Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Rufus King, 24 February 1804
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: King, Rufus

Albany February 24. 1804
My Dear Sir

You will have heared, before this reaches you, of the fluctuations and changes which have taken place in the measures of the reigning party, as to a candidate for Governor; and you will probably have also been informed that pursuant to the opinions professed by our friends, before I left New York, I had taken an open part in favour of Mr. Lansing.
It is a fact to be regretted, though anticipated, that the fœderalists, very extensively, had embarked with zeal in the support of Mr. Burr; yet an impression to the contrary and in favour of Mr. Lansing had been made, and there was good ground to hope that a proper direction, in the main, might have been given to the current of fœderalism. The substitution of Mr. Lewis has essentially varied the prospect; and the best informed among us here agree that the Fœderalists, as a body, could not be diverted from Mr. Burr to Mr. Lewis, by any efforts of leading characters, if they should even deem the support of the latter expedient.
Though I have no reason to think, that my original calculation was wrong, while the competition was between Clinton and Burr; yet from the moment the former declined, I began to consider the latter as having a chance of success. It was still however my reliance that Lansing would outrun him, but now that Chief Justice Lewis is the competitor, the probability of success in my judgment inclines to Mr. Burr.
Thus situated two questions have arisen 1 whether a fœderal candidate ought not to be run as a mean of defeating Mr Burr and of keeping the fœderalists from becoming a personal faction allied to him. 2 whether in the conflict of parties ⟨as⟩ they now stand, the strongest of them discon⟨nected⟩ and disjointed, there would not be a considerable hope of success for a Fœderal candidate.
These questions have received no solution in scarcely any one’s mind; but it is agreed that if an attempt is to be made, You must be the candidate. There is no other man among us, under whose standard either fragment of the democratic party could as easily rally. It is enough to say, you have been absent during the time in which party animosities have become matured and fixed, and therefore are much less than any other distinguished fœderalist an object of them.
To detach the fœderalists from Burr, they must believe two things: one that we are in earnest, as to our Candidate, & that it is not a mere diversion—the other that there is some chance of success. All believe, and some leading democrats admit, that if either of the two democratic rival parties should come to expect a defeat, they would arrange themselves under your banners.

Reflect well on all these things and make up your mind in case you should be invited to consen⟨t. I⟩ have not time to enlarge.
Yrs. very truly

A H
Rufus King Esq


Title: Nathaniel Pendleton’s Memorandum on a Conversation between Alexander Hamilton and Ebenezer Purdy, [25 February 1804]
From: Pendleton, Nathaniel,Hamilton, Alexander,Purdy, Ebenezer
To:

[Albany, February 25, 1804]

On Saturday the 25th of february 1804 I went with General Hamilton to the lodgings of Judge Purdy in Albany who was at home.
General H. said that he had called on Mr. Purdy, supposing he had had sufficient time for reflection, to know who was the person alluded to in the conversation he had had with him a day or two before when Mr. Kane was present.
Mr. Purdy said he had thought of it, but had not seen the gentleman alluded to, and as he had desired his name might not be mentioned he did not wish to do it without his consent, but that the same person had mentioned it to several others, and therefore he presumed he would have no objection.
Genl. H. asked if the Gentleman was in Albany. Mr. P. said No. He lived in Westchester.
Gen H said he did not wish to be thought too pressing. He was willing to allow a reasonable time, but wished to have an answer as soon as it could be obtained.
Gen H. asked Mr. Purdy to repeat what he had before told him, that there might [be] no misapprehension.
Purdy said that in conversation with several republican members of the Legislature several years ago it was mentioned that some of athe leading men among the federal party were in favor of a monarchal Gouvernment and the person to whom he alluded said that a letter had been written from the Eastward which was seen in General Hamilton’s Office and that several Copies had been given out from thence. That this letter proposed to Establish a monarchy in the United States, and that one of the Sons of George the third was to be King. He said he understood the proposal to have come from England; he did not know who wrote the letter nor to whom it was written, but it was from Some person to the Eastward.
Genl. H asked if he had understood that the Copies alluded to, were made by him or with his privity? He said no. Genl. H. told him he had understood him otherwise a day or two before. Mr. P—— said he had misunderstood him or he Purdy had not clearly expressed himself. He said he had not said so, but he supposed it would be understood he knew of it as they came from his Office. He also said Gouvernor Clinton had also mentioned to him the letter, and that he had one of the Copies. He said it was talked of Publickly about the time he heard it.
Genl H. told him it was a Slander he was determined to trace. That he should write to Gouvernor Clinton on the subject, and Should expect an answer from Mr Purdy, as soon as possible. We then came away.
There were three other persons present whom I did not know.
On the Monday following I asked Mr Purdy if he meant that the person he alluded to lived in Westchester and he said Westchester County.

Nathl: Pendleton


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from James Kane, [28 February 1804]
From: Kane, James
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Albany, February 28, 1804]
Genl Hamilton
Dr Sir

Attach’d to this You have the Purdy Statement, which I am very Clear is in substance Correct. If you deem it very important that I should make affidavit of what is Here related—I will do it. At the same time I must acknowledge I shall have some difficulty in bringing my mind to it. My pride & Delicacy being in Opposition &c.
With much respect & Esteem   I remain Dr Sir &c

James Kane


Title: Enclosure: [Statement of Ebenezer Purdy], [28 February 1804]
From: Kane, James
To:

[Albany, February 28, 1804]

Some time in the month of January last, I call’d on Jacob Snell, a member of the Council of appointment, where I found Ebenezer Purdy Esqr together with a Mr. Hughes and one or two other Gentlemen whose names I do not recollect (being Strangers to me).
Mr Purdy immediately ask’d me if I had any objection to hear an oration read, that was delivered on the 4th. July, by a young irishman who, if I mistake not, then resided in His family. I replied, certainly not,—it was a violent phillippic against the federal Administration, the Stamp act, Sedition law, Standing Army &c were represented as the leading features of the federal faction. After some Considerable conversation on the merits of the oration between Mr Purdy and myself, he remark’d, he fully believed monarchy was the object of the federalists, that there was a Person, who did not wish to have his name mention’d, who Cou’d prove the fact & stood ready to make affidavit of it, That some time in the Year ’98 a negociation was opened between Genl Hamilton, Mr. Adams and the King of England, for the purpose of introducing monarchy into this Country, at the Head of which was to be placed one of the Royal Family and that Canada was to be ceded to the States, for the truth of the above Mr P—— refered me to Governor Clinton, who He said wou’d not deny it, altho’ He did not wish to say any thing about it.
On the 23d Feby 1804 Genl Hamilton & myself call’d on Mr Purdy for the purpose of investigating the affair. Genl H introduced the Subject to Mr Purdy, by telling Him, He had received information from Mr K of a certain declaration of His of a nature very interesting to His Character, which He was determined to have explained and investigated. I then related to Mr Purdy the Conversation He had with me, as above stated. Mr Purdy replied what you have said Mr K is pretty nearly Correct (or words to that effect) but with this difference. I did not mention Mr Adams’ name, and that affair which I spoke of to you did not happen in ’98 but some time previous to the Convention which form’d the present Constitution of the United States. What I told you was nearly this, that Some body in England had made proposals to Some body to the Eastward, for establishing a Monarchy in this Country and for placing at the head of it a Son of the King of Great Britain, that some letters, or papers Containing these proposals was sent to Genl. Hamilton, Copies of which were made in His office to be distributed among certain Persons. Mr Purdy then ask’d me if this was not the Substance of what he had told me. I replied that the difference was between that & what I had before stated and recapitulated what I had before said. I also pressed upon Mr P what I had before Stated, respecting Governor Clinton and Question’d Him whether He had not made such an appeal to Govr Clinton and also whether He had not affirm’d that there was a Person who cou’d attest the truth of the story. Mr Purdy persisted in the statement which He had just made. As to Gov Clinton He admitted, that He had mention’d to the Govr. the Story He had hear’d, and that the Governor had replied that He had had One of the letters. On being interrogated by Genl Hamilton whether He had mention’d His name to Governer Clinton, He answered He was not Sure whether He had done it or not. On being farther interrogated as to his having said there was a person ready to prove the transaction He had Stated, He answered there was a person who had assured Him of His knowledge of the transaction, as it was now related by Him. A variety of other Conversation pass’d but the above Comprises the Most Material particulars.

James Kane
Albany Feb. 28th. 1804


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Clinton, 29 February 1804
From: Clinton, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Albany 29th February 1804
Sir

This is the first moments leisure I have had to answer your Letter of the 27th Instant which was handed to me yesterday. I have carefully perused the Papers it inclosed under the signature of Mr. James Kane and find the statement of the transaction aluded to as admitted by Judge Purdy to be correct as far as my Name is implicated, and I believe it contains as reduced by Judge Purdy the substance of all the Conversation that passed between him and me on that Subject. I recollect to have mentioned to him that I had seen the Copy of a Letter similar to the one mentioned in the Statement on or about the Time the Convention which formed our Federal Constitution was sitting. This Copy was put into my Hands by the late General Malcom who informed me he had received it from Connecticut. It was without signature or direction.
I have the Honor to be   Your most Obedient Servant

Geo Clinton
General Hamilton


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Wolcott Junior, [February 1804]
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

(Private)
New York February 1804
My Dear Sir.

