Honor & Culture in the Early Republic
Pallavirajbanshi
honorpoliticalculturewithnotes.pptHonor & Political Culture in the Early Republic
Prologue: The Burr-Hamilton duel (1804)
*
The most famous duel in American history takes place in 1804, when Vice President Aaron Burr (a Democrat) kills Federalist party leader and former treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton. Note that it happens in New Jersey between two New Yorkers—dueling culture in this period is national, not confined to southerners. Historians have struggled to explain this seemingly odd event & have looked for psychological explanations. Was Burr a vicious bully? Was Hamilton suicidal? No, it was dictated by the code of honor that “gentlemen,” including leading politicians, were expected to follow at the time. Dueling was introduced in America by British & French officers stationed in North America during the Revolutionary War. It was an element of aristocratic culture adopted in the US as aristocracy itself is rejected. We’ll come back to this event and try to understand it after taking a look at how American politics in the early republic worked.
I. From Deference to Democracy
Robert Carter III of Virginia
Deference: “Acceptance by the whole of society of the view that people would and should naturally delegate power to a select, elite minority.”
*
The aristocratic, deferential political culture of the colonial period produced the greatest generation of leaders in American history, the nation’s Founders, including George Washington. It seemingly was a political culture well adapted for the needs of their relatively homogenous society at the time—most everyone is a farmer in colonial America, with presumably similar economic and other interests, whether you were a small farmer or a Virginia planter like Washington.
A. The old system: gentlemen and the “vulgar herd”
On election day in July 1758, George Washington supplies 160 gallons of alcoholic beverages to 391 voters in his Virginia district (a quart and a half per voter).
An itemized list:
78 gallons of rum
34 gallons of wine
46 gallons of beer
2 gallons of cider
*
In the colonial period, every colony had strict voting qualifications—only men who owned property could vote, and there ethnic/religious restrictions as well. Voting was public and face to face, at one site per county. “Treating” was an obligation for leaders like Washington, who provided alcoholic beverages for his supporters on election day in exchange for their support. Kinship networks were strong, with leaders often easily identifiable by family associations.
B. Local governments undemocratic
a royal governor
*
Local (county) officials were generally not elected in colonial America, but were appointed by the governor or county courts. These positions tended to be dominated by the local elite who filled positions like sheriff, clerk of court, and militia officers.
C. The “Revolution of 1800”
*
Thomas Jefferson referred to his election as president as the “Revolution of 1800.” Seemingly this was egotistical, referring to his election as an event comparable in importance to the American Revolution itself. But he didn’t think its importance lay so much in him personally as in what he represented, more than any of the other leaders of his generation—the rising concept of democracy itself. And this was the first peaceful transfer of power between parties in American history, also an important precedent.
D. Voter turnout: toward a democratic political culture
Voter turnout in state elections:
1790s: between 15% and 40%
1816: between 68% and 98%
George Caleb Bingham, “The County Election”
*
Gradually participation in politics by ordinary Americans embracing this new concept of “democracy” gains steam. Note that before 1840 voter turnout is higher in state than national elections. Local issues seemed more important at the time.
II. The Washington Community
The capitol building in 1800
*
The national capitol moves to the new city of Washington, D.C. in 1800 (from Philadelphia), during the last months of the John Adams presidential administration.
A. Government “at a distance and out of sight”
Alexander Hamilton
*
Federalist party leader Alexander Hamilton, who wanted a strong national government, was not a fan of the sparsely populated new capitol city formed out of the Maryland & Virginia swamps. He feared it was a Democratic plot to keep the national government weak and unimportant—government “at a distance and out of sight,” instead of in a bustling city like Philadelphia. Public interest in the national government in this period was minimal due to its physical isolation, seeming irrelevance, and relative powerlessness compared to state governments.
B. The fragmented community
Dolley Madison
*
Most officials in the new capitol city are only transients, don’t live there full-time, as living conditions are unpleasant and there is little culture or commerce, or opportunity for social interaction. What community there was tended to be fragmented, with legislators clustering around Capitol Hill, executive officials around “the president’s house,” and justices in their own enclave. This partly reflected commitment to the constitutional separation of powers. Also many officials don’t serve very long, often resigning to take more desirable state government positions.
Dolley Madison, wife of the widower Jefferson’s secretary of state and successor as president James Madison, serves as an extremely popular (and diplomatically skilled) “White House” hostess for their four presidential terms. Coveted invitations to her parties, where reluctant legislators could be wined and dined and persuaded to support administration policies, becomes a key way of establishing presidential leadership and imposing some order on the chaotic new national political scene, since party and government leadership are both weak.
C. Weakness & instability
A Washington, D.C. boardinghouse
*
One historian finds that congressional voting doesn’t particularly align with party identity in this period, as that is not yet very strong and party leadership is weak. Congressional votes align more with what boardinghouse the legislators rent rooms in, as they usually eat dinner together & presumably discuss bills and come to agreement. Fellow renters in the same boardinghouse tended to be from the same geographic region, rather than the same party.
Also cabinet members vie for subsequent presidential nominations, which are controlled by congressional caucuses, resulting in independent cabinets, with officers aligned more closely with the party’s congressional leaders than the president. So presidential leadership tends to be weak in this period (Jefferson being an exception), partly for ideological reasons—members of Jefferson’s party don’t believe in a strong national government (or executive), after all.
III. The Culture of Honor
“Honor is above all the keen sensitivity to the experience of humiliation and shame… The honorable person is one whose self-esteem and social standing is dependent on the esteem or envy he or she actually elicits in others.”
