Why did Aaron Burr shoot Alexander Hamilton?

Question: Why did Aaron Burr shoot Alexander Hamilton!?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

A FASCINATING story!. Unfortunately, there is much that is uncertain and highly debated by scholars!.!. and there is a LOT of popular confusion (which several of the answers to this point have echoed)!. I have my own take, but I'll try to be fair, and especially to get the FACTS we DO know straight!.

One big caveat -- many have bought into a caricature of Burr as a scheming villain!. Whatever your final opinion of him might be that's too convenient, and doesn't fit with a number of facts!.

_____________________

The basic story:

Hamilton had opposed Burr politically for years, thinking Burr an unprincipled opportunist, but there had never been any open, bitter rivalry (they were NOT 'frequently at each others throats') -- it seemed to be "just politics"!. Burr appears never to have responded!. !. !. till the spring of 1804!.

**Here's the key part**

During the NY governor's race that year, Hamilton (a Federalist) made serious accusations against Burr (the Republican candidate and sitting Vice President)!. Burr, after losing the race, heard about these charges and challenged H!. Negotiations by intermediaries failed!. Hamilton wrote privately of planning NOT to fire (but Burr did not know this)!. H may have fired, Burr's shot hit the mark!. Burr was charged with murder (since dueling was illegal in NJ where they fought), and Federalists both mourned and railed against Burr!.

Many think this was the event that ended Burr's career!. It wasn't that simple!. Passions subsided and within the year Federalists were GRATEFUL to Burr for the role he played as President of the Senate (just before he left office) in the acquittal of Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase, whom Jefferson's supporters had targeted and impeached in their efforts to remove or weaken Federalist judges!.

_____________________

Some more details, esp!. corrections of popular mistakes (and notes on debated points)!. These are important if we are trying to get the WHY question straight!.

1) After the publication, during Burr's 1804 campaign for governor of New York, to serious remarks H had made against B at a dinner party!. Burr demanded that H specifically apologize or deny he had made such remarks!. The letters between them are a bit confusing, but H seems oddly to have pulled back from several opportunities Burr offered (which undercuts the notion he was simply bent on revenge)!. It may be that H could find no way that he could accept any of B's terms and still 'save face'!.

2) Many misunderstandings here about how duels generally, and this duel in particular, worked!.

In short, there was usually MUCH effort to avoid the duel itself, mostly through the agency of the "seconds" who acted as intermediaries!. (So most challenges were resolved before reaching this final stage!.) There was a great effort in this case, but it failed!.

also, there was NOT a simple tradition of sacrificing one's shot!. !. !. H left a note saying he planned NOT to shoot (and therefore expected to himself be shot), but it's highly debated whether that was his resolved intent, since the note was meant to be ride only if he DIED, and may have had in mind the impression he wanted to leave of his own nobility!? and/or of Burr's guilt!.

In any case, there is NO evidence Burr knew of any such intent, and H apparently fired first!. Further, when Burr saw he had hit him he apparently at first tried to run to his aid (not the act of a cold-blooded killer!) but was pulled away by his second!.

3) Some depict the two as openly bitter rivals for years!. This is not accurate!.

(a) First, though it is true that as New York lawyers they faced each other in court, their interactions there were hardly hostile; they even entertained each other!. (They also on occasion worked on the SAME side of a case!.)

(b) Their political rivalry OF ITSELF is also not enough to explain things!. (That is, it does not seem simply to have been because they were on opposite sides in political struggles, but because of what H perceived, or thought he perceived, in all these!.) PERHAPS Burr's defeat of Schuyler, Hamilton's father-in-law was a factor, but that is not at all certain!.

also, Hamilton participated in some rather rough political fights - esp!. against Jefferson!. And in these BOTH sides gave as good as they took!.!. if you look at the slanderous articles, pamphlets, etc!. In fact, what is ODD in all this is that there seems to be no evidence that BURR took a significant role in this sort of warfare (unlike Hamilton and Jefferson)!.

Now you MAY read in GENERAL histories or articles that Burr had Hamilton's anti-Adams pamphlet of 1800 published!. In fact, we do not know who did it and there are some other good candidates!. It appears that the main reason Burr is accused (though, as noted, he did NOT have a record of doing this sort of thing) is various historian's personal ASSUMPTIONS about Burr's character!. No facts to back it up!. !. !. no evidence H thought Burr did it!. (And even the very pro-Hamilton view of Ron Chernow, H's latest and perhaps best biographer, does not argue that Burr was behind this act!.)