By Letters lately recd. from Albany, by Gentlemen interested in the Merchants Bank, we are informed, that a meeting of political characters connected with the Legislature, has been held, and that it has been resolved at all events to suppress this Company. This violent decision was altogether unexpected, as from prior intelligence, it appeared that several influential characters of the ruling party had expressed opinions in favour of an act of incorporation. The report here is, that since Chancellor Lansing declined a nomination, serious apprehensions have been entertained of the Success of Colo. Burrs party, unless the Federalists can by some means be divided, and that this division is expected to be effected, by complying with the prayer of a Memorial for our suppression which has been signed by a number of respectable men, chiefly connected with the other Banks in this city.
That a Memorial of some kind has been forwarded is certain. Some time since at the request of a number of our Board, I made inquiry of D. Ludlow Esqr. in respect to the fact and he admitted it; but declined shewing me the Copy. All that we know is, that it is substantially like that which appeared in Cheetham’s paper, though it is presumed that some of the most offensive passages were omitted. There is no doubt, that most of the Directors of the three Banks, have petitioned not only that a charter may be refused, but that our Bank may be restrained from transacting business in future. It is said, that Mr. Murray, Mr. Schermerhorn, Mr. Glover, Genl Stevens, & Mr. Townsend of the Branch Bank—an equal number of the Directors of the Bank of New York and Mr. Coles & Mr. Fairly of the Manhattan Company have refused to lend their names to this instrument. These exceptions however, cannot compensate the injury which has been done to my feeling from the information, that men of such standing in society as Mr. Ray, Mr. Le Roy and Mr Lenox, Mr. Buchannan &c &c. have placed their names to a paper, representing an association of which I happen to be a conspicuous member as dangerous to the community and a violation of the rights of Property. A few years since, I should not have been easily persuaded that such an imputation upon my conduct would ever have recd. the sanction of such characters; blunted as my sensibility is, by several disappointments and new views of human nature, during a few of the last years, I am not yet prepared to meet with patience an accusation the most unreasonable & unjust that could possibly be preferred against me.
There is one fact however, that the Politicians in Albany, appear to have taken for granted in which they are totally mistaken; no diversion from the federal party in favour of Judge Lewis, can possibly be made by adopting violent measures against the Merchants Bank. Some gentlemen who signed the adversary petition, seriously regret the step they have taken, and reflecting men of all Parties, are impressed with a decided conviction that the Bank cannot be suppressed without producing incalculable mischief and disorder in the city. Indeed so decided is the opinion, that an attack on this Institution, would promote Colo. Burrs views, that surmises have not unfrequently been made that his partizans, might secretly stimulate violent measures, with a view to this consequence. I know of no fact, which can justify the slightest suspicion of this nature, but the suggestion proves, the course which the public passions would take, and it is an ascertained fact, that a great proportion of the active spirits, of almost every description of men, & especially among the Federalists, would be brought into action with a degree of energy of which there has been no recent example. Indeed the circumstances will justify vigour, for after knowing, that the Leaders of the present party, and among others Judge Lewis himself, have publickly expressed themselves in favour of the Bank; its distruction, with the view of promoting his election, by conciliating the support of a few Directors of rival Banks, would be such an outrage upon Justice, as the Community would not, and ought not to tolerate.
I am inclined to believe, that when the state of public opinion here is known at Albany, and when it is seen, that the Memorial in our favour, has been signed by about One thousand Merchants & Traders comprizing the great Body of those in active business of all political denominations, that the decision of which we have heard, will be rescinded. Hitherto we have pursued a conduct strictly neutral and conciliatory: We shall not deviate from this system at present, nor at any future time without urgent motives; if however, our rights & property are disposed of, to promote an election, we mean to render the bargain as unprofitable as possible.
In case the attack which has been threatened should be persisted in, it is proposed to apply to the Legislature to be heard by Council, in which case the Board wish your assistance. The agents at Albany will apply to you on this subject, and I sincerely hope, that your aid will not be refused. In many respects, and with reference to more Interests than are immediately affected by the question in issue, would a public discussion by you, be useful.
Reports from Washington announce serious and increasing divisions among the ruling Party: and here the Clintonians, are said to be endeavouring to encourage the Federalists to offer a Candidate of their own Party for the office of Governor. If the design was any other than to promote the election of Judge Lewis, the suggestion would be worthy of Notice; but to make use of the name of a respectable man, to exhibit the inferiority of the Federalists, and indirectly to oppose Colo Burr, will not I presume be thought proper. If the Clintonians as they say is the case, prefer a Federalist to Colo. Burr, and are apprehensive of his success, in consequence of divisions among themselves, let them publickly renounce their pretensions & then I presume, their preference can ⟨be⟩ realised.
I remain Dear Sir, truly & affectionately yours.

Oliv: Wolcott
Alexander Hamilton Esqr.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Rufus King, 1 March 1804
From: King, Rufus
To: Hamilton, Alexander

N Yk Mar 1. 1804
Dr sir

Since my letter of the 24th. I have recd. yrs. of the same date; and after maturely reflecting upon the subject, and consulting one or two of our friends here I am confirmed in the Sentiment that I ought not to consent to be a candidate for the Govr. shd. the federalists think of offering me.
This being my determination, it is right that I shd apprize you of it, in order that our friends may not make an offer which I shd. be obliged to decline.
If you consider to what the office of Govr. has been curtailed, and what in the actual State of Parties must be his condition, if a man of virtue & independence, I can’t but persuade myself that you will see insuperable objections to my consenting to be thus disposed of.
with sentiments of Regard   I am always yr ob & faithl. Ser

R K


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Clinton, 2 March 1804
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Clinton, George

Albany March 2. 1804
Sir

If our correspondence does not terminate with your letter of the 29th. of February, received yesterday, I wish it to be understood that it proceeds merely from the desire of removing all ambiguity from a transaction, in which my character may be materially interested.
It is perhaps the natural inference from what you have stated, that nothing took place on your part, to sanction or corroborate the story related to you by Judge Purdy, in reference to any agency or cooperation of mine in the supposed project. Yet some of the circumstances are such, that a different inference might possibly be drawn.
I therefore trust, that you will be sensible of the propriety of dissipating all obscurity on this point.
If the letter, which you mention to have been put into your hands by General Malcom, was not withdrawn by him, or if any copy was retained by you, it would be satisfactory to me to have an inspection of the one or the other, with leave to take a copy; in order that I may have an additional clue to the source of a story, which I verily believe originated intirely in fabrication.
I have the honor to be   Your Excellency’s Obed servt

A Hamilton
His Excellency Governor Clinton.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Louis Le Guen, 6 March 1804
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Le Guen, Louis

[Albany, March 6, 1804. On March 22, 1804, Le Guen wrote to Hamilton: “Je nai recu que hier, Votre Lettre du 6.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Clinton, 9 March 1804
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Clinton, George

Albany March 9. 1804
Sir

I had the honor of receiving, yesterday, your Excellency’s letter of the 6th instant. It is agreeable to me to find in it a confirmation of the inference, that you had given no countenance to the supposition of my agency or cooperation in the project, to which the story of Judge Purdy relates; and it only remains for me to regret that it is not in your power to furnish the additional clue, of which I was desirous, to aid me in tracing the fabrication to its source.
I shall not only rely on the assurance which you give, as to the future communication of the copy of the letter in question, should it hereafter come to your hands; but I will take the liberty to add a request, that you will be pleased to make known to me any other circumstance, if any should reach you, which may serve to throw light upon the affair. I feel an anxiety, that it should be thoroughly sifted, not merely on my own account, but from a conviction that the pretended existence of such a project, long travelling about in whispers, has had no inconsiderable influence in exciting false alarms and unjust suspicions, to the prejudice of a number of Individuals every way worthy of public confidence; men who have always faithfully supported the existing institutions of the Country and who would disdain to be concerned in any intrigue with any foreign power or its agents, either for introducing monarchy, or for promoting or upholding any other scheme of Government within the UStates.
I have the honor to be   Your Excellency’s most obedient servt.

A Hamilton
His Excellency Governor Clinton


Title: Indenture: Alexander Hamilton and Elizabeth Hamilton to Catherine Bleecker, John R. Bleecker, Elizabeth Brinckerhoff, Maria Bleecker, and Blandina Bleecker, 10 March 1804
From: Hamilton, Alexander,Hamilton, Elizabeth,Bleecker, Catherine,Bleecker, John R.,Brinckerhoff, Elizabeth,Bleecker, Maria,Bleecker, Blandina
To:

Albany, March 10, 1804. Convey to the heirs of Rutger Bleecker the land in Cosby Manor which Hamilton had purchased in trust for them in 1797.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Louis Le Guen, 22 March 1804
From: Le Guen, Louis
To: Hamilton, Alexander

philadelphia 22. Mars 1804.
Cher General

Je Profitte de L’occasion du Cel. Williamson qui Part Pour Newyork Par Le Mail, Pour Vous Aviser, que depuis 10. Jours absent de chés Moy, je nai recu que hier, Votre Lettre du 6. Je ne Sai a quoy devoir Latribuer, Sy Ce nest à la Négligence du directeur de La Poste Office a trenton, il n’en Est pas moins Vraie, que Cella ma Empeschée de Proffiter des Avantages, que Votre attention Génereuse me metoit a mesme. Et comme Je Croie qu’il Est trop tard En Ce moment, et que Laffaire du Merchant Banke Est decidée, Je ne Crois pas nècessaire de me rendre a Newyork, a moins que, Sy apres La reception de Cette Lettre, Vous Croyés qu’il Est Encorre temps, et que Par deux Mots Vous Vouliée bien m’en donner avis, en Ce Cas, me rendrais imediatement á Newyork. Je dois Cependant Vous Observer, que Pour me procurer les fonds necessaires, Je Serrais obligée de Vendre des Shares que Jai dans Les Compagnies d’assurances des Etats unies, et du Newyork Laquelles En Ce Moment, Sonts tres Basse, et à 10. a 15. pour Cents audessous du Prix ou Jai Les ai Achettés il y a Plus dun Ân, Sans Avoir depuis Ce temps recu des premieres un Shiling de dèvident.
Je Vous ai accusée, dans Le temps, reception des 500 d’ollars du devident des Cents Shares dans la Compagnie d’Assurance de Newyork, et ne Puis Concevoir Comment ma Lettre ne Vous Est Pas Parvenue.
Je me rend aujoudhuy à Morrisville, ou Je attendrai de Vous nouvelles. En attendant Veuillés recevoir Le Nouvel Assurance du respectueux Attachement Avec Le quel J’ay L’honneur D’Estre
Votre Affectionnée Et Devouée Serviteur

