#duel

oh i know. so so so so much of hamilton's attacks against burr were pure projection. it's one of the things that i find most fascinating about his behavior toward burr: if we're to understand that hamilton himself experienced same-sex attraction, him using the language he did to destroy burr's reputation means something entirely different than if he were straight. (owning, here, that modern ideas and terms about sexual identity doesn't always work for historical figures). we know that hamilton had a lot of self-hate and insecurity, we know that he experienced the untimely, traumatic death of a man he loved, we know that he had at least one part of himself (his upbringing and background) that caused him some shame. all things considered, his style and method of attack against burr does just kind of make sense. in hindsight now, the attacks ARE funny. and the thing about them is that they were exactly how burr described, extremely subtle, extremely veiled, and meant nothing to anyone not in-the-know. they were impossible to answer (how do you prove you're NOT using your ~masculine charms~ to sway men to your side and ruin scores of women?) and impossible to continue to ignore (by 1804, it was well circulated that burr was a dishonest rake with no moral compass who'd do anything for power, and his career suffered because of that) hamilton began using references to ancient greeks and romans of...dubious reputation, let's say...in the early 1790's, along with double entendres and implications that lined up with a lot of what cheetham charged later on (~1802). cheetham, who was at one point a burrite, claimed he had insider knowledge, and left the fold after also claiming he'd seen burr engage in some less-than-savory behavior that just happened to line up with what hamilton had been saying. (there's an argument to be made that cheetham got his info from hamilton himself, but then again, cheetham later attacked hamilton, too, and even tried to goad hamilton and burr into a duel - so i definitely wouldn't consider them allies, exactly.) if you haven't yet, i highly recommend reading "the sexual politics of treason" by nancy isenberg, the only historian as far as i'm aware who treats this with any sort of academic seriousness and tries to take everything in its context without veering too much into the psychoanalytical. (lots of links, including to that essay, here) she cites many of hamilton's charges in that essay, and there are some links to quotes that might be of interest to you. she frames this through a gender-studies lens, and frames hamilton's charges as extremely well-aimed and efficient political attacks that both colored burr's reputation amongst their peers, and were vague enough to the general public (who may not have been as well-versed in the types of things hamilton was referencing) to give hamitlon plausible deniability should anyone accuse him of being too scurrilous or weird.

In honor of today’s anniversary of the Hamilton-Burr duel, let’s have a little fun. Have any burning questions about The American Icarus—my historical fiction series about Hamilton? Pop into my inbox with “TAI Q&A: [your question]” and I’ll oblige. Nothing’s off limits.