Hamilton dies in a duel... with James Monroe

cpip

Gone Fishin'
So, in 1798, Alexander Hamilton and James Monroe danced around dueling each other, and were only stopped by the intervention of Aaron Burr, in what may be one of American history's more morbid jokes.

So let's say they do have a duel -- and Hamilton, cursed with ill luck with pistols no matter the timeline, is again killed, either immediately or shortly thereafter.

Is this enough to torpedo Monroe's career, stopping him from either becoming Governor or President? What butterflies might we have if Monroe ends up fleeing murder charges like Burr did OTL?

Does Monroe's victory mean that Hamilton is instead tarred as an embezzler and part of Reynolds' cabal, rather than his tepid defense that it wasn't embezzlement but blackmail?

Does a change in command of the Army from Hamilton to Knox have any effect during the Quasi-War?

Does John Adams's leadership of the Federalist Party improve without Hamilton nagging at his heels, and does he have a better shot at victory in the election of 1800, defeating Jefferson and Burr?
 
Interesting idea. I once had a similar POD when Hamilton killed Thomas Jefferson in a duel.

I don't know if this would affect the 1800 election much. Monroe wasn't the President so the voters wouldn't care if an officer (I'm not sure what post) in Virginia getting scandalized wouldn't matter.

I don't think that the public would view this as an assassination by the Democrats and switch en masse to the Federalists.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
Interesting idea. I once had a similar POD when Hamilton killed Thomas Jefferson in a duel.

I don't know if this would affect the 1800 election much. Monroe wasn't the President so the voters wouldn't care if an officer (I'm not sure what post) in Virginia getting scandalized wouldn't matter.

I don't think that the public would view this as an assassination by the Democrats and switch en masse to the Federalists.

Monroe actually wasn't in any office at all in 1798-99; he was merely a lawyer in Virginia, former Senator and former Ambassador to France.

My concern for the 1800 election was mostly around Hamilton's intriguing against Adams: with Hamilton dead and unable to work against Adams's re-election campaign, does the Federalist party remain more united?
 
Monroe actually wasn't in any office at all in 1798-99; he was merely a lawyer in Virginia, former Senator and former Ambassador to France.

My concern for the 1800 election was mostly around Hamilton's intriguing against Adams: with Hamilton dead and unable to work against Adams's re-election campaign, does the Federalist party remain more united?

Good point, I can't imagine it would hurt Adams.

Hamilton would be a martyr and Monroe was a Jefferson protégé.

It might be enough to switch a couple of states and win Adams reelection.

Honesty, I rank both Adams and Jefferson as poor Presidents, the former for his oppression of liberties and the latter for his dedication to immasculating the central government.
 
So, in 1798, Alexander Hamilton and James Monroe danced around dueling each other, and were only stopped by the intervention of Aaron Burr, in what may be one of American history's more morbid jokes.

So let's say they do have a duel -- and Hamilton, cursed with ill luck with pistols no matter the timeline, is again killed, either immediately or shortly thereafter.

Is this enough to torpedo Monroe's career, stopping him from either becoming Governor or President? What butterflies might we have if Monroe ends up fleeing murder charges like Burr did OTL?

Does Monroe's victory mean that Hamilton is instead tarred as an embezzler and part of Reynolds' cabal, rather than his tepid defense that it wasn't embezzlement but blackmail?

Does a change in command of the Army from Hamilton to Knox have any effect during the Quasi-War?

Does John Adams's leadership of the Federalist Party improve without Hamilton nagging at his heels, and does he have a better shot at victory in the election of 1800, defeating Jefferson and Burr?

Monroe's career is only scuttled if Hamilton lives a few days like he did after the duel with Burr. The most damage was done in the days that followed the duel when Hamilton wrote lots of shit about Burr and told his associates to do the same.

Possibly.

No.

Yes, but I doubt he'll win.

Monroe actually wasn't in any office at all in 1798-99; he was merely a lawyer in Virginia, former Senator and former Ambassador to France.

My concern for the 1800 election was mostly around Hamilton's intriguing against Adams: with Hamilton dead and unable to work against Adams's re-election campaign, does the Federalist party remain more united?
Good point, I can't imagine it would hurt Adams.

