Duels with aaron burr, which ultimately killed him. The alexander Awareness Society hosted this event. It is about half an hour. I have the pleasure of introducing joanne freeman. History with the museum and even longer one with Alexander Hamilton. 25 years ago, john herzog approached this young woman who had already curated an exhibit on hamilton. That became one of our earliest exhibits. That was joanne freeman. Her history with hamilton is extensive. We have many hamiltonians in the audience. How many of you have read all 27 volumes of the papers of Alexander Hamilton, and several times . Joanne started early reading them as a teenager. Her Extensive Research took her to the hamilton grange in scotland as well as to st. Croix. She immersed herself in the culture by living there for several weeks. She has so much experienced hamilton that she went and fired a black powder dueling pistol. She did this at a gun range. Calling it oddly satisfying, not much of a kick, but a nice full pop and dramatic puff of smoke soon after. We have an historian tried to capture the mood and moment of what it was like several hundred years ago. Her phd work was done at the university of virginia, of all places. A hamiltonian in jefferson country, that is immersing yourself in a different culture. Joanne pulled that trigger in research for her book, affairs of honor, which won the best book award from the society of historians of the early American Republic. It also received high praise from peers and was called a landmark work. Atlantic monthly ranked it as one of the best books of the year. That is just a sampling of her work. She has numerous articles in peerreviewed journals, oped pieces in the new york times, appeared in a host of documentaries on pbs and the history channel, a number of radio programs including the bbc and npr, lectures at the Smithsonian Library of congress, the treasury department, and colonial williamsburg. Recently, she assisted the hamilton grange when it reopened in new york. It is no wonder joanne was ranked as one of the nationss top young historians. In conclusion, i quote words from 212 years ago. It is my duty to exhibit things as they are, not as they ought to be. That is good advice for an historian. Joanne freeman explains history not as it ought to be, but as it was. Who said those words . Of course, Alexander Hamilton. It is my pleasure to introduce our keynote speaker, joanne freeman. [applause] thank you for that very gracious introduction. I have to say i am pleased and honored to be here speaking to you today, particularly at the end of what was an event filled weekend celebrating and commemorating Alexander Hamiltons life and accomplishments, and particularly to be speaking here at Trinity Church where hamilton was laid to rest 210 years ago today. My subject today is Alexander Hamilton as a man of honor. I suppose rather perversely im going to start by telling you what i am not going to be talking about today before i launch off on what i am going to be talking about. Im not going to be talking about what an honorable man hamilton was, although he certainly was an honorable man. Instead, what i want to talk about is what honor as it was understood in the 18th century meant to hamilton in a concrete way and how it shaped his thoughts and actions over the course of his life. I want to do that in three parts. First, i will talk about how the concept of honor shaped hamiltons sense of himself, particularly as a young man. Then i will talk about how the concept of honor shaped his politics and policies. Finally, i will talk about how the concept of honor led him to the dueling ground and the duel that ultimately ended his life. At this point, i am tempted to say that in todays world we dont understand or appreciate honor that much. A lot of people nodding yes. That is not quite true. Somewhat true but not quite true. It is true we dont understand honor today as someone like hamilton did in the 18th century. To an 18thcentury gentleman, his honor, his reputation, his character was like a concrete possession. His most valued possessions were worth fighting for and dying for. It represented the essence of who a man felt himself to be. For politicians, honor was even more important. In the 18th century, before being a politician was seen as a job with job skills, and gained Political Office based on their reputation, of what people thought of their character, not based on job skills. Clearly a mans personal honor was even more important to someone who held or was hoping to hold Political Office. Men who were viewed as honorable were trusted with power. Hamilton clearly imbibed this concept already as a young man, even as a boy, as an early letter he wrote shows very well. I have to say as an historian, i sometime thank the history gods when i find a particularly wonderful piece of evidence. This letter i am going to quote from is one of those pieces of evidence you thank the heavens for because it is the kind of evidence that brings a person or idea to life in literally a sentence. The letter i am about to quote to you is the first letter we know of that hamilton wrote. It was written when he was a teenager. An illegitimate child living on st. Croix working as a shipping clerk to support himself, yearning to get out into the world to make something of himself. Writing to his best friend edward stevens, hamilton