L. Le Guen


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Archibald Gracie, [23 March 1804]
From: Gracie, Archibald
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[New York, March 23, 1804]
Dear Sir

I enclose a newspaper in which you will find a Copy of the Bill before the Legislature for restraining unincorporated Institutions from Banking.
It has occured to me & several Gentlemen with whom I have conversed upon the subject of this bill that it goes much farther than probably the Committee intended it should, and if pass’d into a Law, will prevent Individuals or Partnerships receiving deposits of Goods or money, or discounting at legal Interest or Bank discount, business notes which may be offer’d to them, which will certainly be a restriction unknown in this or any other commercial Country. Will you have the goodness to peruse the bill and favor me with your opinion whether or not it can be so construed.
I am with much respect   Dear sir   Yours truly

Arch: Gracie
New york 23rd March 1804
General Hamilton


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Archibald Gracie, [23 March 1804]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Gracie, Archibald

[New York, March 23, 1804]
Dr. Sir

I have perused the Bill & am of opinion that the prohibition will extend only to Associations or Companies of which the primary and essential purpose or end is, to issue notes make discounts &c, in other words, to operate as a Bank, and not to Commercial companies which may incidentally transact such business. Yet there is some degree of Ambiguity on the subject and questions may arise. The Bill therefore may be considered in this view as dangerous to the Mercantile interest.
Dr Sir   Yrs. truly

A Hamilton


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, [25 March 1804]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Talleyrand-Périgord, Charles Maurice de

[New York, March 25, 1804]
Sir

Presuming on the acquaintance, from which I derived so much pleasure during your stay in this Country, I am going to take a very great liberty. It concerns a near relation of mine, Mr. Alexander Hamilton, now a prisoner of war on parol, at Paris.
His brother, from whom I have just received a letter informs me, that being upon a visit to the Continent as a Traveller, he was overtaken by the war between France & G Britain, and has been since that time in the situation which I have mentioned. He is a Scotch Gentleman of Education and literary acquirement, who having amassed a pretty handsome fortune in the East Indies, had returned to his own country to devote himself to the pursuits of knowlege; and was induced to pass over to the Continent to indulge his curiosity, with a particular eye to the very interesting monuments of the arts of which Paris is now the Depository.
I will ask nothing specific for him because I know not what could with propriety be done; contenting myself with merely saying, that if your interposition can procure for him any facility, indulgence, or favour, it will confer a personal obligation on one, who has the honor to remain with great respect and regard
Your very obedt servt

A Hamilton
New York March 25. 1804


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jacob Rutsen Van Rensselaer, [25 March 1804]
From: Van Rensselaer, Jacob Rutsen
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[March 25, 1804. The calendar description of this letter reads: “presenting a pair of horses.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from James Wilkinson, 26 March 1804
From: Wilkinson, James
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New Orleans [Territory of Orleans]March 26th. 1804
Mon cher General & ami

I have received your Testimonials in favor of Mr. Ellery & Mr. Alexander, which flatter my pride & gratify my affections, because they bring me Evidence of your remembrance, & inform me that you repose some confidence in the assurance, by which I am bound to receive your Commands, & to Honor your recommendation.
The merited repute of this Interesting portal, to worlds known & unexplored, is attracting to it men of all nations, ages, professions, Characters & Complexions, and women too; The Market (permit me the expression) will at first be overstocked in all things, but the increasing population & expanding improvements, of the boundless Regions which must pay tribute here, will soon supply every defect & give full exployment to all—in the mean time the young Gentlemen, whom you Honor with your good wishes, may find employ in studying the Language, manners, Characters, & Interests of the Country. I shall endeavour to secure to them the ablest patronage, before I embark for the atlantic, which I calculate for the 15th proximo.
This Letter will be handed to you by Mr. W. Burling, whose sensibilities proved too acute for the Health of poor Cushon. I hold Him to be a man of strong Intellect, good Manners, & decisive worth, and therefore I beg to name Him for your Civilities.
My best wishes & respectful attachment are for Mrs. Hamilton.
believe me ever your obliged & affectionate

Ja Wilkinson
General Hamilton

Mr. Burling will give you the details of this Country—which I dare not enter upon.
confidential
Mr. Burling is among the warmest of your admirers. I would give a Spanish Province for an Interview with you. My Topographical information of the So. West is now compleat. The infernal designs of France are obvious to me, & the destinies of Spain are in the Hands of the U.S. Name me if you please with grateful & affectionate respect to Mr. G. Morris.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Robert R. Livingston, [10 April 1804]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Livingston, Robert R.

[New York, April 10, 1804]
Dear Sir

You were probably acquainted in this Country with Colonel Toussard who will have the honor of delivering you this letter. He has filled several stations in our Military service at different periods and always with much credit to himself and advantage to the service. During our revolutionary war he lost an arm in an action in which he displayed much zeal and bravery, and to my knowlege was regarded by General Washington as a good officer and an estimable man. If after this it can be any title to him to say that he possesses in a high degree my esteem and friendship, it is a title which he may freely claim. Permit me to recommend him to your good offices.
Very respectfully & with great personal regard   I have the honor to be   Sir   Your obed ser

A Hamilton
New York April 10. 1804

Colonel Toussard is, as I understand, a citizen of the U States.
His Exy R R Livingston Esq


Title: Receipt from John Laurance, [16 April 1804]
From: Laurance, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[April 16, 1804]

Recd april 16 1804 from A Hamilton Esqr Eighty Eight Dollars and Eighty Eight Cents two third parts of Mr Bogerts Bill in the Chancery Cause for the Lands of Mark.

88

88 100 DS

John Laurance


Title: Associates of the Jersey Company to Alexander Hamilton and Josiah Ogden Hoffman, [20 April 1804]
From: Associates of the Jersey Company
To: Hamilton, Alexander,Hoffman, Josiah Ogden

[April 20, 1804. “Probably it will be wholly out of our power to induce Mr. Van Vorst, from whom we purchased, to accept to any other property instead of a mortgage of the premises to secure his annuity, and he will certainly not allow it to be extinguished by accepting any equivalent. We are therefore obliged to provide the best security to purchasers which the case will admit, and we are inclined to believe the deed and covenants we offer will be sufficient.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Jackson, 20 April 1804
From: Jackson, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia April 20th. 1804
My dear General,

Having been induced to undertake the publication of a daily gazette in this city, I have not hesitated to number you among its Patrons—and under this impression, I now presume to enclose to you a copy of the prospectus, and to request, as far as may consist with convenience, your aid in promoting the subscription in New-York.
The objects of the paper are generally detailed in the prospectus. To yourself I have no reserve in saying that it will be steadily directed to assist in restoring the tone of the Constitution, and the principles of General Washington’s policy; to detect and expose the errors and incapacity of a weak and unworthy administration, and to remove the vail of hypocrisy, which the present Chief Magistrate has placed between himself and the public observation.
The Register will receive the decided support of the constitutional interest in this State; but, as it will be conducted on an extensive plan, it will require the best assistance which our friends in the other States can furnish.
In literary contribution it would flatter me exceedingly to receive the occasional support of your opinions.
I am, most sincerely,   My dear General,   Your faithful affectionate Servant

W Jackson
General HamiltonNew York

P.S When the list of Subscribers is completed to the number within your convenience, you will greatly oblige me by enclosing to me a copy of it with the places of residence, retaining the original to guard against any accident in the transmission

W. J.


Title: Jacob Radcliff to Alexander Hamilton and Josiah Ogden Hoffman, 20 April 1804
From: Radcliff, Jacob,Hamilton, Alexander,Hoffman, Josiah Ogden
To:

[April 20, 1804. “As to any right of property claimed by the corporation of this City to the land under water we have ourselves no doubt that it is wholly unfounded, and if you should be of the same opinion we wish it to be expressed. This will in the first instance depend on the Charter of this City. With respect to the claim of jurisdiction by this State we at present wish your opinion only on the proposition that it extends to low water mark on the Jersey Shore. It is thus far claimed by this State but resisted by New Jersey, and we are informed that on the water an interfering Jurisdiction has in fact been exercised in the few cases that have occurred. The question on the hypothesis we make is whether the increase of territory by wharfing or any extension of the western Bank of the Hudson would not of course belong to the Jurisdiction of New Jersey, whatever may be the present claim of this State upon the water? If it would belong to New Jersey, within the Jurisdiction of which of the States would vessels lying at wharves constructed there be deemed to be?” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Philip Jeremiah Schuyler, 20 April 1804
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Schuyler, Philip Jeremiah

[New York] April 20, 1804.
My Dear Sir:

I did not write to you on the subject of the awards, because I was in correspondence with Mr. Jacob Van Rensselaer respecting the matter.
He has sent me the draughts of deeds which I shall in a few days inspect, and return with such suggestions as may be requisite.