(c) it appears then that the main animus had long come from HAMILTON'S side!.

Why did Hamilton become so anti-Burr!? If we take his own evaluation at face value, much of Hamilton's antagonism toward Burr was based on his conviction that Burr was totally UN-principled, a mere OPPORTUNIST looking for power!. Though Hamilton fought Jefferson by many means, fair and foul, he viewed him as acting out of principles (even if mistaken ones!)

Thus he began to feel himself OBLIGATED to block Burr from gaining power (which is not necessarily the same thing as "hate"), fearing he could not be trusted with power!. This is what accounts for his urging Federalist representatives to vote for Jefferson, not Burr, when the House had to settle the election of 1800!.

NOTE: This is not to say that Hamilton's assessment was balanced!. It might as well be argued that Burr was more of a "centrist" to the Republican and Federalist extremes and could work, to some extent with BOTH sides!. He was more of a 'coalition builder', at least on specific issues, and more willing to compromise!.

Hamilton's concern seems to have blossomed through the various political contests of the 1790s, in which Burr often showed considerable political acumen, esp!. in New York politics!.!.!. which often brought the two men into direct competition!. MAJOR case -- Burr's outmaneuvering Hamilton in lining up candidates for the NY legislative races in April 1800!. This victory essentially meant Jefferson would win New York's electoral votes --which he NEEDED-- that fall, and also secured Burr's place on the ticket with Jefferson!.

Burr also behaved oddly when he and Jefferson, by accident (and a flaw in the Constitution) ended up tied for electoral votes and the election was sent to the House of Representatives!. H worked to prevent Federalists from throwing the election to Burr, though his effect is hard to gage!. And I'm not so sure this bothered Burr, because it was actually in HIS hands! Several Federalist were prepared to vote for him if he simply offered a few assurances about policies that concerned them (assurances Jefferson's people later DID offer!)!. But Burr chose not to, staying in New York, preparing for his daughter's wedding!. This seriously undercuts the caricature, and perhaps H's own view (and Jefferson's), of Burr as just a power-hungry schemer!.

Without passing final judgment on Burr -- whose secretiveness, subtlety and terse communication complicate the matter-- it is fair to say that Hamilton INTERPRETED his careful, coy and 'calculating' mode (esp of doing politics) as evidence of insincerity!. But whether they actually WERE or not is another matter!. (The support and respect Burr enjoyed from other men of character suggests that he could hardly have been so completely devoid of principle as H seemed to believe!. That is pure caricature!.)

4) So what remark(s) LED Burr to respond at this time!?

Now THAT is debated!! We really do not know!.

But there is NO basis for saying that Hamilton's remarks against Burr at this time were some "minor" insult that Hamilton could not recall or that they were a pretext for Burr's 'revenge'!. That makes no sense!. Even those who believe Burr made the choice to confront Hamilton for his own ends, or out of general exasperation, generally acknowledge that Hamilton's attacks against Burr were, and had LONG been, virulent!.

Again, what specific slurs Hamilton was said to have made on this occasion are sheer speculation!. I am, however, intrigued by the suggestion of one recent writer!. He claims that it may have been not a 'simple' charge of something like 'womanizing' -- an accusation made many times (against Burr and many others!)!. He thinks, rather, that is might have been an insinuation about an inappropriate relationship between Burr and his beloved daughter, Theodosia!.!.!. bringing HER honor into play!. Again, not provable, but certainly the sort of thing that could explain Burr's inability to let this slight pass, when he had let SO many pass before!.

But the more important thing to note here is that what Burr REALLY demanded was a PUBLIC apology!. On at least one other occasion in the past, when Burr had called Hamilton on his slanders, Hamilton had agreed to apologize!. But now Burr demanded that, after years of public accusations, Hamilton make a public acknowledgment!.!.!. and that Hamilton was not willing to do!.