wrote, to confess my weakness, my ambition is prevalent that i condemn the groveling and condition of a clerk or the like, to which my fortune condemns me and would willingly risk my life, though not my character to exalt my station. Think about that last phrase. Hamilton is saying he would risk his life but not his character. To exalt his station, to better himself in the world. He is talking about honor. He would risk his life but not his honor to better himself. That is something quite remarkable for a teenager to say. It pretty much sums up a basic attribute of hamiltons life and personality. He was eager to make something of himself. He was willing to work hard, even to risk his life to do it, but he would literally guard his honor, character, reputation with his life. That remarkable letter ends with another interesting sentence. At the end, he writes, i shall conclude saying i wish there was a war. As odd as that sentence may seem, it makes perfect sense in the context of hamiltons letter because for someone without connections or money, fighting as an officer in the war was a fine way to earn a reputation and honor. It was hamiltons good fortune to come to north america just as the American Revolution was getting off the ground. He became engaged with the struggle at an early point, a believer in the cause of the colonies, he was well aware of the fact he might be walking into the war that would enable him to make his name. He assumed the best way to make that name for himself was through an act of glory on the battlefield. In the end, the most valuable boost to hamiltons reputation during his wartime career was not on the battlefield but at general George Washingtons headquarters because working beside washington, who at the time was known as the nations leading man, some people called him, the first man, working by his side was invaluable in countless ways as hamiltons later career would show. Even so, hamilton was bound and determined for his moment of battlefield glory to prove his reputation and come away from the war with a concrete something in hand. Throughout the war whenever an opportunity for a field command came into view, hamilton in true hamiltonian style put himself forward as the man for the job. But not until the battle of yorktown at the end of the war did he finally get his moment of battlefield glory, persuading washington to let him lead a battalion. Supposedly when washington told him he would have the opportunity, one anecdote has it that he rushed back to his friend who was second in command yelling, we have it which i love because it is one of those wonderfully human moments showing you people being people even in the middle of history unfolding. So hamilton was on his way. With the launching of the new nation, honor took on a new meaning for him. For the rest of his life in addition to concerning himself with the preservation of his personal honor, hamilton would be focused on the new nations honor. National honor. The reputation of the young United States in the eyes of the world. As a new nation, the United States did not have centuries of history, achievement, and stability behind it. It had to prove its worth and status on the world stage. In the context of the late 18th century, this was no easy task. Think about the world the United States was trying to impress. The american constitution created a republic in a world of empires, monarchies, and monarchs. The United States was something new on the world stage. Although the founders look back to republics of the ancient world for guidance, in essence they were creating something new in the modern world. Something untried, untested, and fragile. I think it is easy to forget how new and experimental the young nation was during its founding years. You can certainly hear it in the comments of a lot of people at the time. For example, heres James Madison at the launching of the new government in 1789. He said we are in a wilderness without a single footstep to guide us. Here is George Washington that same year. I walk on untrodden ground. Here is the senator from that period from pennsylvania who had the same exact feeling in 1789. He wrote, the whole world is a shell and we tread on hollow ground every step. If you think about it, those are three remarkably similar statements. It is almost like these three people woke up and conferred and said the shaking ground metaphor, that is what it feels like to be founding a country. All three are describing the same feeling, a feeling of not knowing where youre going, to fear the ground is going to break in a few feet at any moment. The new nation had a constitutional framework but no one knew what kind of nation was going to emerge from it. The stakes of this political experiment seemed extremely high to the people involved because they assumed they were deciding for all time whether a republic was feasible in the modern world. I think Alexander Hamilton puts it best in the first paragraph of his worst federalist essay in 1787. I will confess to you i read this in some way in a most every class i teach at yale because i think it captures the mood and spirit of the moment so well. These are hamiltons words. It seems to have been reserved for the people of this country whether conduct an example to decide the important question whether societies of men are capable or not establishing Good Government from