The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1903-08-31

upon its MISUNDERSTANDING .ol ~
ward according to the point OIL view.
Tealth and recreation were not ms poiH7
cal objects. Patriotism and principles
were not supposed to be dsturbers of his
slumbers Politics was a game, its stakes
the spoils of office. The loser got OUT inc
winner got in. Against ones adversary
all was fear-for 1t was war Hard pio"s
were to be given and taken, mines TO nc
snrung and counter mines detected, nets
to be laid and suares avoided.
This was New York politics, mialy
drawn and the record shows that bt
was no whit worse than the average.
So immoral had become the tone that
Alexander Hamilton. wishing to shlrN INC
French treaty Of 1918. had afSued ~
WASHINGTON that the change OF govern
ment in France had annulled the con-
tract and wishing to set aside the pie9i-
Dental candidate already virtually chosen
BY the people of New York, hao ap-
piled to Governor Jay to recohFehe 'n0
old federalist legislature in extra sessloL'
so that q new election by dstrlctS couio
be ordered and the will of the people de-
feated. So far had the feet OF reputaoie
statesmen wandered from the pam oA
common rectitude that Hamilton pald the
husband of his paramour almost as reg
as a spy upon Adams and entered upon
secret league with Miranda to draw
Washington and the United States army
into wild expeditions of conquest. IN
the Students History of the United
States the learned author (who makes q
profession Of history at Harvard aliudes
to Aaron Burr as "a disreputaDle pom
tician VINO had been nominated LOT the
vice presidency because he controlled the
votes of New York" 1t is a great pity
that American students should be taught
history in any such ramsha exile style as
that.
Professor Claiming ought to know that
az the time Burr was nominated with jel-
ferson he was no more of disreputabie
politician" than Jefferson himself. Burr 3
standing in the republic was absolutely
as good as Jefferson's, and his elevation
to that high office was less dreaded BY
the opposition than that of Jefferson
AS proof of this, examine the letters and
writings of one OF the purest, abIest OF
contemporary Americans-Charles Car
roll. Of CarrolIton The words of such q
witness ought to be conclusive. for he had
every opportunity to know the men and
the circumstances he was impartial
between Burr and Jefferson, aud there
was no possible motive for mistatement
Charles Carroll of Carronton, had long
known both jefferson and Burr. he had
signed the Declaration with jefferson. and
had continuously served in the highest
places with conspicuous patriotism and
ability
With a "disreputable politician" it is
simply incredible that he should have had
any sympathy.
II ever there was a purist in politics and
religion. it was this old Roman of Mary
land There was no highe, type of citi-
zen anywhere. Reputed to be the richest
man in America, he had studied and
Travelled abroad. knew the leading men
of Europe almost as Wen as he did those
OF America, and his record as q patriot.
d Christian, a statesman proud of his
country and anxious for its future rem
ders It impossible for him to have been
wiling TO see "a dsreputable politician
president Of the United States.
Yet in Il letter to Alexander Hamilton
dated August u. 1900 Mr. Carroll states
his preference for Burr over jefferson,
placing it upon Burrs decision Of charac-
ter.
Again in February 1901 Mr.. Carroll
writes to his son, Il nope Burr will be
chosen by the house of representatives"
Further on in the same letter this
stanch federalist gives it as his opinion
that Mr. jefferson is unfit to govern this
or any other country.
Burr. I suspect. is not less a hypocrite
than Jefferson, but he is a firm, steady
man, and possessed. ii is said, of great
energy and decision
Here we have Burr's reputation given
by a contemporary. Shrewd Mr.. Carroll
suspects that Burr may be as hypocritical
as Jefferson, but the reputation which
Burr has made convinces the Maryland
statesman that Burr is firm, steady. de
ctsive and energetic" This is the testi-
mony of d political enemy to both candi- |
dates, given in confidence to a son at the
time the two candidates are before the
people
Is not this evidence more convincing as
to how Burr stood in 1900 than The mere
word of a Harvard professor a century
afterwards? Later on, during the great
fight in New York, when Hamilton, the
federalist. joined forces with the demo- |
cratic factions of Clinton and Livingston
to destroy Burr. Mr.. Carroll disapprovcd |
the course of his friend Hamilton He |
was evidently Of The opinion that Hamil- |
ton blinded by personal hatred to Burr, |
was losing a great political opportunity.
The results vndicated Mr. CarrolTs |
foresight Hamilton gratifed his spleen |
but lost his party and his life.
If history be worth writing at ALL it
ought to be written right-with a scorn
for false precedent. and a fearless deter |
mination to find out the truth-and then
tell it, 10 jog along repeating statements
which owe their authority only to repet- |
ton. Is slovenly, wrong to the dead as
well as to the living and the unborn
The present writer is not partisan of
Aaron Burr, and Is making in his behalf
no special plea, but the author who says
that Burrs standing az man. a lawyer
simply shuts his eyes to facts.
Turn now to the opinion of Gouverneur
Morris senator from New York, a fed
eralist who knew all about both jefferson |
and Burr In a letter to Hamilton, jan |
nary 26, 1901, Morris states that the fed |
eralists after full consideration are in |
clined to support Burr in preference TO |
Jefferson. Why? Because as Bayard, |
of Delaware, afterwards stated on the |
floor of the house, they considered Burr |
the best man of the two.
They believed Jefferson to be infected |
with all the cold booded vices" and to |
be fun of dangerous principles" They /
looked with adherence a chief mag
istrate of America who shall be a slave |
To Virginia" !
As to Burr, they considered him "as |
equal in worth to Jefferson, or equally |
void of it, The difference between the |
hot J,1yr g lafa