Hamilton would be a martyr and Monroe was a Jefferson protégé.

It might be enough to switch a couple of states and win Adams reelection.

Honesty, I rank both Adams and Jefferson as poor Presidents, the former for his oppression of liberties and the latter for his dedication to immasculating the central government.

Adams is not going to win the election. New York was firmly in the Democrat-Republic bag thanks to Burr's efforts. And In the rest of new England Burr ran a strong campaign. And in the south Adams did not have that much support. All the removal of Hamilton does is remove a bit of humiliation. Jefferson and Burr still win.

More interesting is if there is a tie like OTL. In OTL Hamilton was the earliest proponent of usurping Jefferson and electing Burr, contrary to popular belief. Without his early support we may see that the Federalist bid to elect Burr never takes off and Jefferson is elected on the first ballot in Congress. This removes a lot of the mistrust Jefferson developed for Burr and makes for a more harmonious presidency and reelection. Maybe Burr can go on to become president himself or governor of New York.
 
In OTL Hamilton was the earliest proponent of usurping Jefferson and electing Burr, contrary to popular belief. Without his early support we may see that the Federalist bid to elect Burr never takes off and Jefferson is elected on the first ballot in Congress. This removes a lot of the mistrust Jefferson developed for Burr and makes for a more harmonious presidency and reelection. Maybe Burr can go on to become president himself or governor of New York.

Nope.

Hamilton did not propose to elect Burr over Jefferson. There was no evidence at all that he contrived to put Burr over Jefferson.

It was the other Federalists who wrote Hamilton of the proposal. Hamilton clearly saw Jefferson as better than Burr, though he disliked both. But he loathed Burr much more than he disliked Jefferson. And he rejected all the plans of the Federalist congressmen to put Burr in power, and instead, pleaded with them to vote Jefferson over Burr.

I'll quote Ron Chernow's biography of Hamilton.

"...Federalists leaders pelted Hamilton with letters about the expediency of supporting Burr... Because Burr lusted after money and power, they thought they could strike a bargain with him..."

" 'There is no circumstance which has occurred in the course of our political affairs that has given me so much pain as the idea that Mr. Burr might be elevated to the Presidency by the means of the Federalists,' Hamilton wrote Walcott."

"So unalterably opposed was Hamilton to Burr that he told Federalist friends that he would withdraw from the party or even from public life if they installed Burr as president. "

...

"Robert Troup reported, 'Hamilton is profoundly chagrined with this prospect! He has taken infinite pains to defeat Burr's election but he believes in vain...Hamilton declares that his influence with the federal party was wholly gone, that he could no longer be useful.' He had already told Gouverneur Morris that he could support Jefferson with a clear conscience if the latter provided 'assurances on certain points: maintenance of the present system, especially on the cardinal articles of public credit..."
...
"The man who helped to rescue the representatives from their misery was James A Bayard, a Delaware Federalist. A thickset lawyer known for sartorial elegance, Bayard was under heavy Federalist pressure to vote for Burr and di so for thirty-five ballots. As the lone representative of a tiny state, he was in a unique position. If he changed his vote, Delaware changed its vote. For two months, Hamilton bombarded him with letters, spelling out Burr's flaws and heretical positions."

"Though Bayard did not like the deadlocked vote, it was hard to resist the tide of Federalist support for Burr...Quite possibly influenced by Hamilton's barrage of letters, Bayard set forth some Federalist prerequisites for supporting Jefferson:he would have to preserve Hamilton's financial system...After talking to Jefferson, Smith relayed to Bayard the candidate's opinion that the Federalists need not worry about the points mentioned..."
...
"Perhaps softened up by Hamilton's diatribes, Bayard later claimed he had doubted Burr's Federalist credentials all along. On the 36th round of voting in the House, He submitted a blank ballot and withdrew Delaware's vote from the Burr column. Simultaneously, Federalist abstentions in Vermont and Maryland gave Jefferson ten votes and a clear-cut victory."

from Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. The Penguin Press, New York, pp. 632-638.
 
Monroe's career is only scuttled if Hamilton lives a few days like he did after the duel with Burr. The most damage was done in the days that followed the duel when Hamilton wrote lots of shit about Burr and told his associates to do the same.