reflection and choice or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitution on accident and force. The crisis at which we are arrived may be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made and the wrong election the part we shall act may be considered as the general misfortune of mankind. Think about a sense of responsibility that goes along with that statement. They truly believed they are deciding for all time if you can put a bunch of men in a room, have them calmly create a just form of government, and put it in motion through a process of ratification. Could this new experiment nation hold its own . If so, how . Who were his friends and enemies . What were the implications of making friends and enemies of Different Countries . Americans of the time assumed world empires were hovering over the new republic sneering at its littleness and licking their chops. I think the best example of American Fears of what the world thought of them the early years is summed up in hamiltons document that is little known, but i think is a fascinating one. It is a draft. It never left his desk. That is probably a good thing in the end as i describe what it is. In 1796 with the french revolution raging, hamilton decided he would try to design a National Seal for the United States. I think it is a memo. He drew it up himself. As far as i can tell, he did nothing with it. It is fascinating. It is a glimpse into the mind of hamilton and a lot of other people. This is the image he suggests for the new seal of the United States. He wanted a globe with europe on one side and america on the other. He wanted a colossus, a giant, with one foot in europe and the other hovering over north america. In north america, he wanted a figure in armor with a shield and spear doing this. [laughter] for a National Seal, he is creating this image of america sending off this frightening europe looming over it. It is a remarkable image. It is not the most graphically wonderful image, so i will also say maybe graphic arts is not hamiltons forte. I went back to look at this again before this talk today. I found something i had not noticed before. It is a complicated image. He talks about armor and shields and everything else. He says at the end of it to himself, if it is not too complicated, i think we should add neptune in the middle of the ocean with a trident. What that brings to light is the idea that the United States was aware of the watchful and threatening attention of the world. Given that context, you can see how the new nations reputation and National Honor in the eyes of the world would have mattered. Not only to hamilton, but to the founding generation generally. You can see hamilton worrying about National Honor after the war in a letter he wrote in 1783. He urged the new york governor to treat loyalists fairly as the war came to a close, not to penalize them or deprive them of property because as hamilton explained it was a matter of National Honor. American treatment of loyalists after the war would say a lot about the character of the new nation. Hamilton wanted the nation to start off on the right foot. Hamilton was thinking about National Honor almost from the launching of the new nation. But he really concerned himself with the preservation of National Honor when he became the nationss first secretary of the treasury in 1789. Hamilton was the man responsible for dealing with the new nations enormous disorganized war debts. Essentially he was responsible for establishing national credit. Hamiltons concern with National Honor makes sense if you think about the meaning of the word credit, the formal focus of hamiltons job. Credit is essentially on or in another form. Credit, a person with credit is trustworthy. A person with credit has a reliable and upstanding character. A nations credit represents all of those things as well as its standing in the eyes of the world, a nations reputation. Credit and National Honor are very much bound together. That is precisely how hamilton understood the idea of national credit. He assumed it was fundamentally bound up with National Honor. To hamilton, a nation with bad credit was a nation without honor. As he put it in an unfinished report he wrote defending his Financial System after he stepped down, bad credit prostrated the National Honor. Given hamiltons utter conviction that bad credit meant national dishonor, and given how firmly believed his policies were best for the nation, and given how much he tied his own reputation to the founding of the nation, imagine how he felt when his policies were tampered with. In 1795 when congress did not precisely follow his suggestions concerning the nations unsubscribed debt, hamilton went wild. As he put it in a letter to his friend, the unnecessary, capricious, and abominable assassination of the National Honor by the rejection of the proposition respecting the unsubscribed debt in the house of representatives haunts me every step i take. It affects me more than i can express. To see the character of the government and country so sported with puts my heart to the torture. Where he goes from there is even more interesting. He goes on to say, am i more of an american that those who drew their first breath on american ground . Or what is it that thus torments me, at a circumstance so calmly viewed by almost everyone else . Am i a fool or is there a constitutional