*
Following the “culture of honor” in this period, including by fighting duels, becomes a way for politicians to command the deference and status they desire, and a way of demonstrating their leadership qualifications and status to the newly empowered mass democratic electorate, who now would reject claims to leadership just based on aristocratic status, post-Revolution.
The “culture of honor” is founded in overwhelming concern for the opinions of others about you—”outward” rather than “inward” directed. How other people see you in this culture is what is real and powerful, more than how you see or feel about yourself. And conflict with other men of more or less equal status tends to be fundamental in establishing this perception.
A. Honor and masculinity
William Pitt's Duel with Tierney in 1798
*
Most challenges/ “affairs of honor” do not end in duels, but sometimes they do. Duels are often political, with Federalists dueling Democrats in the 1790s, and Democrats becoming factionalized and dueling one another after 1800. Challenges are usually made by members of losing, “dishonored” party after an election. Burr-Hamilton fits this pattern, with the Democrat Burr challenging the Federalist Hamilton after losing the NY governor’s race, and saying that Hamilton insulted him during the campaign (how he did so is unknown).
What is most essential is proving that the participants in the conflict possess the critical masculine quality of courage. It is not important to kill your opponent, in fact is more gentlemanly if you don’t, which is why Hamilton fires his pistol in the air instead of aiming at Burr. What is most important is to establish that you are not afraid of your opponent possibly killing YOU. That is the quality of leadership that participants are trying to demonstrate, and why Hamilton can’t decline Burr’s challenge. He knows this would cause him to be labeled a “coward” and his political career would be over.
B. Honor & reputation
The Wellington - Winchilsea duel (1829)
*
What is most important in the political culture of this era is what others believe of you: maintaining your reputation is critical and contested. This is why John Adams in his later years obsessively writes endless defenses of his presidency. And it is why duels were publicized, with “seconds” writing and publishing accounts of how well and bravely their duelist friends comported themselves. These accounts were often published in newspapers even though dueling was technically illegal, though hard to prosecute, partly because participants often crossed state lines to fight (why Burr and Hamilton went to New Jersey for theirs). Burr’s friends write about how well he behaved in his duel with Hamilton, but this isn’t the version the public accepts & he loses his reputation & is indicted for murder & flees the country.
C. The art of political gossip
Aaron Burr
*
Both Hamilton and his longtime rival Jefferson spread rumors and accusations against each other, often through their political friends. These charges take a variety of forms, including pamphlets, letters, editorials, and eventually memoirs attacking the reputations of their political enemies. Hamilton is accused of being a corrupt monarchist, and Jefferson of being a crazed radical. Sexual scandals and innuendo are also used but hurt both sides equally and so typically aren’t that useful.
Burr tries to play this game but unsuccessfully and Hamilton’s friends, after his death, succeed in getting the public to see Burr as a unprincipled bully and “scoundrel,” perhaps even a traitor.
D. Insults
The Lyon-Griswold brawl (1798)
*
The rules of these “honor conflicts” are loosely defined but generally understood at the time. There are many accounts of a gentleman confronting another and using a ritualized personal insult (scoundrel, puppy, coward, rascal, or some variation). The room would then go quiet as the insulted party would be expected to issue the challenge to a duel.
Sometimes things don’t go to plan though, as in the 1798 “congressional fracas” between Federalist Roger Griswold and Democrat Matthew Lyon. Griswold approached Lyon and called him a “scoundrel.” Instead of responding with a challenge to a duel, Lyon instead spit in Griswold’s face, and they subsequently brawled on the House floor, with Lyon grabbing fireplace tongs to defend himself against Griswold’s heavy wooden cane. This kind of ungentlemanly brawl was not especially good for anyone’s reputation.
The specific insult that Hamilton supposedly made against Burr has been much speculated about—perhaps he accused Burr of cowardice, or of having an inappropriate relationship with his daughter. But the specific insult really didn’t especially matter and was just part of the ritual.
E. Dueling & politics
*
So dueling in the early republic becomes a useful way for political leaders to establish their reputations. You usually aren’t really supposed to kill your opponent but it is sort of okay if, like Andrew Jackson, you do, as long as you behaved like a gentleman and followed the “rules.” Burr is embittered that the duel destroyed his reputation, contending for the rest of his life that he had behaved appropriately according to the code of honor. Why did the public not see it that way?
[from Hamilton’s letter to his wife, written the night before the duel with Burr.]
The Scruples of a Christian have determined me to expose my own life … rather than subject myself to the guilt of taking the life of another. This must increase my hazards .... God’s Will be done. The will of a merciful God must be good.
AH
F. How Hamilton “won” the duel
*
Instead Hamilton, though he is killed, “wins” the duel by keeping, and even enhancing, his reputation as a great political leader. The posthumous publication by his friends of Hamilton’s letter to his wife written before the duel makes him look like a Christian gentleman, while Burr is cast in a bad light as dangerous, immoral, and aggressive. As they say in the great “Drunk History” episode about the duel, you can tell that Hamilton won the duel, because “Aaron Burr’s not on the money.” They both understood the rules of the political culture of the time, but Hamilton understood them better, and played the game more effectively in the way that really mattered to both of them, and to their peers.
This was a unique period in American political history, with the colonial deferential, aristocratic society gradually transforming into something new and more democratic, and in an odd, seemingly contradictory way, the aristocratic practice of dueling played an underappreciated role in this transformation.
For further reading:
Joanne Freeman, Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic
Charles Sydnor, American Revolutionaries in the Making
James Young, The Washington Community