Possibly.

No.

Yes, but I doubt he'll win.




Adams is not going to win the election. New York was firmly in the Democrat-Republic bag thanks to Burr's efforts. And In the rest of new England Burr ran a strong campaign. And in the south Adams did not have that much support. All the removal of Hamilton does is remove a bit of humiliation. Jefferson and Burr still win.

More interesting is if there is a tie like OTL. In OTL Hamilton was the earliest proponent of usurping Jefferson and electing Burr, contrary to popular belief. Without his early support we may see that the Federalist bid to elect Burr never takes off and Jefferson is elected on the first ballot in Congress. This removes a lot of the mistrust Jefferson developed for Burr and makes for a more harmonious presidency and reelection. Maybe Burr can go on to become president himself or governor of New York.

I thought that Hamilton feuded with Burr and chose Jefferson over Burr in this electoral college election.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
"...Federalists leaders pelted Hamilton with letters about the expediency of supporting Burr... Because Burr lusted after money and power, they thought they could strike a bargain with him..."
from Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. The Penguin Press, New York, pp. 632-638.

Thank you for the citation; I am always happier to see cited arguments.

In this case -- does Hamilton's death also pave the way for Burr's Presidency? (Assuming Burr is not too tainted by being Monroe's second at the duel -- but it certainly didn't seem to stop Van Ness, Burr's second, who went on to a seat on the Federal bench.)
 
Adams is not going to win the election. New York was firmly in the Democrat-Republic bag thanks to Burr's efforts. And In the rest of new England Burr ran a strong campaign. And in the south Adams did not have that much support. All the removal of Hamilton does is remove a bit of humiliation. Jefferson and Burr still win.

No. I'll quote David McCullough.

"With a difference of only 250 votes in New York City, Adams would have won with an electoral count of 71 to 61."

McCullough, David. John Adams. Simon and Schuster, New York, 2001, pg. 556.

What he meant was that the election in New York was determined by the state legislature, but the state legislature elections was determined by popular vote, and that the majority of the New York legislature was decided by only 250 votes in New York City.

So yeah, Adams could win the election.
 

Stolengood

Banned
In this case -- does Hamilton's death also pave the way for Burr's Presidency? (Assuming Burr is not too tainted by being Monroe's second at the duel -- but it certainly didn't seem to stop Van Ness, Burr's second, who went on to a seat on the Federal bench.)
Yessss... the unintended consequence of this is that it probably completely saves Burr's skin.

And anyhow, wasn't Chernow heavily biased against Burr in that Hamilton biography?
 
As I understand it, the election went to 36 rounds because the President/VP partitioning was not blatant, ie those voting Burr for VP also voted him for president.

I think an earlier scandal could easily affect this

But don't forget, it it does it could let in Pinckney
 
Nope.

Hamilton did not propose to elect Burr over Jefferson. There was no evidence at all that he contrived to put Burr over Jefferson.

It was the other Federalists who wrote Hamilton of the proposal. Hamilton clearly saw Jefferson as better than Burr, though he disliked both. But he loathed Burr much more than he disliked Jefferson. And he rejected all the plans of the Federalist congressmen to put Burr in power, and instead, pleaded with them to vote Jefferson over Burr.

I'll quote Ron Chernow's biography of Hamilton.

"...Federalists leaders pelted Hamilton with letters about the expediency of supporting Burr... Because Burr lusted after money and power, they thought they could strike a bargain with him..."

" 'There is no circumstance which has occurred in the course of our political affairs that has given me so much pain as the idea that Mr. Burr might be elevated to the Presidency by the means of the Federalists,' Hamilton wrote Walcott."

"So unalterably opposed was Hamilton to Burr that he told Federalist friends that he would withdraw from the party or even from public life if they installed Burr as president. "

...

"Robert Troup reported, 'Hamilton is profoundly chagrined with this prospect! He has taken infinite pains to defeat Burr's election but he believes in vain...Hamilton declares that his influence with the federal party was wholly gone, that he could no longer be useful.' He had already told Gouverneur Morris that he could support Jefferson with a clear conscience if the latter provided 'assurances on certain points: maintenance of the present system, especially on the cardinal articles of public credit..."
...
"The man who helped to rescue the representatives from their misery was James A Bayard, a Delaware Federalist. A thickset lawyer known for sartorial elegance, Bayard was under heavy Federalist pressure to vote for Burr and di so for thirty-five ballots. As the lone representative of a tiny state, he was in a unique position. If he changed his vote, Delaware changed its vote. For two months, Hamilton bombarded him with letters, spelling out Burr's flaws and heretical positions."