The things most urgent are 1. The completion of the survey, which Mr. R. writes me is in train. 2. The appointment of a guardian for Mr. Kane’s daughter at Schenectady. On both objects, I have written particularly to Mr. J. Van Rensselaer.
I say nothing on politics, with the course of which I am too much disgusted to give myself any future concern about them.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Vincent Gray, [28 April 1804]
From: Gray, Vincent
To: Hamilton, Alexander

General Alexr. HamiltonNew York
[Havana, April 28, 1804]
Sir,

Baron Humboldt Supreme counseller of Mines in the service of His Prussian Majesty and Member of the Royal Academy of Science at Berlin, Travelling for the purpose of Advancing the progress of Natural History, being on his return from South America and New Spain, to the Dominions of his Prussian Majesty, by way of the United States, I take leave to recommend him to your particular friendship and protection while he remains in your city; from a belief that you will from his character and pursuits, be highly gratified by being personally acquainted with him.
I have the Honor to be,   Sir   Very respectfully   Your most ob. Servt.

Vincent Gray
Havana 28th. April 1804


Title: Jacob Radcliff to Alexander Hamilton and Josiah Ogden Hoffman, 1 May 1804
From: Radcliff, Jacob
To: Hamilton, Alexander,Hoffman, Josiah Ogden

New York, May 1st, 1804.
Gent’n,

It being deemed important to obtain an early opinion on some of the points submitted to you, the gent’n associated with me will thank you for an answer, at present to the questions stated on the enclosed paper. The other points concerning the claim of property or Jurisdiction of this state to the land under water require perhaps too much investigation to be immediately disposed of, and are therefore proposed to be deferred. At the same time if you have not definitively formed your opinions on the question of Jurisdiction as first stated, I wish you once more to think of it in that light. On the general question it may be useful to mention that I find by Smith’s History of New Jersey, page 156–7, that the Duke of York, of the 14th March, 1682, made a new grant to the twenty-four proprietors of east Jersey, which is there mentioned in a note to be “more full and express than any that went before.” The grant itself is not given but it is stated to be published in A. Learning, and J. Spicer’s grants, concesions &c. These books I have not seen and do not know at present where to find them.
I also observe by Smith’s History of New Jersey, page 211, &c., that in 1702 the proprietors of both East and West Jersey surrendered their pretensions to the Govt. of that Country to Queen Anne, and she thereupon appointed Lord Cornbury Gov’r and instituted one regular Provincial Govt. over the whole but the extent or boundaries of the province are not defined. About this period too the laws of New Jersey as published in their present code appear to have commenced.
I also take the liberty to refer you to Vatt. 6, 1 ch. 22s. 269, as to the general rule where Countries are divided by navigable rivers, and to Harg. law tracts 22, 36, as to the right of navigation which remains in the Public notwithstanding the grant of a river, &c., to a subject. If the position be correct that a right of passage to and from the adjoining territory remains in the public and cannot be granted by the Crown, will it not follow that every thing necessary to the full enjoyment of that right (as by wharfing, &c.,) equally remains? Is not this case the right of navigation in the public, the principal right to which all others must yield?
I have looked at the constitution of the United States and find nothing there that appears to me to deny the power of Congress to make Powles Hook a Port of Entry.
An additional question is stated within as to Dower respecting which I presume you will have no trouble. It is desired to be mentioned merely for the satisfaction of purchasers.


Title: Enclosure: Questions Submitted to Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Hoffman, [1 May 1804]
From: Radcliff, Jacob
To: Hamilton, Alexander,Hoffman, Josiah Ogden

Questions submitted to Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Hoffman, in the foregoing letter:
1. Have the Corporation of New York any title to the land under the water of Hudson River opposite to and adjoining Powles Hook?
2. Have not Congress the power to make Powles Hook a Port of Entry?
3. Are the covenants contained in the draft submitted and marked No. I proper on the part of the proprietors and valid in law?
4. Will not Deeds according to the draft No. 2 be also proper and valid?

5. Will not the execution of the plan proposed by the covenants and Deeds above mentioned afford an adequate security to purchasers?
6. The proprietors holding their estate in the premises in joint tenancy, can their wives have any though they do not execute the Deeds?


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Louis Le Guen, 2 May 1804
From: Le Guen, Louis
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Morrisville, Pennsylvania, May 2, 1804. On July 12, 1804, Le Guen wrote to Hamilton: “J’ai hier recu Votre Lettre du 6. mai … La quelle m’accuse reception de la Mienne du 2.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris, [7–11 May 1804]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Morris, Gouverneur

[New York, May 7–11, 1804. On May 7–11, 1804, H wrote to Elizabeth Hamilton: “… if Morris will come. Send him the enclosed note.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Victor Marie Du Pont de Nemours, 12 May 1804
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Du Pont de Nemours, Victor Marie

New York May 12. 1804
Dr. Sir

I now send you my bond with condition for the payment of One thousand & Twenty seven Dollars & seventy Eight Cents; which sum is thus composed—

 Ballance of principal and interest beyond my notes
Ds. 60.23

 Difference between simple & compound Interest
  967.55

Ds 1027.78

The statement delivered to you some time since will explain this result. The Bond bears interest only from the first of August next, because the calculation of interest has already been extended to that term.
The payment of principal is deferred to a remote period; but I trust it will be in my power to anticipate that period. The allowance of compound interest being as you know a matter intirely volu[n]tary and not usual, I have supposed that I might without impropriety consult my convenience as to the time of payment.
The multiplicity of my affairs will excuse my delay in completing this business.
With great regard   Your Obedient serv

A Hamilton

P. S. I sent you some days since a note requesting you to meet Mr. Bonaparte at my house on Sunday three oClock to dine. I hope to have the pleasure of seeing you.

V D P. Esq


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Samuel Jones, 21 May 1804
From: Jones, Samuel
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[New York] May 21, 1804. Asks Hamilton to answer questions concerning David Lydig’s “rights to the Bronx River, and how far those rights are affected by the Lease to Doctor J. Brown.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Abraham Du Buc de Marentille, 23 May 1804
From: Du Buc de Marentille, Abraham
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Elizabeth town [New Jersey] Ce. 23. mai. 1804.
Mousieur,

Si, comme je l’espère, vous avez trouvé mon manuscrit, Je vous Serai obligé de vouloir bien le remettre à la personne qui vous délivrera cette lettre Sous mon couvert.
J’ai l’honneur d’être avec les Sentimens les plus distingués, Monsieur, Votre très humble et très obeissant serviteur

Du Buc de Marentille


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Theodore Sedgwick, [24 May 1804]
From: Sedgwick, Theodore
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Stockbridge, Massachusetts, May 24, 1804. On July 10, 1804, Hamilton wrote to Sedgwick: “I have received two letters from you … that of the latest date being the 24 of May.” Letter not found.]


Title: [Draft of “An Act to incorporate ‘the Associates of the Jersey Company’”], [May–June 1804]
From:
To:

[May–June, 1804]


Title: Enclosure: Charles D. Cooper to Philip Schuyler, [23 April 1804]
From: Cooper, Charles D.
To: Schuyler, Philip

[Albany, April 23, 1804]
Sir,

The malignant attack which my character has sustained in an anonymous hand-bill, to which your letter of the 21st inst. directed to the chairman of the Federal electioneering committee of this city is annexed; and in which you contradict certain facts contained in a letter, said to have been written by me to Andrew Brown, Esq. of Bern, will be my apology for repelling the unfounded aspersions which have been thus dishonorably obtruded on the public. My letter to Mr. Brown was committed to the care of Johan J. Deitz, Esq. of Bern; but to this gentleman, I hope, cannot be imputed the embezzling and breaking open of a letter, a crime which in England has met with the most ignominious punishment.
Admitting the letter published to be an exact transcript of the one intended for Mr. Brown, and which, it seems, instead of being delivered according to promise, was Embezzled and Broken Open; I aver, that the assertions therein contained are substantially true, and that I can prove them by the most unquestionable testimony. I assert that Gen. Hamilton and Judge Kent have declared, in substance, that they looked upon Mr. Burr to be a dangerous man, and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of government. If, Sir, you attended a meeting of federalists, at the city tavern, where Gen. Hamilton made a speech on the pending election, I might appeal to you for the truth of so much of this assertion as relates to him. I have, however, other evidence to substantiate the fact. With respect to Judge Kent’s declaration, I have only to refer to Theodorus V. W. Graham, Esq. and Mr. James Kane, of this city, whose veracity, I trust, will not be impeached; but should the fact have escaped their recollection, I am not in want of other evidence, equally respectable, to support it. Mr. Van Rensselaer, a few days before he left town for New-York, in a conversation with me, declared in substance what I communicated in the letter to Mr. Brown, as coming from him; and I am perfectly willing to repose myself on his well-known candour for the truth of this declaration.
I asserted, in the letter which has been so disgracefully Embezzled, and the Breaking Open of which must be ranked with the lowest species of villainy, that many of the reflecting federalists would support Judge Lewis. Will this be considered a rash assertion, when it is known, that two federal gentlemen, high in office in this city, have declared they would vote for him? Judge Pendleton, of New-York, made the same declaration in this city, under the impression, however, that no federal candidate was to be offered. Oliver Phelps, when in this city, on his way to Canandaigua, stated, that Gen. Hamilton, and about one hundred federalists in New-York, would not vote for Mr. Burr.
It is true, that Judge Tayler intimated to me, the conversation Mr. Van Rensselaer had with him, to which you allude, but it was subsequent to my having written and dispatched the letter for Mr. Brown.
I beg leave to remark, sir, that the anxiety you discovered, when his Honor the Chancellor was about to be nominated, induced me to believe, that you entertained a bad opinion of Mr. Burr, especially when taken in connection with General Hamilton’s harangue at the city tavern; and although I have never suggested that you would act on the one side or the other in this election—yet, presuming on the correctness of your mind, and the reputation you sustain of an upright and exemplary character, I could not suppose you would support a man whom I had reason to believe, you held in the lowest estimation.
It is sufficient for me, on this occasion, to substantiate what I have asserted. I have made it an invariable rule of my life, to be circumspect in relating what I may have heard from others; and in this affair, I feel happy to think, that I have been unusually cautious—for really sir, I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.
I cannot conclude, without paying some attention to your friend, Dr. Stringer; I have to regret that this gentleman, so renowned for the Christian virtues, should have consented to dishonour your name, by connecting your letter with an anonymous production, replete with the vilest falsehood and the foulest calumny.
I am, Sir, with due respect,   Your humble servant,

CHARLES D. COOPER.
April 23, 1804.


