Deanza College: Chapter 10: Hist17B for Quiz for Spotlight: How Could a Vice President Get Away with Murder?
History for 'Quiz for Spotlight: How Could a Vice President Get Away with Murder?' Item: Quiz for Spotlight: How Could a Vice President Get Away with Murder? Score: 100% (Calculated) Due: Thursday, February 13, 2020 11:59 PM Submitted: Monday, January 13, 2020 Answers: 1. What event led Aaron Burr to challenge Alexander Hamilton to a duel in 1804? A public debate between Burr and Hamilton in which Hamilton erroneously characterized Burr's political beliefs A tavern fight in New York City, during which Hamilton caused a life-threatening injury to Burr's brother The publication of a newspaper article in which Hamilton said he distrusted Burr as a political leader An election for governor of New York in which Hamilton defeated Burr with a sizeable majority In June 1804, Burr learned about a newspaper article that described how Hamilton believed Burr “ought not be trusted with the reins of government.” The fact that a private conflict between two political leaders had now become public knowledge angered Burr, especially because he believed that the newspaper article was the reason he had lost the election for governor of New York. After Hamilton refused to recant his comment, Burr challenged him to a duel. Score: 1 of 1 2. How did Northerners and Southerners respond differently to the news of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton's illegal duel in 1804? More northern states moved to criminalize dueling, while many southern states actually decriminalized dueling by the end of 1804. While Northerners and Southerners all mourned Hamilton's death, only Southerners attempted to get Burr removed from his position as Vice President. Northerners argued that Burr should be sentenced to murder, while Southerners argued for the lesser charge of issuing a challenge to duel. Northerners were angry and reaffirmed the criminalization of dueling, while Southerners felt that dueling was an acceptable practice. The response to the duel, and to the legality of dueling in general, was sharply divided along sectional lines. Dueling had recently been criminalized in many northern states, and in the years that followed Hamilton and Burr's duel, dueling became extremely rare in the North. By contrast, Southerners continued to embrace dueling as an acceptable extralegal practice in cases of insults to honor. There is no evidence in this essay that any southern states had criminalized dueling before 1804. Score: 1 of 1 3. On what grounds did the senate Republicans argue that Aaron Burr's indictment for murder should be dropped by the state of New Jersey? Dueling deaths were more civilized than common murders. The President and Vice President were immune from criminal charges. Aaron Burr had fired his gun at Alexander Hamilton in self-defense. The federal government, not New Jersey, had jurisdiction in such cases. The Republicans in the Senate argued that “civilized nations” like the United States simply did not treat deaths by dueling in the same way as “common murders,” and therefore Burr should not be indicted for murder. This statement illustrates the idea of gentlemanly honor that surrounded dueling in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, which understood the duel as a ritual to redress offenses to honor. Such sentiments, however, were fading in the North by 1804, resulting in the criminalization of dueling in many northern states. Score: 1 of 1 4. On what grounds were duels fought in late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, as illustrated by the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton? As part of a battle during times of war To determine who would get a woman's hand in marriage In retribution for acts of physical violence To redress insults to a gentleman's honor Burr and Hamilton's duel illustrates the culture surrounding dueling in the early Republic: dueling functioned as a highly ritualized extralegal method for redressing an insult to a gentleman's honor. Dueling was the domain of men, not women, and of southerners more frequently than northerners, especially by the 1820s. Score: 1 of 1 5. What does the story of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton's duel suggest about early American masculine culture? Holding political office was considered the pinnacle of masculine achievements, and men were willing to do anything to maintain their positions. One source of sectional tension already evident in the early Republic was that the North and the South had different notions of masculinity. A man's honor was one of his most highly prized qualities, and insults to honor were offenses worthy of extreme acts of retribution. Masculine culture in the early nineteenth century was characterized by an affinity for shooting, hunting, and other forms of outdoor recreation. The duel between Burr and Hamilton provides an excellent illustration of the significance of honor, and retribution of offenses to one's honor, in early American masculine culture. Fastidiously protecting one's honor—particularly against offenses printed in public spaces, such as in newspapers—was extremely important, particularly to men with social status and men in the South. Score: 1 of 1