Pros And Cons Of Vice President Burr

A travesty occurred on this July 11, 1804. In response to Vice-President Burr’s challenge a duel took place on the grounds of Weekhawken, New Jersey, on the very spot where Mr. Hamilton’s eldest son Phillip had died. This day of reckoning has been long approaching. Each man has opposed the other during their political careers. It is supposed the duel was provoked by Burr after personal exploitation sparked by Hamilton, this along with the public humiliation of a lost election. Some dire insults can only be dispelled with an extreme display of bravery. Had Burr not defended his honor others may have considered him as a man, not possessing sufficient firmness to defend his own character, and consequently unworthy of their support. Vice-President Burr’s reasoning most certainly was centered on protecting both his political career and his goodness.

Hamilton’s purposes for fighting were more controversial of course.

A Christian man, he was opposed to dueling. However, he felt it his “religious duty” to oppose Burr’s political career, considering him “a dangerous man…who ought not be trusted with the reins of government.” Mr. Hamilton attempted to accommodate the mandates of honor and politics with those of morality and religion and the law. He had satisfied the code of uprightness by accepting Burr’s challenge, violating civil law only under duress. He had preserved his political veracity by refusing to express regret for earnest political opinions. Now he would maintain his ethical and devout religious principles by withholding his fire. Therefore, one could ascertain Mr. Hamilton’s motivations for dueling were similar to Aaron Burr’s, for both morality and politics. However, we should consider his religious obligations as the priority of his purpose. As can be seen, where the ego is involves, so therefore lies a person’s

intentions.