Vidal didn’t imply an incestuous relationship between Theodosia and Burr in his novel. Rather, in the novel, the real-life figure Sam Swartwout suggested that Burr’s reason for challenging Alexander Hamilton to a duel was that Hamilton slandered Burr by saying that Burr and Theodosia had an incestuous relationship. Vidal always admitted that no one knew the reason why Burr challenged Hamilton. This supposed slander by Hamilton was only a theory. But even if the slander occurred, it doesn’t mean Vidal thought Burr and Theodosia were actually incestuous.
I don’t understand why people think the reason Burr challenged Hamilton is a mystery when the correspondence between the two men exists. Burr challenged Hamilton over a vague comment made by a democrat in Albany claiming Hamilton uttered ‘a more despicable opinion of him’. Burr himself didn’t even know what Hamilton had said, and given that months had passed by the time he challenged Hamilton, even Hamilton didn’t know what he was supposed to have said. Burr’s reasons for challenging Hamilton were a big part of the reason he was ruined by that duel..
Excellent. There was a lot going on that we still don't know. Burr wasn't a member of their club and made things complicated. I find it remarkable that he lived as long as he did with such powerful enemies.
This presentation itself is a contradiction, borderline historical fiction. This being the fevered focus on the DIFFERENCES between the political figures, when in fact as is the case today, all hide behind a veil of aristocracy and ideology to mask their abuse of power which benefits their economic class. The point being not to condemn or praise, or even have some understanding of who Burr was, but to learn and better live up to the social contract they established. This can be best seen in the expansion of who is included in that contract, like women being able to vote, and slaves allowed to be "free." Is it not amazing how similar Burr sounds to Donald Trump or Joe Biden? Examine their lives and political careers, as well as the social structures and systems in which they live, and one sees an uncanny resemblance. What was the true unifying ideology of Colonial and Post-Revolutionary War America other than EXPANSION? This being one of territory, but also the CONTROL of all aspects of life within those territories. This same expansion and struggle is still going on today. This again being why we ought to examine historical records, not to get some personal understanding of glorified figures, who no doubt shaped our world today, for better and worse. We have the Constitution...
Not everyone considers killing someone in ritual combat to be 'murder'. If Burr was aiming to kill then maybe, but there's no evidence of that aside from contemporary rumours in the newspapers which frankly were already slamming Burr for crimes both plausible and completely fabricated. Perhaps Burr should have deloped as Hamilton did, but why should he? He had previously duelled Hamilton's brother-in-law, Church with no injury to either man except the loss of a button on his own coat. Most duels did end without bloodshed. Hamilton himself could have refused the challenge or picked a less lethal weapon, but he was operating under the same social expectations as Burr and so, unfortunately, lost his life.
@@jokiskywalker5417 I get your point of view. But Burr holds the most blame because he is the one who called the duel; Hamilton didn't. Yes, Hamilton was dumb enough to accept the damn challenge knowing he could possibly be killed and leave his wife widowed, broke, and with more heartbreak. But Burr did murder him no matter which way you cut it.
@@glkmee22 So every shot fired in the French and Indian War, for example, was murderous? I don't have an overly high opinion of George Washington, but I would hesitate to outright call him a murderer.
@@glkmee22 oh my, when someone with your obvious discernment and clearly superior intellect compliments me...well bless your heart I just have to blush a little and bless your heart again...maybe just giggle a little. Please know that you’ve really made my day sweet one.😁
Vidal didn’t imply an incestuous relationship between Theodosia and Burr in his novel.
Rather, in the novel, the real-life figure Sam Swartwout suggested that Burr’s reason for challenging Alexander Hamilton to a duel was that Hamilton slandered Burr by saying that Burr and Theodosia had an incestuous relationship. Vidal always admitted that no one knew the reason why Burr challenged Hamilton. This supposed slander by Hamilton was only a theory. But even if the slander occurred, it doesn’t mean Vidal thought Burr and Theodosia were actually incestuous.
My thoughts exactly. Thank you.
