On July 11, 1804, Vice President Aaron Burr and former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton dueled in Weehawken, New Jersey. The duel was the result of many years of political conflict between the two, and after Hamilton attacked his reputation and character, Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel as a way to defend his honor. Burr left the duel unharmed, but Hamilton, after being shot in the stomach, died the morning after the duel. Aaron Burr is typically seen as a villain in history today, but many question whether or not Burr was justified in killing Hamilton. There were a number of political conflicts between Hamilton and Burr over the course of their feud that eventually led to the duel at Weehawken. There are also a number of other …show more content…
In “Statement on Impending Duel with Aaron Burr”, Hamilton wrote that his “religious and moral principles are strongly opposed to the practice of dueling, and it would even give [him] pain to be obliged to shed the blood of a fellow creature in a private combat forbidden by the laws”. In this quote, Hamilton makes it clear that he was opposed to dueling because of his moral and religious views as well as the fact that dueling was against the law. But many question why Hamilton agreed to the duel at all if he was so strongly opposed to the practice. The answer is even though Hamilton was against dueling, Hamilton felt that he needed to protect his honor and was also “fervently committed in opposing Burr’s political career” (Freeman, “Dueling as Politics”). Hamilton's commitment to opposing Burr’s career goes back to the beginning of the feud when Burr ran against Philip Schuyler. On the other hand, there is no evidence that Burr was opposed to dueling. Hamilton was aware that dueling was morally wrong, but participated to defend his honor. There is no evidence that Burr felt dueling was wrong. Not knowing Burr’s opinion on the morality of dueling makes it hard to justify his decision to duel