"Though Bayard did not like the deadlocked vote, it was hard to resist the tide of Federalist support for Burr...Quite possibly influenced by Hamilton's barrage of letters, Bayard set forth some Federalist prerequisites for supporting Jefferson:he would have to preserve Hamilton's financial system...After talking to Jefferson, Smith relayed to Bayard the candidate's opinion that the Federalists need not worry about the points mentioned..."
...
"Perhaps softened up by Hamilton's diatribes, Bayard later claimed he had doubted Burr's Federalist credentials all along. On the 36th round of voting in the House, He submitted a blank ballot and withdrew Delaware's vote from the Burr column. Simultaneously, Federalist abstentions in Vermont and Maryland gave Jefferson ten votes and a clear-cut victory."

from Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. The Penguin Press, New York, pp. 632-638.
I thought that Hamilton feuded with Burr and chose Jefferson over Burr in this electoral college election.

Oh but there is.

"Voting for Burr would humiliate Jefferson. Initially, Hamilton agreed, confiding to Adam's secretary of the treasury, Oliver Wolcott, that it might prove useful to "lure" Burr into a compromising situation that would ultimately prove difficult for him, that is to 'lay the foundation of dissention between two chiefs.'" (source: Isenberg's Fallen Founder, primary source: Hamilton Papers)

And then the pivot

"When Hamilton realized that House Federalists were more than willing to elect Burr, he was startled and dashed off frantic letters to all the key congressional leaders. Horrified that Burr might become the head of his party, he pleaded with Theodore Sedgwickand others: 'For heaven's sake let not the Federalist party be responsible for the elevation of this Man."' (source: Isenberg's Fallen Founder, primary source: Hamilton Papers)

No. I'll quote David McCullough.

"With a difference of only 250 votes in New York City, Adams would have won with an electoral count of 71 to 61."

McCullough, David. John Adams. Simon and Schuster, New York, 2001, pg. 556.

What he meant was that the election in New York was determined by the state legislature, but the state legislature elections was determined by popular vote, and that the majority of the New York legislature was decided by only 250 votes in New York City.

So yeah, Adams could win the election.

The vote was close, but killing off Hamilton doesn't give Adams the state. You are exactly correct to say that the state legislature appointed the electors and yes Manhattan (where Burr carried all 13 seats) was the most important election of New York, because it ensured a majority in for Republicans in the lower house. And that is exactly why your wrong. First off the Federalist platform was unremarkable, just several unknown merchants. They were going against the Republican slate of George Clinton, Horatio Gates, Henry Rutgers, and John Broome (all of them war heroes), influential New York merchants, and the well known Brockholst Livingston. And the campaigns that supported those candidates. One of course is Burr's well run machine. The other was not sabotaged by Hamilton, but run Hamilton, one of the biggest New York political insiders. And during the day of the polls Hamilton personally rode around the city to polling stations to rally the Federalist vote. Without Hamilton, the Federalist platform in new York will be far worse off.

Hamilton did not sabotage the Federalist effort in New York, he ran it.

Yessss... the unintended consequence of this is that it probably completely saves Burr's skin.

And anyhow, wasn't Chernow heavily biased against Burr in that Hamilton biography?

It is heavily biased against Burr, but you can't blame him American history is heavily biased against Burr.
 
Oh but there is.

"Voting for Burr would humiliate Jefferson. Initially, Hamilton agreed, confiding to Adam's secretary of the treasury, Oliver Wolcott, that it might prove useful to "lure" Burr into a compromising situation that would ultimately prove difficult for him, that is to 'lay the foundation of dissention between two chiefs.'" (source: Isenberg's Fallen Founder, primary source: Hamilton Papers)

And then the pivot

"When Hamilton realized that House Federalists were more than willing to elect Burr, he was startled and dashed off frantic letters to all the key congressional leaders. Horrified that Burr might become the head of his party, he pleaded with Theodore Sedgwickand others: 'For heaven's sake let not the Federalist party be responsible for the elevation of this Man."' (source: Isenberg's Fallen Founder, primary source: Hamilton Papers)

That is no evidence at all. Finding something useful is not equivalent of actually doing it, and encouraging the House Members to vote for 35 ballots for Burr.