Title: William P. Van Ness’s Narrative of the Events of June 18–21, 1804
From: Van Ness, William P.
To:

Genl Hamilton read the Note of Mr Burr and the printed letter of Mr Cooper to which it refers, and remarked that they required some consideration, and that in the course of the day he would send a answer to my office. At ½ past 1 O clock Genl Hamilton called at my house and said that a variety of engagements would demand his attention during the whole of that day and the next—but that on wednesday the 20th Inst: he would furnish me with such answer to Col: Burr’s letter as he should deem most suitable and compatible with his feelings.
In the evening of wednesday the 20th while I was from home, the following letter addressed to Col: Burr was left at my house under cover to me. On the morning of Thursday the 21st I delivered to Col: Burr the above letter.…


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Aaron Burr, 20 June 1804
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Burr, Aaron

New York June 20. 1804
Sir

I have maturely reflected on the subject of your letter of the 18th instant; and the more I have reflected the more I have become convinced, that I could not, without manifest impropriety, make the avowal or disavowal which you seem to think necessary.
The clause pointed out by Mr. Van Ness is in these terms “I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion, which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.” To endeavour to discover the meaning of this declaration, I was obliged to seek in the antecedent part of the letter, for the opinion to which it referred, as having been already disclosed. I found it in these words “General Hamilton and Judge Kent have declared, in substance, that they looked upon Mr. Burr to be a dangerous man, and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of Government”. The language of Doctor Cooper plainly implies, that he considered this opinion of you, which he attributes to me, as a despicable one; but he affirms that I have expressed some other still more despicable; without however mentioning to whom, when, or where. ’Tis evident, that the phrase “still more dispicable” admits of infinite shades, from very light to very dark. How am I to judge of the degree intended? Or how shall I annex any precise idea to language so indefinite?
Between Gentlemen, despicable and more despicable are not worth the pains of a distinction. When therefore you do not interrogate me, as to the opinion which is specifically ascribed to me, I must conclude, that you view it as within the limits, to which the animadversions of political opponents, upon each other, may justifiably extend; and consequently as not warranting the idea of it, which Doctor Cooper appears to entertain. If so, what precise inference could you draw as a guide for your future conduct, were I to acknowlege, that I had expressed an opinion of you, still more despicable, than the one which is particularised? How could you be sure, that even this opinion had exceeded the bounds which you would yourself deem admissible between political opponents?
But I forbear further comment on the embarrassment to which the requisition you have made naturally leads. The occasion forbids a more ample illustration, though nothing would be more easy than to pursue it.
Repeating, that I cannot reconcile it with propriety to make the acknowlegement, or denial, you desire—I will add, that I deem it inadmissible, on principle, to consent to be interrogated as to the justness of the inferences, which may be drawn by others, from whatever I may have said of a political opponent in the course of a fifteen years competition. If there were no other objection to it, this is sufficient, that it would tend to expose my sincerity and delicacy to injurious imputations from every person, who may at any time have conceived the import of my expressions differently from what I may then have intended, or may afterwards recollect.
I stand ready to avow or disavow promptly and explicitly any precise or definite opinion, which I may be charged with having declared of any Gentleman. More than this cannot fitly be expected from me; and especially it cannot reasonably be expected, that I shall enter into an explanation upon a basis so vague as that which you have adopted. I trust, on more reflection, you will see the matter in the same light with me. If not, I can only regret the circumstance, and must abide the consequences.
The publication of Doctor Cooper was never seen by me ’till after the receipt of your letter.
I have the honor to be   Sir   Your obed. servt

A Hamilton
Aaron Burr Esqr


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Aaron Burr, 21 June 1804
From: Burr, Aaron
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Nyork 21 June 1804
Sir

Your letter of the 20th. inst. has been this day received. Having Considered it attentively I regret to find in it nothing of that sincerity and delicacy which you profess to Value.

Political opposition can never absolve Gentlemen from the necessity of a rigid adherence to the laws of honor and the rules of decorum: I neither claim such priviledge nor indulge it in others.
The Common sense of Mankind affixes to the epithet adopted by Dr Cooper the idea of dishonor: it has been publicly applied to me under the Sanction of your name. The question is not whether he has understood the meaning of the word or has used it according to Syntax and with grammatical accuracy, but whether you have authorised this application either directly or by uttering expressions or opinions derogatory to my honor. The time “when” is in your own knowledge, but no way material to me, as the calumny has now first been disclosed so as to become the Subject of my Notice, and as the effect is present and palpable.
Your letter has furnished me with new reasons for requiring a definite reply.
I have the honor to be   sir   your obt st

A. Burr
Genl Hamilton


Title: William P. Van Ness’s Narrative of the Events of June 22, 1804
From: Van Ness, William P.
To:

General Hamilton perused it, & said it was such a letter as he had hoped not to have received—that it contained several offensive expressions & seemed to close the door to all further reply—that he had hoped the answer he had returned to Col Burr’s first letter would have given a different direction to the controversy—that he thought Mr Burr would have perceived that there was a difficulty in his making a more specific reply, & would have desired him to state what had fallen from him that might have given rise to the inference of Doctor Cooper. He would have done this frankly—& he believed it would not have been found to exceed the limits justifiable among political opponents. If Mr Burr should upon the suggestion of these ideas be disposed to give a different complexion to the discussion, he was willing to consider the last letter not delivered; but if that communication was not withdrawn he could make no reply and Mr Burr must pursue such course as he should deem most proper.
At the request of General Hamilton, I replied that I would detail these ideas to Col Burr; but added that if in his first letter he had introduced the idea (if it was a correct one) that he could recollect the use of no terms that would justify the construction made by Dr Cooper it would in my opinion have opened a door for accomodation. General Hamilton then repeated the same objections to this measure which were stated in substance in his first letter to Col Burr.
When I was about leaving him he observed that if I preferred it, he would commit his refusal to writing. I replied that if he had resolved not to answer Col. Burr’s letter, that I could report that to him verbally, without giving him the trouble to writing it—when he again repeated his determination not to answer—and that Col: Burr must pursue such course as he should deem most proper.
In the afternoon of this day I reported to Col: Burr at his house out of town the above answer and determination of General Hamilton.…


Title: Nathaniel Pendleton’s Narrative of the Events of June 22, 1804
From: Pendleton, Nathaniel
To:

On Saturday the 22d of June, General Hamilton, for the first time, called on Mr. P. and communicated to him the preceeding correspondence. He informed him that in a conversation with Mr. V. N. at the time of receiving the last letter, he told Mr. V. N. that he considered that letter as rude and offensive, and that it was not possible for him to give it any other answer than that Mr. Burr must take such steps as he might think proper. He said farther, that Mr. V. N. requested him to take time to deliberate, and then return an answer, when he might possibly entertain a different opinion, and that he would call on him to receive it. That his reply to Mr. V. N. was, that he did not perceive it possible for him to give any other answer than that he had mentioned, unless Mr. Burr would take back his last letter and write one which would admit of a different reply. He then gave Mr. P. the letter hereafter mentioned of the 22d of June, to be delivered to Mr. V. N. when he should call on Mr. P. for an answer, and went to his country house.
The next day General Hamilton received, while there, the following letter.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Aaron Burr, 22 June 1804
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Burr, Aaron

New York June 22d. 1804
Sir

Your first letter, in a style too peremptory, made a demand, in my opinion, unprecedented and unwarrantable. My answer, pointing out the embarrassment, gave you an opportunity to take a less exceptionable course. You have not chosen to do it, but by your last letter, received this day, containing expressions indecorous and improper, you have increased the difficulties to explanation, intrinsically incident to the nature of your application.
If by a “definite reply” you mean the direct avowal or disavowal required in your first letter, I have no other answer to give than that which has already been given. If you mean any thing different admitting of greater latitude, it is requisite you should explain.
I have the honor to be   Sir   Your obed servt.

A Hamilton
Aaron Burr Esqr


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Aaron Burr, 22 June 1804
From: Burr, Aaron
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Nyork June 22d. 1804
Sir

Mr. V Ness has this evening reported to me Verbally that you refuse to answer my last letter, that you consider the course I have taken as intemperate and unnecessary and some other conversation which it is improper that I should notice.
My request to you was in the first instance proposed in a form the most simple in order that you might give to the affair that course to which you might be induced by your temper and your knowledge of facts. I relied with unsuspecting faith that from the frankness of a Soldier and the Candor of a gentleman I might expect an ingenuous declaration; that if, as I had reason to believe, you had used expressions derogatory to my honor, you would have had the Spirit to Maintain or the Magnanimity to retract them, and, that if from your language injurious inferences had been improperly drawn, Sincerity and delicacy would have pointed out to you the propriety of correcting errors which might thus have been widely diffused.
With these impressions, I was greatly disappointed in receiving from you a letter which I could only consider as evasive and which in manner, is not altogether decorus. In one expectation however, I was not wholly deceived, for at the close of your letter I find an intimation, that if I should dislike your refusal to acknowledge or deny the charge, you were ready to meet the consequences. This I deemed a sort of defiance, and I should have been justified if I had chosen to make it the basis of an immediate message: Yet, as you had also said something (though in my opinion unfounded) of the indefiniteness of my request; as I believed that your communication was the offspring, rather of false pride than of reflection, and, as I felt the utmost reluctance to proceed to extremities while any other hope remained, my request was repeated in terms more definite. To this you refuse all reply, reposing, as I am bound to presume on the tender of an alternative insinuated in your letter.
Thus, Sir, you have invited the course I am about to pursue, and now by your silence impose it upon me. If therefore your determinations are final, of which I am not permitted to doubt, Mr. Van Ness is authorised to communicate my further expectations either to yourself or to such friend as you may be pleased to indicate.
I have the honor to be   Your Ob st

A. Burr


Title: Aaron Burr’s Instructions to William P. Van Ness, [22–23 June 1804]
From: Burr, Aaron
To: Van Ness, William P.