_____________________

In the last dozen years there have been a number of good books on these two men and their rWww@QuestionHome@Com

Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr were, no doubt, rivals!. However, politics was no reason to duel - in politics, one did not have to agree with his/her rival!. But the two also shared a personal rivalry - they just did not like each other!. One day, the two got into a duel - nothing serious!. Hamilton, purposely shot off course, for he did not want to kill Burr!. But crazy old Burr shot Hamilton in the heart, and he died!. (And then Burr ran away!.)Www@QuestionHome@Com

After the gubernatorial election in New York in which Hamilton defeated Aaron Burr, a newspaper published a letter recounting a dinner party in upstate New York on which Hamilton said he could reveal "an even more despicable opinion" of Burr!. Burr, stung by the political defeat, demanded an apology!. Hamilton refused!. A duel was scheduled, and Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton!. It is said that he got scared and ran to Mexico!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Political slander by Hamilton made Aaron Burr Challenge him to a duel!. The political slander was because Hamilton was a bastard or illegitimate child which Burr was making overly public!. Now through recently found documents from Hamilton's friends who he talked to before the duel!. He told them he was going to through the duel a common practice of those days to forgive and forget and no one dies!. To do this you either shoot straight up in the air or shoot off to the side!. Hamilton confided in his friend who were at the duel and told the he would through it!. He has the fist shot!. and fired into a tree!. But Burr shot him and Hamilton died that night!. This is not a duel this is murder and the newly discovered documents proves it!. Before Burr was arrested he left for Great Britain and bragged the rest of his life how he murdered Hamilton with no remorse!. But throughout there political lives there views differed and stirred debates and Hamilton being a staunch Federalist and Burr a democrat!. They were not friend!.
There are also letters discovered from Thomas Jefferson who was president and Burr was his vise president than Jefferson coaxed him to kill Hamilton so the US bank charter would not be renewed!. Jefferson was against Hamilton's creation of a central bank as was Burr which Washington has Hamilton create!. Hamilton disliked duals as his eldest son was killed in one!. But also there are document proving Hamilton through the duel so it was murder when a friend of Hamiltons named Rufus King later inspected the duel site and found Hamiltons pistol ball in an oak tree 25 feet from where Burr was!. This stirred anger as the papers printed Burr as a muderer and he was to be arrested, but he skipped off the England!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

They were political rivals and that's how they handled things back then, with duals!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

In the early morning hours of July 11, 1804, Burr and Hamilton departed by separate boats from Manhattan and rowed across the Hudson River to a spot known as the Heights of Weehawken in New Jersey, a popular dueling ground below the towering cliffs of the Palisades!. Hamilton and Burr agreed to take the duel to Weehawken because dueling had been outlawed in New York (The same site was used for 18 known duels between 1700 and 1845!.)!. In an attempt to prevent the participants from being prosecuted, procedures were implemented to give all witnesses plausible deniability!. For example, the pistols were transported to the island in a portmanteau, enabling the rowers (who also stood with their backs to the duelists) to say under oath that they had not seen any pistols!.

Burr, William P!. Van Ness (his second), Matthew L!. Davis, and another (often identified as Swartwout) plus their rowers reached the site first at half past six, whereupon Burr and Van Ness started to clear the underbrush from the duelling ground!. Hamilton, Judge Nathaniel Pendleton (his second), and Dr!. David Hosack arrived a few minutes before seven!. Lots were cast for the choice of position and which second should start the duel, both of which were won by Hamilton's second who chose the upper edge of the ledge (which faced the city) for Hamilton!. However, according to historian and author Joseph Ellis, since Hamilton had been challenged, he had choice of both weapon and position!. Under this account, it was Hamilton himself that chose the upstream or north side position!.

All first-hand accounts of the duel agree that two shots were fired; however, Hamilton and Burr's seconds disagreed on the intervening time between the shots!. It was common for both principals in a duel to fire a shot at the ground to exemplify courage, and then the duel could come to an end!. Hamilton apparently fired first, and into the air, though it is not clear whether this was intent, much less that Burr perceived him to be "throwing away his fire" (as it did not follow the standard protocol)!. Burr returned fire and hit Hamilton in the lower abdomen above the right hip!. The bullet ricocheted off Hamilton's second or third false rib—fracturing it—and caused considerable damage to his internal organs, particularly his liver and diaphragm before becoming lodged in his first or second lumbar vertebra!. According to Pendleton's account, Hamilton collapsed immediately, dropping the pistol involuntarily, and Burr moved toward Hamilton in a speechless manner (which Pendleton deemed to be indicative of regret) before being hustled away behind an umbrella by Van Ness because Hosack and the rowers were already approaching!. Burr returned on his barge and had breakfast in Manhattan!. According to Van Ness, he ate eggs and toast!.

