Political opposition can never absolve gentlemen from the necessity of a rigid adherence to the laws of honor and the rules of decorum. I neither claim such privilege nor indulge it in others.
The common sense of mankind affixes to the epithet adopted by Dr. Cooper the idea of dishonor. It has been publicly applied to me under the sanction of your name. The question is not whether he has understood the meaning of the word or has used it according to syntax and with grammatical accuracy, but whether you have authorized this application either directly or by uttering expression or opinion derogatory to my honor. The time “when” is in your own knowledge but no way material to me, as the calumny has now just been disclosed so as to become the subject of my notice and as the effect is present and palpable.
Your letter has furnished me with new reasons for requiring a definite reply.
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St.
A. Burr
Hamilton to Burr
N YORK 22 JUNE 1804
Sir,
Your first letter, in a style too peremptory, made a demand, in my opinion, unprecedented and unwarrantable. My answer, pointing out the embarrassment, gave you an opportunity to take a less exceptionable course. You have not chosen to do it, but by your last letter, received this day, containing expressions indecorous and improper, you have increased the difficulties to explanation, intrinsically incident to the nature of your application.
If by a “definite reply” you mean the direct avowal or disavowal required in your first letter, I have no other answer to give than that which has already been given. If you mean anything different admitting of greater latitude, it is requisite you should explain.
I have the honor to be, Sir
Your Obdt. St.
A. Hamilton
Van Ness to Pendleton, 26 June 1804
Sir,
The letter which you yesterday delivered me and your subsequent communication in Col. Burr’s opinion evince no disposition on the part of Genl. Hamilton to come to a satisfactory accommodation. The injury complained of and the reparation expected are so definitely expressed in his (Col. B.’s) letter of the 21st Inst. that there is not perceived a necessity for further explanation on his part. The difficulty that would result from confining the inquiry to any particular times and occasions must be manifest. The denial of a specified conversation only, would leave strong implications that on other occasions improper language had been used. When and where injurious expressions and opinions have been uttered by Genl. Hamilton must be best known to him and of him only does Col. Burr think it proper to inquire.
No denial or declaration will be satisfactory unless it be general so as to wholly exclude the idea that rumors derogatory to Col. Burr’s honor can have originated with Genl. Hamilton or have been fairly inferred from anything he has said. A definite reply to a requisition of this nature is demanded in Col. Burr’s letter of the 21st Inst. This being refused, invites the alternative alluded to in Genl. H.’s letter of the 20th Inst. It was demanded by the position in which the controversy was placed by Genl. H. on the 22nd Inst., and I was immediately furnished with a communication demanding a personal interview.
The necessity of this measure has not in the opinion of Col. Burr been diminished by the General’s last letter or any subsequent communication which has been received and I am again instructed to deliver you a message as soon as it may be convenient for you to receive it. I beg, therefore, you will have the politeness to inform me at what hour I shall wait on you.
Your most obt. & very hum. Servt.
W. P. Van Ness
Anonymous to Lord Monteagle, October 1605
The plan was to change the course of English history in the most nihilistic and diabolical way imaginable. After struggling for years during the long Protestant reign of Elizabeth I, a terrorist cell of Anglo-Catholics led by Robert Catesby lost patience with the new king James I and conspired to plant gunpowder beneath the Houses of Parliament so as to murder the entire elite of the kingdom: king, queen, princes, lords, and gentlemen, a crime that would have been considerably more horrific and effective than 9/11. The cell was small enough to succeed and might easily have done so had not one of its members delivered a warning letter, anonymously, to Lord Monteagle. Having recently nearly lost his head as a participant in Lord Essex’s rebellion against Queen Elizabeth, Monteagle rushes the letter to the chief minister Robert Cecil, earl of Salisbury, who shows it to the king. Cecil allows the pompous monarch the credit for interpreting the key words “terrible blow” and for ordering a search that reveals the cellar filled with gunpowder, guarded by the conspirator and explosives expert Guy Fawkes. The plot is foiled, the terrorists executed, and their failure still celebrated every year with bonfires on 5 November: Guy Fawkes Day.
My Lord, out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care of your preservation. Therefore I would advise you, as you tender your life, to devise some excuse to shift your attendance at this Parliament; for God and man hath concurred to punish the wickedness of this time. And think not slightly of this advertisement, but retire yourself into your country where you may expect the event in safety. For though there be no appearance of any stir, yet I say they shall receive a terrible blow this Parliament; and yet they shall not see who hurts them. This counsel is not to be condemned because it may do you good and can do you no harm; for the danger is passed as soon as you have burnt the letter. And I hope God will give you the grace to make good use of it, to whose holy protection I commend you.