It doesn't prove at all that he conspired to put Burr over Jefferson. Even Fallen Founder, a biography of Aaron Burr, did not put forth any evidence that Hamilton actively encouraged House Federalists to put Burr in the White House. Sowing dissension among the two does not equal convincing the House Federalist members to vote for Burr. That was all the initiative of the House Federalist caucus.

Show me one letter from Hamilton urging the congressmen to vote for Burr and Burr would be a better President for the Federalists instead of Jefferson and that he should be become president over Jefferson and I'll be convinced.

On the contrary, he actively discouraged Federalists to vote for Burr and elect Jefferson. He never considered Burr to be better than Jefferson, and there was nothing, nothing, that suggest that Hamilton encouraged other congressmen to vote for Burr over Jefferson.

And he did so for two months, meaning beginning in December 1800, when it was clear that the result was a tie of 73 for Jefferson and Burr each. So from the very beginning, he was urging the House Federalists not to vote for Burr and to elect Jefferson.

The only conspiracy he did was to actively convince the Federalists to back away from the consensus of the Party to back Burr, and to extract from Jefferson an assurance that he will keep his financial system.

So no. There is no evidence at all.

Autocrat said:
The vote was close, but killing off Hamilton doesn't give Adams the state. You are exactly correct to say that the state legislature appointed the electors and yes Manhattan (where Burr carried all 13 seats) was the most important election of New York, because it ensured a majority in for Republicans in the lower house. And that is exactly why your wrong. First off the Federalist platform was unremarkable, just several unknown merchants. They were going against the Republican slate of George Clinton, Horatio Gates, Henry Rutgers, and John Broome (all of them war heroes), influential New York merchants, and the well known Brockholst Livingston. And the campaigns that supported those candidates. One of course is Burr's well run machine. The other was not sabotaged by Hamilton, but run Hamilton, one of the biggest New York political insiders. And during the day of the polls Hamilton personally rode around the city to polling stations to rally the Federalist vote. Without Hamilton, the Federalist platform in new York will be far worse off.

Hamilton did not sabotage the Federalist effort in New York, he ran it.


I'll again quote McCollulough for the whole text.

"Despite the malicious attacks on him, the furor over the Alien and Sedition Acts, unpopular taxes, betrayals by his own cabinet, the disarray of the Federalists, and the final treachery of Hamilton, he had, in fact, come very close to winning the electoral count. With a difference of only 250 votes in New York City, Adams would have won with an electoral count of 71 to 61."

McCullough, David. John Adams. Simon and Schuster, New York, 2001, pg. 556.

So yeah. Even after all the blunders of the Federalists, of Adams, of Hamilton, of the unremarkable Federalist platform, and the brilliant efforts of Burr, of Gates, of Livingston, of Burr's well run machine, all that they could achieve was a tiny margin of 250 votes. It's even smaller than the 537 votes of Florida in 2000.

Everything is against Adams and for Burr and Jefferson, and yet, only 250 votes in Manhattan signified the difference between victory and defeat.

So yeah, any small number of things could turn the state to Adams.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure he would actually do it... Lots of duels were all showmanship with no real intention of killing and Monroe has never struck me as the killing type like Burr.
 
What happens to Monroe? Perhaps he doesn't get elected as Governor of Virginia. He's still a prominent Virginian and Democratic-Republican but would he still be ambassador to France and England and then Secretary of State? Could he just go back to the Senate?

As to the election...I wonder about other places...not so much New York as Delaware, Maryland and Virginia and maybe North Carolina.

Adams doesn't need much...just one or two electors in any of these states will get him the win. Wasn't the 1800 election held in the aftermath of Gabriel Prosser's rebellion? Perhaps another governor screws things up badly enough that there is a small shift to the Federalists in the Chesapeake area?

Just a couple thoughts
 
Top