It is entirely uncertain which principal fired first, as both seconds' backs were to the duel in accordance with the pre-arranged regulations of the duel (and also so the men could later testify that they "saw no fire")!. After much research to determine the actual events of the duel, Pulitzer-prize winning historian Joseph J!. Ellis gives his interpretation:

Hamilton did fire his weapon intentionally, and he fired first!. But he aimed to miss Burr, sending his ball into the tree above and behind Burr’s location!. In so doing, he did not withhold his shot, but he did waste it, thereby honoring his pre-duel pledge!. Meanwhile, Burr, who did not know about the pledge, did know that a projectile from Hamilton’s gun had whizzed past him and crashed into the tree to his rear!. According to the principles of the code duello, Burr was perfectly justified in taking deadly aim at Hamilton and firing to kill

In Statement on Impending Duel with Aaron Burr, a letter that Hamilton wrote the night before the duel, Hamilton stated that he was "strongly opposed to the practice of dueling" for both religious and practical reasons and continued to state:

“ 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 even of reserving my second fire!. ”

When Burr later learned of this, he responded: "Contemptible, if true!."

In addition, after being mortally wounded, Hamilton, upon regaining consciousness told Dr!. Hosack that his gun was still loaded and that “Pendleton knows I did not mean to fire at Col!. Burr the first time”!. This is evidence for the theory that Hamilton intended not to fire, honoring his pre-duel pledge, and only fired accidentally upon being hit!.

However, 20th century historians have debated to what extent Hamilton's statements and letter represent his true beliefs, and how much of this was a deliberate attempt to ruin Burr once and for all should worse come to worst and Hamilton fall!. An example of this may be seen in what some historians have considered to be deliberate attempts to provoke Burr on the dueling ground, specifically that:

“ Hamilton performed a series of deliberately provocative actions to ensure a lethal outcome!. As they were taking their places, he asked that the proceedings stop, adjusted his spectacles, and slowly, repeatedly, sighted along his pistol to test his aim!. ”

In addition, Hamilton had been reported as having severe mood swings, characteristic of a manic-depressive starting as early as 1800!. If Hamilton was indeed manic-depressive, his intentions for dueling with Burr may have been psychologically delusional!.

This, along with Hamilton's conspicuous choice of dueling pistols (the same pair which had once shot a button off of Aaron Burr's coat some five years earlier during a duel with Hamilton's brother-in-law), has caused many historians in recent years to re-examine the circumstances of the engagement and Hamilton's true intentions on the morning of the 11th of July!.

Burr's intentions
Burr was reputed as not being a very good shot, but there is little doubt that he had every intention of seeking full satisfaction from Hamilton by blood!. The afternoon after the duel, Burr was quoted as boasting that had his vision not been impaired by the morning mist, he would have shot Hamilton in the heart!. According to the account of Jeremy Bentham, who met with Burr in 1808 in England (four years after the fact), Burr claimed to have been certain of his ability to kill Hamilton, and Bentham concluded that Burr was "little better than a murderer!."

Towards the end of his life, Burr remarked: "Had I read Sterne more and Voltaire less, I should have known the world was wide enough for Hamilton and me!."

There is, however, much evidence in Burr's defense!. Had Hamilton apologized for his "despicable opinion of Mr!. Burr", all would have been forgotten!. However neither principal could avoid the confrontation honorably and thus each was forced into a duel: Burr to regain his honor and Hamilton to sustain his!.

Furthermore it should be noted that Burr was unsure of Hamilton's intentions (as historians still are today)!. Watching Hamilton's shot soar through the air into the brush above his head, Burr could not be sure if Hamilton had thrown his shot or just missed!. According to the principles of the code duello Burr was entirely justified in taking aim at Hamilton!. Furthermore, it is not even clear that Burr did more than reacting to hearing Hamilton fire, before he had any time to observe where it went!.Www@QuestionHome@Com