I don’t understand why people think the reason Burr challenged Hamilton is a mystery when the correspondence between the two men exists. Burr challenged Hamilton over a vague comment made by a democrat in Albany claiming Hamilton uttered ‘a more despicable opinion of him’. Burr himself didn’t even know what Hamilton had said, and given that months had passed by the time he challenged Hamilton, even Hamilton didn’t know what he was supposed to have said. Burr’s reasons for challenging Hamilton were a big part of the reason he was ruined by that duel..
Excellent. There was a lot going on that we still don't know. Burr wasn't a member of their club and made things complicated. I find it remarkable that he lived as long as he did with such powerful enemies.
Burr was correct about professional historians. Wood is a great example.
Refreshing and thoughtful analysis of a complex man.
If Aaron Burr was guilty so was Andrew Jackson and Sam Huston........
A pity Professor Wood was interrupted by the jarring noise !
He was reliable with the Ladies!!
Ok I’m going to be the one to ask! What was that annoying noise?
Regurgitate ya Gordon Wood
Do you like apples?
Hamilton had it comin'
Whoa pump the breaks there fella
Who are the 8 sociopaths that liked this post?
@@glkmee22 🤪😆
Hamilton did suck.
This presentation itself is a contradiction, borderline historical fiction. This being the fevered focus on the DIFFERENCES between the political figures, when in fact as is the case today, all hide behind a veil of aristocracy and ideology to mask their abuse of power which benefits their economic class. The point being not to condemn or praise, or even have some understanding of who Burr was, but to learn and better live up to the social contract they established. This can be best seen in the expansion of who is included in that contract, like women being able to vote, and slaves allowed to be "free." Is it not amazing how similar Burr sounds to Donald Trump or Joe Biden? Examine their lives and political careers, as well as the social structures and systems in which they live, and one sees an uncanny resemblance. What was the true unifying ideology of Colonial and Post-Revolutionary War America other than EXPANSION? This being one of territory, but also the CONTROL of all aspects of life within those territories. This same expansion and struggle is still going on today. This again being why we ought to examine historical records, not to get some personal understanding of glorified figures, who no doubt shaped our world today, for better and worse. We have the Constitution...
He was a murderer. What the heck are y'all talking about??? He called Hamilton to the duel. He didn't have to do that.
Not everyone considers killing someone in ritual combat to be 'murder'. If Burr was aiming to kill then maybe, but there's no evidence of that aside from contemporary rumours in the newspapers which frankly were already slamming Burr for crimes both plausible and completely fabricated.
Perhaps Burr should have deloped as Hamilton did, but why should he? He had previously duelled Hamilton's brother-in-law, Church with no injury to either man except the loss of a button on his own coat. Most duels did end without bloodshed.
Hamilton himself could have refused the challenge or picked a less lethal weapon, but he was operating under the same social expectations as Burr and so, unfortunately, lost his life.
@@jokiskywalker5417 I get your point of view. But Burr holds the most blame because he is the one who called the duel; Hamilton didn't. Yes, Hamilton was dumb enough to accept the damn challenge knowing he could possibly be killed and leave his wife widowed, broke, and with more heartbreak. But Burr did murder him no matter which way you cut it.
@@glkmee22 Do you think it is also murder to kill another soldier on the field of battle?
@@jokiskywalker5417 I do not if the war is about freedom and not someone's ego.
@@glkmee22 So every shot fired in the French and Indian War, for example, was murderous? I don't have an overly high opinion of George Washington, but I would hesitate to outright call him a murderer.
Burr reminds me of Trump, except, Burr was smart.
Oh please hahahahaha
@@11spiritwarrior You know, you're right. He is brilliant. Don't forget to uncheck that recurring payment to him.
@@11spiritwarrior Oh my gosh you are so smart. You make me proud to be an American. 😁
@@glkmee22 oh my, when someone with your obvious discernment and clearly superior intellect compliments me...well bless your heart I just have to blush a little and bless your heart again...maybe just giggle a little. Please know that you’ve really made my day sweet one.😁
@@11spiritwarrior OH my gosh. Me too! I smiled when I saw that u wrote me back!!!