defect in the American Mind . That is a remarkable statement and shows how National Honor was a personal issue for hamilton that he bound up his identity with. He took it so seriously that he chose an interesting word to describe the sacrifice of National Honor. He called it suicide. At least twice, hamilton insisted not defending National Honor was suicidal. As he put it in his defense of his funding system in 1795, not attending properly to the National Debt at the launching of the government would have humiliated the United States before the world. It would have been an act of suicide in the government at the commencement of its existence. Not defending National Honor was an act of political suicide. It is an idea he is more than once when discussing national policies. That idea that sacrificing honor is suicidal brings us to the topic of the third part of my talk this afternoon. Hamiltons defense of his honor in the duel that led to his death in 1804 and the logic behind it. Some people have suggested he was suicidal in fighting the duel. I think if you understand as a given forfeiting honor is suicidal and combine that with an understanding of how the code of honor and dueling worked, you will find his duel was not that simple. Before we turn to hamiltons duel, i want to turn to the code of honor and dueling. I have already said that for an Early National politician, honor was more than a vague sense of selfworth. It represented his ability to prove himself a deserving political leader. Among men who were touchy about their reputation and had to be, rules of behavior became very important. This makes sense. Insults carry grave consequences. The wrong word might lead you to the dueling ground. There had to be clearly defined rules and standards so accidental insults and violence could be avoided. The code of honor set out clear standards of conduct, words you were supposed to avoid, actions you were to avoid. When a line was crossed and honor was offended, the code of honor offered a regulated way of settling the dispute, hopefully with negotiations, but sometimes with gunplay on the dueling ground. There were a number of alarm bell words you could never use in reference to another gentleman. Words like liar, coward, rascal, which has lost a little bit of its zing in the 21st century, scoundrel, and puppy, which has lost all of its zing the 21st century. Anyone knew insulting a man with any of those words was as good as challenging him to a duel. It was a dare that demanded a response. To ignore it would be to dishonor yourself. By hamiltons logic, to commit political suicide. With a man felt he had been dishonored, it followed ritual steps. The man offended would write a form letter that would include five basic statements. First it would say i have been told you insulted me. Second, it would repeat the insult precisely. Third, it would ask if the account is true or false. Forth, it would ask if you have an explanation. Fifth, it would demand an Immediate Response typically by demanding the respect due to a man of honor. That kind of letter was an alarm bell signaling honor had been offended and the person writing the letter was willing to fight. From that point on, as soon as you receive that kind of letter, you were engaged in an affair of honor and your every word and action could result in a duel. This is typically the point where each man would appoint a second to represent him, a person who acted as a kind of lawyer negotiating terms for his client, hopefully finding a way to forge an apology without humiliating either party. Ideally, these negotiations allowed honor to be satisfied without violence. The point of an affair of honor was to demonstrate your willingness to die for your honor, not necessarily to engage in gunplay and not necessarily to kill your opponent. The point of a duel was to prove you are willing to die for your honor. You dont need to have a gun in your hand. You just need to prove you are willing to. Your trying to prove you are brave enough to be there and take heart in that duel, willing to die for your honor. Once you understand political dueling in this way and recognize all of the letter sending and negotiations as an affair of honor, you discover there were many more affairs of honor in early america than most people think. Hamilton was involved in at least 10 of these affairs of honor, which are duels without gunfire before his duel with burr. In 10 years alone in new york, there were at least 17 other political duels, many interrelated. The burrhamilton was not a lone duel, a part of a larger trend. When you look at these together, you notice interesting patterns. Most took place shortly after an election and were deliberately provoked. A common ploy was one man would call another a selfinterested politician. There is only one response to that sort of insult, which is you are a liar. Poof. You have a duel. It was a very effective way of provoking a duel. The loser or one of his friends would provoke the winner or one of his friends into a duel. We are not looking at impulse of events, not guided by suicidal impulses or murderous rage. They were deliberately provoked and strategically timed. Many early american political duels were like counter elections. Someone dishonored by an election by losing tried to redeem his reputation with an aristocratic contest of honor, a duel. American