my beloved.
A. H.
The returns from his farm seem to have been trivial; a few baskets of strawberries, cabbages, and asparagus were sold in 1802, the returns from the same being £7.10.2. And the experience of the amateur farmer then seems to have differed but little from that of most of us to-day.
After the sad turn of events which followed the duel, we find the widow loath to leave the happy home, but struggling on to keep her little family together and clinging as long as possible, to the place so sanctified by tender memories. Brave to a degree and unusually masterful, she managed the estate and directed the workmen. Although the elder boys, Alexander, James, and John, were, respectively, eighteen, sixteen, and twelve years, they could be of little help to her, while all the others, except Angelica, were of tender age. Her devoted sister, Angelica Church, did her utmost to persuade her to give up the country place and come to New York, which she eventually did, but meanwhile she made a brave fight. In a letter written to her daughter in the early years of her bereavement, she said: "I rode up in the carriage that was formerly mine, and you know how very easy it was. The boat did not arrive until late in the evening. I am now in the full tide of occupation, four men to attend to, fine morning with the place looking lovely. A carriage dearest and yourself, with the house in order, would be delightful to have."
When staying later in Warren Street she received a letter from her sister, who wrote: "Your brother deems it the most prudent that you remain where you are, as it is utterly impossible for you to be at the Grange without horses, and their expense will pay your house rent. He thinks the Grange might be let. If you please early on Saturday morning -- say at seven o'clock -- I will be ready to attend you to the Grange."
It was soon after this that her necessities forced her to dispose of the home she and Hamilton had planned and built together, which was to be to their children what the Schuyler home had been to them.
Despite the generous efforts of Hamilton's friends, and even of General Schuyler himself, who died a few months after his son-in-law, no such comparative luxury was possible as that which had hitherto been enjoyed. When not visiting the Albany relations, Mrs. Hamilton made New York her home, where she brought up her children as best she could -- the two elder boys receiving help from friends and acquiring the father's profession.
Chapter XII
Hamilton and Burr
HAMILTON'S prejudice against duelling was sincere, and the result of his growing conviction, which he reluctantly disregarded under the pressure of the exigencies of the time and the feeling that his prestige, as the head of a great though demoralized party, would suffer by his refusal to meet his adversary. Nearly two years before he had told his son Philip to fire his first shot in the air when he was called upon to meet Eacker at Paulus Hook, and his several communications leave no doubt as to his extreme reluctance to run the risk of taking the life of another. In fact, during the years 1798 and 1799 he had, among other reforms, advocated anti-duelling laws. In earlier years the duel was so much a matter of course, and so necessary an institution of social life, that we find he not only appeared as a second, but gave advice to others who contemplated this method of vindicating their honor. As is known, he was the second of the younger Laurens, when he met General Charles Lee on June 28, 1778, after the battle of Monmouth, when the latter had spoken disrespectfully of Washington. Hamilton's attitude upon this occasion was extremely fair and sensible, and he did his best to adjust matters without a resort to extreme consequences. Major Edwards attended Lee. When six paces apart the principals fired simultaneously, and Lee received a slight wound. When he proposed a second exchange of shots, and Laurens agreed, Hamilton said that, "unless the General was influenced by motives of personal enmity, he did not think the affair ought to be pursued any further; but as General Lee seemed to persist in desiring it, he was too tender of his friend's honor to persist in opposing it. It was then that Major Edwards interfered, and explanations were made that were satisfactory." A minute narrative of the entire proceedings, concluding with the statement that, "upon the whole, we think it a piece of justice to the two gentlemen to declare that after they met their conduct was strongly marked with all the politeness, generosity, coolness and firmness, that ought to characterize a transaction of this nature," was drawn up by Hamilton and agreed to by Edwards.
In 1779 Hamilton, when a lieutenant-colonel, was slandered by a Reverend Doctor William Gordon,2 of Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, who spread a story to the effect that Hamilton at a "public coffee house," had abused Congress. This was at a time when the latter was withholding the pay of the army, and when there was much discontent among the troops, although there was more trouble in 1781. Hamilton was reported to have said, in the presence of other officers, "that the army would, by-and-by, turn their arms upon the country and do themselves justice," and again, "that it was high time for the people to rise, join General Washington and turn Congress out of Doors." Hamilton was apprised of this alleged seditious language imputed to him by a Lieutenant-Colonel Brooks, and he quickly traced the libel to Francis Dana, who, however, denied the responsibility for the accusation, and gave the name of Gordon as that of the culprit. When cornered, the latter admitted the existence of a mysterious witness and informant, and his letters to Hamilton were notably evasive and exasperating. Two are presented, one of which embodied the clergyman's determination that Hamilton should not be permitted to challenge his traducer, and another from Hamilton which shows, even at this early date, that he did not look upon a duet as an adequate cure for wounded honor.
It appeared that nothing came of all this correspondence, and that Gordon was a fussy mischief-maker. Colonel David Henly, who was Hamilton's representative, had a poor opinion of the clergyman, for in a letter of September 1, 1779, he said: "I do think Col. Hamilton you will find Doctr. Gordon the cause of this mischievous and false Report -- the other Day he was prov'd a Lyar in the publick Street, and had it not have been for his Cloth, I am sure would have been more severely dealt with -- he more than once has occasioned Quarrels by his Conduct." And again, "Yesterday I delivered your Letter to Doctr. Gordon and hope you will receive such satisfaction, as is due you either in wounding him in his honor, or by treating the man with contempt that has endeavored to injure your Reputation."
Reverend William Gordon to Alexander Hamilton
JAMAICA PLAINS,
August 25, 1779.
SIR: Upon my return home from a visit on the Monday evening I received yours without a date. However common the principle may be, on which you urge me, to an immediate direct and explicit answer as tho' the least hesitation or reserve might give room for conjectures, which it can be neither your wish nor mine to excite -- it is certainly a false one.
In many cases a gentleman may receive information from persons of indisputable character which it may be highly proper for him to communicate, without discovering the informer; and I am convinced you will think with me, when you have been more conversant with the world and read mankind more. Neither will such gentleman, when conscious of his own integrity and of established character regard the conjectures of those who are almost or altogether strangers to him.
I do not mean by advancing those sentiments to refuse you aid in detecting the inventor of a calumny. Mr. Dana mentions his having the declaration, alluded to in his letter from me. He communicated to me Col. Brook's letter to you, and yours to himself and the substance of what he intended to write. I objected to nothing regarding myself, excepting its being said public coffee house in which I supposed him mistaken. I understood it was a public house, but rather thought it was not the coffee house. That excepted the sentiment was as he had represented, whether the words were identically the same or not. I am glad to find by what you have wrote, that you have lost all remembrance of it; as it serves to shew that it was the effort of a sudden transport, and not of a depraved judgment. You will infer from hence, that I supposed the sentiment to have been spoken. I do: upon the belief, that my informer was a person of veracity, and could not be mistaken. The reasons are these, his general character, and his declaring that it was uttered in his hearing. I saw him on his way from Philadelphia. He left the City sometime