[New York, June 22–23, 1804]

⟨–⟩ of withdrawing the Letter.
Impossible unless in lieu of it I should send a Challenge
vid. the Hypothesis
  the defiance
a. b. so uncommunicative that p. s. did not till now know his impressions of a H. letter, except by Conjecture.  No 7
a. b. far from conceiving that rivalship authorises a latitude not otherwise justifiable, always feels greater delicacy in such cases & would think it meaness to speak of a rival but in terms of respect—to do justice to his merits—to be silent of his foibles. Such has invariably been his conduct toward Jay, adams, Hamn. the only three who can be supposed to have stood in that relation to him.
That he has too much reason to believe that in regard of Mr H. there has been no reciprocity—for several years his name has been lent to the support of base Slanders—He has never had the generosity the magnanimity or the Candor to contradict or disavow. B. forbears to particularize as it could only tend to produce new irritations; but having made great sacrifices for the Sake of harmony—having exercised forbearance till it approached to humiliation, he has seen no effect produced by such Conduct, but a repetition of injury & is obliged to conclude that there is on the part of Mr H. a setled & implacable malevolence, that he will never cease in his Conduct toward Mr B. to violate those courtesies of life & that hence he has no alternative but to announce these things to the world which consistently with Mr Bs ideas of propriety can be done in no way but that which he has adopted. He is incapable of revenge, still less is he capable of imitating the Conduct of Mr H. by committing secret depredations on his fame & character—but these things must have an end.


Title: William P. Van Ness’s Narrative of the Events of June 23, 1804
From: Van Ness, William P.
To:

When I returned with this letter to the City which was about 2 o clock in the afternoon of the same day, I sent a Note to Genl Hamilton’s Office and also to his house desiring to know when it would be convenient for him to receive a communication. The Servant as he informed me received for answer at both places that Genl Hamilton had left the City and was gone to his Country residence. I then wrote a Note to Genl Hamilton of which No 5 is a Copy & sent it out to him in the Country.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William P. Van Ness, 23 June 1804
From: Van Ness, William P.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[New York] June 23, 1804
Sir

In the afternoon of yesterday I reported to Col. Burr the result of my last interveiw with you, and appointed the evening to receive his further instructions. Some private engagements however prevented me from calling on him ’till this morning. On my return to the City I found upon enquiry both at your office and house, that you had returned to your residence in the Country. Least an interveiw there might be less agreeable to you than elsewhere, I have taken the liberty of addressing you this Note, to enquire when and where it will be most convenient to you to receive a communication.
Your most & very hum Sert

W: P: Van Ness
Genl Hamilton


Title: Nathaniel Pendleton’s Narrative of the Events of June 23, 1804
From: Pendleton, Nathaniel
To:

Mr. P—— understood from General Hamilton that he immediately answered, that if the communication was pressing he would receive it at his Country House that day, if not, he would be at his house in town the next morning at nine o’clock. But he did not give Mr. P. any copy of this note.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William P. Van Ness, 23 June 1804
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Van Ness, William P.

Grange [New York] June 23. 1804
Sir

I was in Town to day till half past one. I thank you for the delicacy which dictated your note to me. If it is indispensable the communication should be made before Monday Morning, I must receive it here. But I should think this cannot be important. On monday by Nine I shall be in Town at my house in Cæder Street No 52, where I should be glad to see you. An additional reason for preferring that is, that I am unwilling to occasion to you trouble.
With esteem I am Sir   Your Obed ser

A H
Wm. P. Van Ness Esq


Title: Nathaniel Pendleton’s Narrative of the Events of June 23–25, 1804
From: Pendleton, Nathaniel
To:

This letter, although dated on the 23d June, remained in Mr. P.’s possession until the 25th, within which period he had several conversations with Mr. V. N. In these conversations Mr. P. endeavored to illustrate and enforce the propriety of the ground which General Hamilton had taken. Mr. P. mentioned to Mr. V. N. as the result, that if Col. Burr would write a letter, requesting to know in substance whether in the conversation to which Dr. Cooper alluded, any particular instance of dishonorable conduct was imputed to Col. Burr, or whether there was any impeachment of his private character, G. Hamilton would declare to the best of his recollection what passed in that conversation; and Mr. P. read to Mr. V. N. a paper containing the substance of what Gen. H. would say on that subject, which is as follows.…


Title: Nathaniel Pendleton’s First Account of Alexander Hamilton’s Conversation at John Tayler’s House, [25 June 1804]
From: Pendleton, Nathaniel
To:

[New York, June 25, 1804]

General Hamilton says he cannot imagine to what Doctr. Cooper may have alluded unless it were to a conversation at Mr. Taylors in Albany last winter, (at which Mr. Taylor he & General H—— were present). Genl H—— cannot recollect distinctly the particulars of that conversation so as to undertake to repeat them, without runing the risk of varying or omitting what might be deemed important circumstances. The expressions are intirely forgotten, and the Specific ideas imperfectly remembered; but to the best of his recollection it consisted of comments on the political principles and views of Col. Burr, and the results that might be expected from them in the event of his Election as Governor, without referrence to any particular instance of past conduct, or to private character.


Title: William P. Van Ness’s Narrative of the Events of June 25, 1804
From: Van Ness, William P.
To:

At nine O clock on Monday the 25th Inst: I called on Genl Hamilton at his house in Cedar Street to present the letter No 4 already alluded to, and with instructions for a verbal communication of which the following Notes No 7 handed me by Mr Burr were to be the basis. The substance of which though in terms as much softened as my instructions would permit, was accordingly communicated to Genl Hamilton.
Before I delivered the written communication with which I was charged Genl Hamilton said that he had prepared a written reply to Col: Burr’s letter of the 21st which he had left with Mr xxx and wished me to receive. I answered that the communication I had to make to him was predicated upon the idea that he would make no reply to Mr Burrs letter of the 21st Inst: and that I had so understood him in our conversation of the 22d. Genl H said that he believed before I left him, he had offered to give a written reply. I observed that when he answered verbally he had offered to put that refusal in writing but that if he had now prepared a written reply I would receive it with pleasure. I accordingly called on Mr xxx on the same day Monday June 25 between 1 & 2 O clock P M—and stated to him the result of my recent interview with Genl Hamilton, and the reference he had made to him.
I then received from Mr xxx the letter No 8.…
This letter was unsealed, but I did not read it in his presence. After some conversation relative to what Genl Hamilton would say on the subject of the present controversy, during which Mr xxx read from a paper his ideas on the subject, he left me for the purpose of seeing and consulting Mr Hamilton taking the paper with him.


Title: Nathaniel Pendleton’s Narrative of the Events of June 25, 1804
From: Pendleton, Nathaniel
To:

After the delivery of the Letter of the 22d, as above mentioned: in another interview with Mr. V. N. he desired Mr. P. to give him in writing the substance of what he had proposed on the part of General Hamilton, which Mr. P. did in the words following.


Title: Nathaniel Pendleton’s Second Account of Alexander Hamilton’s Conversation at John Tayler’s House, [25 June 1804]
From: Pendleton, Nathaniel
To:

[New York, June 25, 1804]

In answer to a letter properly adapted to obtain from General Hamilton a declaration whether he had charged Colo Burr with any particular instance of dishonorable conduct, or had impeached his private character, either in the conversation alluded to by Doctr. Cooper, or any other particular instance to be specified.
He would be able to answer consistently with his Honor, and the truth, in substance That the conversation to which Doctr Cooper alluded turned wholly on political topics and did not attribute to Colo Burr, any instance of dishonorable conduct, nor relate to his private character; and in relation to any other language or conversation of General H, which Col B. will specify, a prompt and frank avowal or denial will be given.


Title: William P. Van Ness’s Narrative of Later Events of June 25, 1804
From: Van Ness, William P.
To:

In about an hour he called at my house. I informed him, that I had shewn to Col Burr the letter he had given me from Genl Hamilton that in his opinion it amounted to nothing more than the verbal reply I had already reported—that it left the business precisely w[h]ere it then was—that Mr Burr had very explicitly stated the injuries he had received, and the reparation he demanded, and that he did not think it proper to be asked now for further explanation. Toward the conclusion of our conversation I informed him that Col: Burr required a General disavowal of any intention on the part of Genl Hamilton in his various conversations to convey impressions derogatory to the honor of Mr Burr. Mr. Pxxx replied that he believed Genl Hamilton would have no objection to make such declaration and left me for the purpose of consulting him requesting me to call in the course of the afternoon for an answer. I called on him accordingly about 6. O clock. He then observed that Genl Hamilton declined making such a disavowal as I had stated in our last conversation, that he Mr xxx did not then perceive the whole force and extent of it—and presented me with the following paper No 9 which I transmitted in the evening to Mr. Burr.


Title: Disclaimer for Alexander Hamilton Prepared by William P. Van Ness, [25 June 1804]
From: Van Ness, William P.
To:

[New York, June 25, 1804]

Being apprised that expressions are ascribed to me impeaching the honor and affecting the private reputation of Col. Burr, and perceiving that reports to this effect have been widely disseminated, I feel it due to my own honor, as also to that of a gentleman thus traduced under the sanction of my name, to remove such injurious impressions.
I therefore frankly and explicitly disclaim and disavow, the use of any expressions tending to impeach the honor of Col. Burr. My own sincerity and candor require this declaration; and, while I regret that my expressions have been misrepresented or misconstrued, I can only account for the inferences which have been drawn, from them, by supposing that language I may have employed in the warmth of political discourse has been represented in a latitude entirely foreign from my sentiments or my wishes.