political duels were deliberate attempts to prove oneself eligible for future leadership. To protect ones honor and prove oneself a deserving political leader. Remember that idea as we turn to the burrhamilton duel. The year was 1804. Burr was Vice President of the United States. His political career was looking grim. Thomas jefferson did not trust him and cut him out of his administration. Aware he would not have a Second Chance at the vice presidency but still ambitious, he decided to run for governor of new york. Hamilton was a practicing lawyer in new york city. He was not particularly politically active, but he became more active when he learned the man he most distrusted in the world was running for governor of his own state. By 1804, they had been political rivals for 15 years. Both were intense individuals. They were ambitious. They moved in the same social circles. They went to many of the same parties. They have many of the same friends. Sometimes they even argued legal cases together as joint counsel. According to hamilton, there was one way in which the men were extremely different. Hamilton was exceedingly ambitious. There was no denying that. But hamilton felt he was guided by his search for honor and fame as it was understood in the 18th century, a desire to win glory in the eyes of posterity by serving the public good. In a sense, that meant hamilton was selfinterested because he wanted fame and glory. But he felt the best way to earn those things was through great acts of public service. Burr made no such claims. To many people at the time, he did not seem to be bound by any grand political principles. He seemed to seize on the politics of the moment to get things done. Many politicians of the time were impressed and shocked at this. He did not seem to have is one politician put it, pesky clinical principles tying him down. He seemed to be a useful person to have around during political battles or elections. This was terrifying to hamilton. Burr was talented, charming, just as ambitious as hamilton. But in hamiltons view with no political restraint, no guiding star holding him back. To hamilton, that made burr a dangerous man, someone who had to be stopped. So hamilton focused on destroying burrs gubernatorial campaign. The roots of the duel ready dinner party in albany, new york. Hamilton was there was another federalist named Charles Cooper described the party in a letter. I will give you a bad paraphrase of the letter. Cooper said you should have heard hamilton talk about burr over dinner. He said burr was a dangerous man who ought not to hold the reins of government. I could detail a still more despicable opinion which general hamilton has expressed of mr. Burr, but i wont because letters these days tend to get stolen from the mail and printed in newspapers by political enemies. The letter is stolen by political enemies and published in a newspaper. That happened. It is public. Burr loses the gubernatorial election. He was humiliated by the loss. He had been first ousted from the vice presidency and now publicly voted not good enough to be governor. He began to feel desperate to prove he was still a deserving political leader, especially to his supporters who were beginning to doubt him. Why cling to burr as a leader if he could not offer you patronage or influence . Some said it literally. One put it that burr had to fight back. If he had sat down in silence, what would have been the feelings of his friends . They would have thought him unworthy of their support. To prove himself a political leader, burr felt he had to redeem his reputation. That was the frame of mind he was in when someone put coopers letter in his hand. Burr sent hamilton and alarm bell letter that included the five key phrases. You have insulted me. Is this true or false . Do you have an explanation . Reply promptly as i deserve as a man of honor. This was a threat. Immediately upon receiving the letter, hamilton would have known he was now involved in an affair of honor and there was a possibility a duel might result. But hamilton was puzzled because burr accused hamilton of saying something despicable, but there was no specific insult for him to deny or explain. To hamilton, who supposedly insults seemed too vague to merit a duel and how do you apologize for something that vague . His reply shows how torn he was between the need to defend his honor is a gentleman and his natural desire to avoid a duel. Trying to find his way out of his predicament, he began the letter by debating the meaning of the word despicable, which burr took as an insulting grammar lesson and concluded his letter by showing he was not afraid to duel if he had to. He wrote he would not be held responsible for hearsay and was always willing to face the consequences of his actions. Not surprisingly, burr did not respond well to hamiltons letter. He said it revealed nothing of that sincerity and delicacy which you profess to value. In other words, hamilton was not acting like a gentleman, which was a highly offensive insult that hamilton could not ignore. Now hamilton felt insulted and could not back down. Burr felt insulted and more insistent on fighting. You can see how things spiraled from this point. Before the duel, hamilton had one final decision to make. He was not sure if he would shoot at burr. To hamilton, shooting at a man did not seem to be the christian thing