarterly
19 (Spring 1967): 148–165. The theme is also a thread in the authoritative history of the political culture, Elkins and McKitrick,
The Age of Federalism
, especially 3–50.

44.
On Burr’s negligible political prospects, see Lomask,
Aaron Burr
, vol. 1, 302; on Hamilton’s, see Cooke,
Alexander Hamilton
, 238. See Adams, ed.,
Documents
, 167, for the quotation by John Quincy Adams. The Holmes quotation is from Leonard Levy, ed.,
American Constitutional Law: Historical Essays
(New York, 1966), 57.

I. See Boyd, vol. 17, 205–207, for Jefferson’s version of the dinner. Three scholarly articles capture the interpretive issues at stake: Jacob E. Cooke, “The Compromise of 1790,”
WMQ
27 (1970): 523–545; Kenneth Bowling, “Dinner at Jefferson’s: A Note on Jacob E. Cooke’s ‘The Compromise of 1790,’ ” 1
11
28 (1971):
629–648; Norman K. Risjord, “The Compromise of 1790: New Evidence on the Dinner Table Bargain,”
WMQ
33 (1976): 309–314.

  2.
New York Journal
, 27 July 1790, quoted in Boyd, vol. 17, 182.

  3.
Jefferson to James Monroe, 20 June 1790, Boyd, vol. 16, 536–538. See also Monroe to Jefferson, 3 July 1790, ibid., 596–597.

  4.
Boyd, vol. 17, 207.

  5.
On Madison as a seminal political thinker, see Lance Banning,
The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic
(Ithaca, N.Y., 1995); Drew McCoy,
The Last of the Fathers: James Madison and the Republican Legacy
(Cambridge, 1989); and Marvin Meyers, ed.,
The Mind of the Founder: Sources of the Political Thought of James Madison
(Hanover, N.H., 1981).

  6.
For the most thorough yet succinct account of Madison’s career in the 1780s, see the introductory essays for his correspondence with Jefferson during those years in Smith, vol. 1, 204–661.

  7.
The standard Madison biography is Irving Brant,
James Madison
, 6 vols. (Indianapolis, 1941–1961). See also Ralph Ketcham,
James Madison: A Biography
(New York, 1971), and Jack N. Rakove,
James Madison and the Creation of the American Republic
(Glenview, Ill., 1990). The quotation is from Madison to Jared Sparks, 1 June 1831, Gaillard Hunt, ed.,
The Writings of James Madison, 1
0 vols. (New York, 1890–1910), vol. 9, 460.

  8.
The quotation is from McCoy,
The Last of the Fathers
, xiii.

  9.
Adrienne Koch,
Jefferson and Madison: The Great Collaboration
(New York, 1950). The quote from John Quincy Adams is in Smith, vol. 1, 2.

10.
Hamilton to Madison, 12 October 1789, Rutland, vol. 12, 434–435; for Jefferson’s views of the Constitution during the Paris years, see Joseph J. Ellis,
American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson
(New York, 1997), 97–105.

11.
The authoritative work on Jefferson’s generational argument is Herbert E. Sloan,
Principle and Interest: Thomas Jefferson and the Problem of Debt
(New York, 1995).

12.
The best secondary account of Madison’s conversion is Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick,
The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1787–1800
(New York, 1993), 77–92.

13.
Report Relative to a Provision for the Support of Public Credit
, in Syrett, vol. 6, 52–168, which includes a helpful editorial note on the chief features of Hamilton’s plan.