what i learned today: in 1800 alexander hamilton and aaron burr were both defense lawyers for a guy who was accused of murder. they tried to cast suspicion on another guy who was near the scene of the crime, richard croucher. the details of what happened next are contentious, because the court transcript is vague and it honestly sounds like something either of these two fuckos would have done, so here’s a brief run-down of the two equally beautiful stories that have evolved regarding richard croucher’s day in court, paraphrased from ron chernow who was kind enough to ensure history didn’t forget this anecdote
the legend is, while croucher was testifying, hamilton held two candles under the dude’s face, giving him a “sinister glow”. he told the jury, “i conjure you to look through that man’s countenance to his conscience.” apparently spooked by a-ham’s theatrics, croucher confessed on the spot.
however! aaron burr later insisted HE was the one who put on this circus show. his version of the story is, he grabbed two candelabras and thrust them at croucher, exclaiming “BEHOLD THE MURDERER, GENTLEMEN!” croucher then ran out of the courtroom in terror
Apparently when Burr was a very young teen (we’re talking 13-15) he was being mentored by a man named Paterson, who was a grown adult man (24-26). Paterson had been in the same college club as Burr and, upon graduating, had decided to stick around and remain part of this club, while the other members grew younger and younger. Burr, at this point was the clubs, and (possibly?) the college’s youngest student. Paterson was very friendly with Burr and very free with advice. He was also very free with sexually suggestive talk, commenting extensively on Burr’s feminine traits (he’s literally 13) and using extremely thin metaphors to talk about masturbation, specifically likening it to writing to the (13-year old) Burr. In her biography, Isenberg uses this as an example of the young Burr’s precociousness and the spirit of platonic camaraderie at Princeton.
Personally, I don’t know how anyone can look at a 24 year old man engaging in this sort of dialogue with a 13 year old boy and draw such a sunny conclusion. Boys typically had not reached puberty until around 15 or 16 in the eighteenth century, so it is highly unlikely that Burr would have been even physically matured enough to make this sort of relationship acceptable, much less mental/emotional maturity. The fact that Isenberg completely ignores the possibility that this could have been an abuse situation strikes me as irresponsible. It’s especially irresponsible considering that, later in life, Burr assumed the role of the older mentor figure binding much younger men to him with both warm friendship and, it seems, sexually suggestive gestures and conversations.
It really is a shame that Isenberg is so determined to prove that her darling did nothing wrong that she can’t even look deeply at episodes in his life which may have been harmful, toxic, or traumatic to him. Another example of this is that she takes his frequent running away from home as a sign that he was eager to impress his family and, again, operating above his age (I don’t understand why this is so important to her), whereas it is much more likely that for a child in his situation, frequent attempts to run away from home, always ending in his uncle forcing him to unwillingly return, that this was a sign of poorly coping with a series of traumatic events, a failure to adjust well to a new environment, an attempt to extricate himself from a toxic environment, or some combination thereof.
Instead of humanizing him, she misses real opportunities to do so and decides instead against the evidence to pain him as a (frankly obnoxious) special snowflake.
Literally everyone deserves better here.
Yeah. Ignoring the age difference (or rather, Burr’s young age and the power imbalance) here bothers me a lot. The masturbation reference / feminine qualities letter was written to Burr when he was sixteen, but that’s still ridiculously young, and we need to remember that Paterson had already known Burr for years.
that thing about Burr’s childhood is weird – Isenberg’s not the only author who has some really dismissive opinions about it. Lomask for example offers some half-baked insight why Burr could have been ‘an unruly child’, but at the same time hints that Burr may have wanted to simply present himself as such (’lmao i was such a horrible brat’). Lomask also rejects the idea that Timothy Edwards could have been too harsh on Burr / Burr could have hated him, based on the evidence that they got along when Burr was adult. Because that proves everything, apparently.
I hate how unwilling historians are to discuss possibilities of same-gender-attraction, mental illness, disability, or abuse. They act like these are slanders they need to defend their subject from.
Burr’s running away could have indicated any number of things. He was, essentially, a foster child, and very young children who wind up in that situation often develop a whole slew of difficulties, including attachment issues. It could be indicative of the mental/emotional scar-tissue that was left behind when he lost his parents and grandparents and was uprooted at such a young age to go live with a different family in what sounds like a very overstimulating environment that would have been very difficult on a child in that situation. Instead she takes it as a sign of independence which just makes no sense? I don’t know, the way she dealt with his childhood was frankly just terrible.