to do. He agonized about this decision. The night before, he made his choice. He would not fire at burr. As he explained to his second, his decision resulted from religious scruples and could not be altered. Hamilton was aware this was a difficult decision for people to understand. They might think he was being suicidal. He decided to explain himself and defend his reputation one last time in a statement addressed to posterity to be made public only in the event of his death. This is another one of those documents we thank the heavens for because it is a remarkable explanation of his feelings at this moment of climax, of such a decision in his life. In his final statement, hamilton acknowledged all the reasons he did not want a duel. Family, debts, religious and moral scruples, and desire to live. He also explained why he felt compelled to fight. He had seriously insulted burr and believed what he had said, so he could not apologize, particularly since burr insulted him during negotiations. But most fundamental of all, hamilton felt all the what men of the world denominate honor impressed on me a peculiar necessity not to decline the call. The crises of Public Affairs which seem likely to happen, would probably be inseparable from a conformity with public prejudice in this particular, which is a long way of saying hamilton expected a future political crisis of some kind. In his mind if he did not satisfy public expectations of leadership, if he did not defend his honor, he would be dishonored, cast off and useless at the moment of crisis. Not defending his honor would be selfdestructive. You could say, in a sense, suicidal. To be in the future useful, he had to defend his honor. On july 11, 1804, hamilton and burr met on the dueling ground. Hamilton was fatally wounded and died the next day. 210 years ago today, he was laid to rest outside these doors. It was a tragic end to a remarkable life, a product of choices that made sense to him although they might not make sense to us. That point, the fact that hamilton and every other founder made some choices that might seem flawed to us, is where i want to close my comments today, because to really understand the founders and the american founding generally, we need to understand and remember they were people. Sometimes flawed, sometimes selfish, sometimes selfless. To deny that is to deny the meaning and even majesty of americas founding moment. These men were real people, not sure what they were doing. Sometimes on their best behavior, sometimes not. This human story of trial and error is the real story of our nations founding. If these human people can accomplish great things, perhaps future generations could as well. It is the logic that inspired their greatest hopes for the future, the ultimate message they hoped to impart. Thank you very much. [applause] you are watching American History tv, 48 hours of programming on American History every weekend on cspan3. Follow us on twitter for information on our schedule, upcoming programs, and to keep up with the latest history news. Heres a great read to add to your Summer Reading list, sundays at eight. Was always knew there risk at the bohemian. I decided to take it, because whether it is an illusion or not, i do think it is. It helped my concentration. It stopped me from being bored. It stopped other people being boring to some extent. And makekeep me awake me want the evening to go on longer, to prolong the conversation, to enhance the moment. If i were asked by would do it again, the answer is probably yes. I wouldve quit earlier, if possible. Open the away with the whole thing. Easy for me to say. It sounds a responsible. If i say, i would do well that again to you, the truth is it would be hypocritical for me to say no, i would never touch the stuff if i had known. You did know, everyone knows. The soviet system in Eastern Europe contains the seeds of its own destruction. Many of the problems we sought the end begin at the very beginning. I spoke already about the attempt to control all institutions, and control all parts of the economy and political life and social life. One of the problems is that when you do that, when you try to control everything, then you create opposition, and potential dissidents everywhere. If you tell all artists they have to paint the same way, and one artist says no, i dont want to paint that way, i want to paint another way, you just made him into political dissident. If you want to subsidize housing in this country, and we want to talk about it, and the populace agrees, that is something we should subsidize, then put it on the balance sheet. And make it clear. And make it evident. And make everybody aware of how much it is costing. When you deliver it through these thirdparty enterprises, fannie mae and freddie mac, and you deliver the subsidy to a Public Company with private shareholders, and executives who can extract a lot of that subsidy for themselves, that is not a very good way of subsidizing homeownership. Prescription Christopher Hitchens is one of the few stories on sundays theyd. Sundays at eight. Next, a panel of historians talked about how different areas used alcohol. Alcohol was formerly a male problem, while thousands of women were addicted to laudanum. The discussion was part of society for historians at the early American Republic conference. It is about an hour and a half. Thaou