The more immediate cause of the duel, which resulted in Hamilton's death and Burr's disgrace, was a letter published in March, 1804 by Dr. Charles Cooper in the Albany Register in which Cooper "recalled a harangue Hamilton had delivered against Burr the preceding February." Cooper didn't report exactly what Hamilton said, but the letter concluded with this statement: "I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General HAMILTON has expressed of Mr. BURR."
On June 18th, Burr sent Hamilton a letter drawing his attention to Cooper's published letter. He wanted Hamilton to "explain or disavow" the word despicable. It was Hamilton's response that escalated the exchange:
Hamilton's fate was effectively sealed once he sent this letter [his response to Burr]. Not only did he miss the opportunity to disown the offensive characterization of Burr; he raised the rhetorical stakes with his dismissive tone and gratuitously defiant counterthreat."Why did Hamilton go out of his way to antagonize Burr? Here's what Ellis writes:
The full meaning of the duel . . . cannot be captured without recovering those long-lost values of the early American republic, which shaped the way Burr and Hamilton so mistrusted and even hated each other. . . . Hamilton believed --- and he had a good deal of evidence to support his belief --- that the very survival of the infant American nation was a stake. Understanding why he entered such hyperbolic thoughts is key to the core meaning of the duel.And why did Hamilton so hate Burr?
Burr's reputation as a notorious womanizer or as a lavish spender who always managed to stay one step ahead of his creditors did not trouble Hamilton. What did worry him to no end was the ominous fit between Burr's political skills and the opportunities for mischief so clearly available in a nation whose laws and institutions were still congealing. . . Personal character was essential in order to resist public temptations . . . because the temptations being served up by the political conditions in this formative phase of the American republic put the moral fiber of national leadership to a true test.In other words, Burr was a blatant political opportunist; the republic might not survive if such men secured too much power. In 1801, Hamilton had this to say about Burr:
His public principles have no other spring or aim than his own aggrandizement. . . . If he can he will certainly disturb our institutions to secure himself permanent power and with it wealth. He is truly the Catiline of America.Everyone in Hamilton's generation would recognize the reference. According to Ellis, Catiline "was the treacherous and degenerate character whose scheming nearly destroyed the Roman Republic and whose licentious ways inspired . . . Cicero's eloquent oration on virtue."
Hamilton was afraid men like Burr might destroy the American republic in the very hour of its birth. They prized their own power over the needs of the fledgeling country. It was his duty, as a man who was concerned for the country, to do as much as possible to keep such men at bay.
This was not a debate about different ways to serve the country, it was a duel to the death between the forces that would nurture the republic and those that would destroy it.
If Hamilton came back today he would probably see those same forces still at work.