Title: Aaron Burr to William P. Van Ness, [26 June 1804]
From: Burr, Aaron
To: Van Ness, William P.

[New York, June 26, 1804]

The last propn. of gen H. is a worse libel than even the letter of Dr C & throughout manifests a disposition to evade.
A “letter properly adapted”—Who is to judge of this—Mr B. will judge for himself & thinks his two letters very properly adapted & having expressed himself definitively on that point he is surprized to find it again brought in question.
“any particular instance of dishonorable Conduct.” This seems intended to leave ample room for the inference that there have been general opinions and general charges.
“in relation to any other language &c” which “Col. B shall specify.” Col. B. is ignorant of the particular Conversations & expressions which Genl. H. may have had or used & he will only inquire from Genl. H. himself. That he has said things derogatory to Mr B’s honor is to be presumed from the letter of Dr C. until it shall be contradicted by Genl. H.
If Mr B. should specify & Genl. H. should deny as to one particular Conversation—Dr C & the world may say “true, but the day anterior or the day subsequent such things were said by Genl. H.” and this would indeed be a fair inference from such partial negation. These things must be perfectly obvious to the perspicatious mind of Genl H. Propositions therefore fraught with such ambiguity and liable to such injurious Construction must be considered as insidious and insulting and they call imperiously for the last appeal.
I was writing the preceeding by way of notes for you when your boy arrived. They are sent to you unfinished. It seems that our sentiments are pretty much in harmony. Interweave into your’s what you think proper of the preceeding. I will be at your house before noon & will dine with you.

[June] 26


Title: William P. Van Ness to Nathaniel Pendleton, [26 June 1804]
From: Van Ness, William P.
To: Pendleton, Nathaniel

[New York, June 26, 1804]
Sir

The letter which you yesterday delivered me and your subsequent communications, in Col Burrs opinion evince no disposition on the part of Genl Hamilton to come to a satisfactory accomodation. The injury complained of and the reparation expected are so definitely expressed in Col: Burr’s letter of the 21st Instant, that there is not perceived a necessity for further explanation on his part. The difficulty that would result from confining the enquiry to any particular times and occasions must be manifest. The denial of a specified conversation only, would leave strong implications that on other occasions improper language had been used. When and where injurious opinions and expressions have been uttered by Genl Hamilton must be best known to him and of him only will Col: Burr enquire. No denial or declaration will be satisfactory unless it be general, so as wholly to exclude the idea that rumors derogatory to Col: Burr’s honor have originated with Genl Hamilton as have been fairly inferred from any thing he has said. A definite reply to a requisition of this nature was demanded by Col: Burrs letter of the 21 Inst. This being refused invites the alternative alluded to in Genl Hamilton’s letter of the 20th. It was required by the position in which the controversy was placed by Genl Hamilton on friday last and I was immediately furnished with a communication demanding a personal interview. The necessity of this measure has not in the opinion of Col. Burr been diminished by the General’s last letter or any communication which has since been received.
I am consequently again instructed to deliver you a message as soon as it may be convenient for you to receive it. I beg therefore you will be so good as to inform me at what hour I can have the pleasure of seeing you.
Your Most obt & very hm Sert

W: P: Van N⟨ess⟩
June 26, 1804
Nathaniel Pendleton Esqr


Title: Nathaniel Pendleton to William P. Van Ness, 26 June 1804
From: Pendleton, Nathaniel
To: Van Ness, William P.

[New York] 26 june 1804.
Sir.

I have communicated to General Hamilton the letter you did me the honor to write me of this date. The expectations now disclosed as on the part of Colo. Burr, appear to him to have greatly changed and extended the original ground of inquiry, and instead of presenting a particular and definite case for explanation, seem to aim at nothing less than an inquisition into his most confidential, as well as other conversations, through the whole period of his acquaintance with Col Burr. While he was prepared to meet the particular case fully and fairly he thinks it inadmissible that he should be expected to answer at large as to any thing that he may possibly have said in relation to the character of Colo. Burr, at any time or upon any occasion. Though he is not conscious that any charges that are in circulation to the prejudice of Col. Burr have Originated with him, except one which may have been so considered, and which has been long since explained between Col. Burr and himself; yet he cannot consent to be questioned generally as to any rumours which may be afloat derogatory to the character of Colo. Burr without specification of the particular rumours, many of them probably unknown to him. He does not however mean to authorise any conclusion as to the real nature of his Conduct in relation to Col. Burr, by his declining so loose and vague a basis of explanation; and he disavows an unwillingness to come to a satisfactory, provided it be an honorable accommodation. His objection is to the very indefinite ground which Col. Burr has assumed, in which he is sorry to be able to discover nothing short of predetermined hos[t]ility.
Presuming therefore that it will be adhered to he has instructed me to receive the message which you have it [in] charge to deliver. For this purpose I shall be at home and at your command tomorrow morning from eight to ten oClock.
I have the honor [to] be respectfully   Your Obedient Servt.

Nathl: Pendleton
William P. Van Ness Esqr.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Peter Gerard Stuyvesant, [26 June 1804]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Stuyvesant, Peter Gerard

[New York, June 26, 1804]
Dr Sir

I should like to see you on the subject of a poor fellow Peter Dunken who says, you have been employed for him & appears unfortunate which is his title to my attention.
Yrs. truly

A Hamilton
June 26. 1804


Title: William P. Van Ness to Nathaniel Pendleton, [27 June 1804]
From: Van Ness, William P.
To:

[New York, June 27, 1804]
Sir

The letter which I had the honor to receive from you under date of yesterday, states among other things, that in Genl Hamilton’s opinion, Col: Burr has taken a very indefinite ground, in which he evinces nothing short of predetermined hostility; and that Genl Hamilton thinks it inadmissable that the enquiry should extend to his confidential as well as other conversations. To this Col. Burr can only reply that secret whispers traducing his fame and empeaching his honor, are at least equally injurious, with slanders publickly uttered; That Genl H. had at no time and in no place a right to use any such injurious expressions; and that the partial negative he is desposed to give with the reservations he wishes to make, are proofs that he has done the injury specified.
Col: Burr’s request was in the first instance proposed in a form the most simple, in order that Genl Hamilton might give to the affair that course to which he might be induced by his temper and his knowledge of facts. Col. B. trusted with confidence that from the frankness of a soldier and the candor of a gentleman he might expect an ingenuous declaration; that if, as he had reason to believe Genl H. had used expressions derogatory to his honor, he would have had the magnanimity to retract them; and that if, from his language injurious inferences had been improperly drawn he would have perceived the propriety of correcting errors, which might thus have been widely diffused. With these impressions Col. Burr was greatly surprised at receiving a letter which he considered as evasive and which in manner he deemed not altogether decorous. In one expectation however, he was not wholly deceived, for the close of Genl Hamilton’s letter contained an intimation that if Col. Burr should dislike his refusal to acknowledge or deny, he was ready to meet the consequences. This Col. B. deemed a sort of defiance, and would have felt justified in making it the basis of an immediate message. But as the communication contained something concerning the indefiniteness of his request: As he believed it rather the offspring of false pride than of reflection, and as he felt the utmost reluctance to proceed to extremities, while any other hope remained, his request was repeated in terms more explicit. The replies and propositions on the part of Genl H. have in Col. B’s opinion been constantly in substance the same.
Col: Burr disavows all motives of predetermined hostility. A charge by which he thinks insult is added to injury, he feels as a gentleman should feel, when his honor is impeached or assailed, and without sensations of hostility or wishes of revenge, he is determined to vindicate that honor at such hazard as the nature of the case demands.
The length to which this correspondence has extended only tending to prove that the satisfactory redress, earnestly desired cannot be obtained, he deems it useless to offer any proposition except the simple Message which I shall now have the honor to deliver.
I have the honor to be with great respt.   Your Obt & very hum Servt

W: P. Van Ness
Wednesday morning June 27, 1804


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Baron von Humboldt, [27 June 1804]
From: Humboldt, Baron von
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, June 27, 1804]
Monsieur,

Il aurait été un moment bien interessant pour moi que celui de Vous être présenté personnellement, et de Vous offrir le temoignage respectueux de mon devouement. Une reunion de circonstances et l’obligation que j’ai de ne pas retarder la Publication de mes travaux litteraires me font partir pour Paris sans jouir du plaisir de Vous admirer de près et de voir le Cercle interessant dans lequel Vous vivez. Je me hate par consequent d’inclure la lettre que mon ami Mr. Gray avait bien voulu me communiquer et de Vous prier d’agreer les sentimens du plus profond respect avec lequel j’ai l’honneur d’etre.
Monsieur   Votre tres humble et tres obeissant serviteur

Le Bn de Humboldt
à Philadelphiece 27 Juin1804


Title: William P. Van Ness’s Narrative of the Events of June, 27–28, 1804
From: Van Ness, William P.
To:

I handed this to him at 12 Oclock on Wednesday the 27th Instant. After he had perused it agreeable to my instructions I delivered the Message which it is unnecessary to repeat. The request it contained, was acceeded to—after which Mr xxx remarked that a Court was then sitting in which Genl Hamilton had much business to transact, and had also some private arrangements to make which would render some delay unavoidable. I acceeded to his wish—and Mr xxx said he would call on me again in the course of the day or the following morning to confer farther relative to time & place.
Thursday June 28th 10 clock P. M. Mr. xxx called on me with a paper he said contained some remarks on the letter I had yesterday delivered him. I replied that if the paper he offered contained a definite and specific proposition for an accomodation, I would with pleasure receive it and submit it to the consideration of my Principal. If not that I must decline taking it, Mr Burr viewed the correspondence completely terminated by the acceptance of the invitation contained in the Message I had yesterday delivered. Mr xxx replied that it did not contain any proposition of the kind I alluded to, but was a reply to my last letter. I of course declined receiving it. Mr xxx then took leave and said that he would call again in a day or two to arrange time and place.


