Notre Dame Law Review Volume 2 | Issue 2 Article 2 12-1-1926 Misunderstood Mr. Burr: His Duel with Hamilton Clarence J. Ruddy Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Clarence J. Ruddy, Misunderstood Mr. Burr: His Duel with Hamilton, 2 Notre Dame L. Rev. 50 (1926). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol2/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. CURIOSITIES OF THE LAW THE MISUNDERSTOOD MR. BURR: HIS DUEL WITH HAMILTON Fifty years ago anyone attempting to defend Aaron Burr of criminality in his duel with Alexander Hamilton would have aroused immediate and vicious antagonism. It was a settled convicton of all men that Burr was a dastardly murderer, and that his part in the lamentable affair with Hamilton was one of the most atrocious crimes ever committed in this country. People profoundly believed that Burr was thoroughly bad-as Benedict Arnold was bad-and anyone who tried to change that belief was himself either an igno- ramus or a perjurer of truth. Few, of course, gave reasons why Burr was wrong and Hamilton right, but reasons were not necessary. The truth was so evident that it needed no philosophic demonstra- tion. Of late, however, people seem less disposed to condemn a man to eternal ignominy upon the doubtful evidence of legend, and pre- fer to study for themselves the reliable documents of our early na- tional life, so that they may decide with a greater probability of being correct, whether Burr really was so base as he has been de- picted.