Title: Nathaniel Pendleton’s Narrative of the Events of June 27–28, 1804
From: Pendleton, Nathaniel
To:

With this letter a message was received, such as was to be expected, containing an invitation, which was accepted, and Mr. P. informed Mr. V. N. he should hear from him the next day as to further particulars.
This letter was delivered to Gen. H. on the same evening, and a very short conversation ensued between him and Mr. P. who was to call on him early the next morning for a further conference. When he did so, Gen. Hamilton said he had not understood whether the message and answer was definitely concluded, or whether another meeting was to take place for that purpose between Mr. P. and Mr. V. N. Under the latter impression, and as the last letter contained matter that naturally led to animadversion, he gave Mr. P. a paper of remarks in his own hand writing, to be communicated to Mr. V. N. if the state of the affair rendered it proper.
In the farther interview with Mr. V. N. that day, after explaining the causes which had induced Gen. Hamilton to suppose that the state of the affair did not render it improper, he offered this paper to Mr. V. N.—but declined receiving it, alledging, that he considered the correspondence as closed by the acceptance of the message that he had delivered.
Mr. P. informed Mr. V. N. of the inducements mentioned by General Hamilton in those remarks, for the postponing of the meeting until the close of the Circuit; and as this was uncertain Mr. P. was to let him know when it would be convenient.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John B. Church, 28 June–10 July 1804
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Church, John B.

[New York, June 28–July 10, 1804. Nathaniel Pendleton described the seventh item on a list of ten, which were given to him after Hamilton’s death, as a “Letter to John B Church inclosing an assignment of some debts.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Mitchell, 28 June–10 July 1804
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Mitchell, George

[New York, June 28–July 10, 1804. Nathaniel Pendleton described the ninth item on a list of ten, which were given to him after Hamilton’s death, as a “Letter to Geo: Mitchell inclosing a lottery ticket, as mentioned on the outside. Sealed.” Letter not found.]


Title: Remarks on the Letter of June 27, 1804, [28 June 1804]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, June 28, 1804]

Whether the observations in this letter are designed merely to justify the result, which is indicated in the close of the letter, or may be intended to give an opening for rendering any thing explicit which may have been deemed vague heretofore can only be judged of by the sequel. At any rate it appears to me necessary not to be misunderstood. Mr. Pendleton is therefore authorised to say that in the course of the present discussion, whether written or verbal, there has been no intention to evade defy or insult, but a sincere disposition to avoid extremities, if it could be done with propriety. With this view G H—— has been ready to enter into a frank and free explanation on any and every object of a specific nature; but not to answer a general and abstract enquiry, embracing a period too long for any accurate recollection, and exposing him to unpleasant criticisms from or unpleasant discussions with any and every person, who may have understood him in an unfavourable sense. This (admitting that he could answer in a manner the most satisfactory to Col Burr) he should deem inadmissible, in principle and precedent, and humiliating in practice. To this therefore he can never submit. Frequent allusion has been made to slanders said to be in circulation. Whether this be openly or in whispers they have a form and shape and might be specified.
If the alternative alluded to in the close of the letter is definitively tendered, it must be accepted, the time place and manner to be afterwards regulated. I should not think it right in the midst of a circuit Court to withdraw my services from those who may have confided important interests to me and expose them to the embarrassment of seeking other counsel who may not have time to be sufficiently instructed in their causes. I shall also want a little time to make some arrangements respecting my own affairs.


Title: Statement on Impending Duel with Aaron Burr, [28 June–10 July 1804]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, June 28–July 10, 1804]

On my expected interview with Col Burr, I think it proper to make some remarks explanatory of my conduct, motives and views.
I am certainly desirous of avoiding this interview, for the most cogent reasons.
1 My religious and moral principles are strongly opposed to the practice of Duelling, and it would even give me pain to be obliged to shed the blood of a fellow creature in a private combat forbidden by the laws.

2 My wife and Children are extremely dear to me, and my life is of the utmost importance to them, in various views.
3 I feel a sense of obligation towards my creditors; who in case of accident to me, by the forced sale of my property, may be in some degree sufferers. I did not think my self at liberty, as a man of probity, lightly to expose them to this hazard.
4 I am conscious of no ill-will to Col Burr, distinct from political opposition, which, as I trust, has proceeded from pure and upright motives.
Lastly, I shall hazard much, and can possibly gain nothing by the issue of the interview.
But it was, as I conceive, impossible for me to avoid it. There were intrinsick difficulties in the thing, and artificial embarrassments, from the manner of proceeding on the part of Col Burr.
Intrinsick—because it is not to be denied, that my animadversions on the political principles character and views of Col Burr have been extremely severe, and on different occasions, I, in common with many others, have made very unfavourable criticisms on particular instances of the private conduct of this Gentleman.
In proportion as these impressions were entertained with sincerity and uttered with motives and for purposes, which might appear to me commendable, would be the difficulty (until they could be removed by evidence of their being erroneous), of explanation or apology. The disavowal required of me by Col Burr, in a general and indefinite form, was out of my power, if it had really been proper for me to submit to be so questionned; but I was sincerely of opinion, that this could not be, and in this opinion, I was confirmed by that of a very moderate and judicious friend whom I consulted. Besides that Col Burr appeared to me to assume, in the first instance, a tone unnecessarily peremptory and menacing, and in the second, positively offensive. Yet I wished, as far as might be practicable, to leave a door open to accommodation. This, I think, will be inferred from the written communications made by me and by my direction, and would be confirmed by the conversations between Mr van Ness and myself, which arose out of the subject.
I am not sure, whether under all the circumstances I did not go further in the attempt to accommodate, than a pun[c]tilious delicacy will justify. If so, I hope the motives I have stated will excuse me.

It is not my design, by what I have said to affix any odium on the conduct of Col Burr, in this case. He doubtless has heared of animadversions of mine which bore very hard upon him; and it is probable that as usual they were accompanied with some falshoods. He may have supposed himself under a necessity of acting as he has done. I hope the grounds of his proceeding have been such as ought to satisfy his own conscience.
I trust, at the same time, that the world will do me the Justice to believe, that I have not censured him on light grounds, or from unworthy inducements. I certainly have had strong reasons for what I may have said, though it is possible that in some particulars, I may have been influenced by misconstruction or misinformation. It is also my ardent wish that I may have been more mistaken than I think I have been, and that he by his future conduct may shew himself worthy of all confidence and esteem, and prove an ornament and blessing to his Country.
As well because it is possible that I may have injured Col Burr, however convinced myself that my opinions and declarations have been well founded, as from my general principles and temper in relation to similar affairs—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—and thus giving a double opportunity to Col Burr to pause and to reflect.
It is not however my intention to enter into any explanations on the ground. Apology, from principle I hope, rather than Pride, is out of the question.
To those, who with me abhorring the practice of Duelling may think that I ought on no account to have added to the number of bad examples—I answer that my relative situation, as well in public as private aspects, enforcing all the considerations which constitute what men of the world denominate honor, impressed on me (as I thought) a peculiar necessity not to decline the call. The ability to be in future useful, whether in resisting mischief or effecting good, in those crises of our public affairs, which seem likely to happen, would probably be inseparable from a conformity with public prejudice in this particular.

AH


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to James A. Hamilton, [June 1804]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Hamilton, James A.

[New York, June, 1804]
My Dear James

I have prepared for you a Thesis on Discretion. You may need it. God bless you.
Your affectionate father.

A. H.


Title: Enclosure: [Thesis on Discretion], [June 1804]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Hamilton, James A.

The celebrated Dean Swift calls discretion an Aldermanly virtue. With all his great and estimable qualities he possessed very little of it himself; and thus was disposed to turn it into derision. But his own experience should have taught him, that if not a splendid it is at least a very useful virtue, and ought on that account to be cultivated and cherished.
Sayings of ⟨this⟩ kind by distinguished men are extremely dangerous. They ought not to be hazarded even in jest, from their tendency to mislead the young and inexperienced. A youthful mind, especially if generous and ardent, finding a character
the most useful
qualities a man can possess. It will dispose him to conduct himself with circumspection and enable him to avoid many errors. ⟨It⟩ will assist him in making the most ⟨of⟩ whatever talents and qualifications he may have, and often will cause him to pass for a great deal more than he is worth. A prudent silence will frequently be taken for wisdom, and a sentence or two cautiously thrown in will sometimes gain the palm of knowlege—while a man well informed but indiscreet and unreserved will not uncommonly talk himself out of all consideration and weight.
The want of discretion is apt to be considered as an indication of folly. The greatest abilities are sometimes thrown into the shade by this defect or are prevented from obtaining the success to which they are intitled. The person on whom it is chargeable ⟨is⟩ also apt to make and have numerous enemies and is occasionally involved by it, in the most ⟨– – difficu⟩lties and dangers.
⟨–⟩ with moderate talents have arrived
⟨Instead⟩ therefore of adopting the sentiment of the celebrated Wit to whom I have alluded—let us rather establish it as a general rule, that Discretion is the Mentor which ought to accompany every Young Telemachus in his journey through life; And taking care not to assume a character artificial disguised and covert, let us study ⟨in⟩ all our discourses and actions to be circumspect and discreet.