Babur to Humayun, 25 December 1526
The targets of assassination attempts often die. Sometimes they survive, but they rarely write a detailed letter about the experience and their vengeance. But then, there are very few characters as extraordinary as Babur, the first emperor of Mughal India, conqueror, poet, memoirist, lover. In 1526 he invades India. He captures Delhi and kills the ruling sultan of the Lodi dynasty, Ibrahim, in battle. But he spares Ibrahim’s mother, Buwa, and allows her to live on in the palace. Typically Babur decides to try Indian food and keeps four Indian chefs to do so. When Buwa hears this, she persuades the imperial chefs to poison the new emperor. Somehow Babur survives. His enemies had plotted his downfall. Instead it heralds their own: as he explains, he devises terrible deaths for the four assassins. The whole episode is recounted in a unique letter to his son Humayun, who then rules his Afghan territories from Kabul in Babur’s own flamboyant and vivid style.
On Friday the sixteenth of Rabi [21 December] a strange incident took place….The wretched Buwa, mother of Ibrahim, heard that I was eating foods prepared by Hindustani cooks. This came about because three or four months prior to this date, since I had never seen Hindustani food, I said that Ibrahim’s cooks should be brought. Of fifty or sixty cooks I kept four. So, having heard of this, she sent a man to Etawah to obtain a tola of poison wrapped up in a piece of paper and then give it to an old woman servant, who would then pass it to Ahmad Chashnigir. (In Hindustan they call the taster chashnigir, and a tola is a measure slightly more than two mithcals, as has been described.) Ahmad gave it to the Hindustani cook in our kitchen, promising him four parganas to introduce it somehow to my food. After the first old woman, who gave Ahmad Chashnigir the poison, she sent another to see whether or not he had given me the poison. It is good that he put it on the plate and not in the pot, having done so because I had given the cooks strict instructions to supervise the Hindustanis and make them taste from the pot while our food was being prepared. When the meal was being dished out, however, our wretched cooks were negligent. The cook put a piece of thin bread on the porcelain plate and then sprinkled less than half of the poison from the paper on top of the bread. On top of the poison he put some meat dressed in oil. If he had sprinkled the poison on the meat, or if he had thrown it into the pot, it would have been bad. In a fluster, he threw the
rest into the stove.
Late Friday evening they served the food. I ate a lot of rabbit stew and had quite a bit of dressed saffroned meat. I also had one or two tidbits from the top of the poisoned Hindustani food. I took the dressed meat and ate it. There was no apparent bad taste. I had one or two pieces of dried meat. I felt sick. The day before, when I was eating dried meat, there had been an off-taste, so I thought that was the reason. Once again my stomach churned. While seated at the meal I felt sick two or three times and almost threw up. Finally I said to myself, “Enough of this.” I got up and on my way to the toilet I almost threw up once. When I got to the toilet I vomited a lot. I never vomited after meals, not even when drinking. A cloud of suspicion came over my mind. I ordered the cook to be held while the vomit was given to a dog that was watched. Until near the end of the first watch the next morning the dog was pretty listless and its stomach was swollen. No matter how many stones they threw at it to try and get it to move, it refused to get up. It remained like that until midday, but then it got up and did not die. One or two pages had eaten the same food, and the next morning they too threw up a lot. One was very ill, but in the end they all recovered completely. “Calamity struck, but all’s well that ends well.” God gave me life anew; I had returned from the brink of death; I was born again. “Wounded, I died and came to life again, Now I have learned the value of life.” I ordered Sultan-Muhammad Bakhshï to keep a close watch on the cook. When he was tortured he confessed the details given above.
On Monday I ordered the nobles, grandees, amirs, and ministers to attend court. The two men and two women were brought in for questioning. They confessed to all the details of the affair. I ordered the taster to be hacked to pieces and the cook to be skinned alive. One of the two women I had thrown under the elephants’ feet, and the other I had shot. I had Buwa put under arrest. She will pay for what she has done.
On Saturday I drank a cup of milk. On Sunday I drank a cup of milk. I also drank some earth of Lemnos and opiate in milk and drank it. The milk really shook up my insides. On Saturday, the first day of this medication, I excreted some pitch-black things like burnt bile. Thank goodness now everything is all right. I never knew how precious life was. There is a line of poetry that says, “He who reaches the point of death appreciates life.” Every time I think of this dreadful incident I get angry. It was by God’s grace that I was given a new lease on life. How can I express my thanks?
Hoping this will not occasion alarm, I have described in detail everything that happened. Although it was a dreadful incident that cannot be adequately described by words, thank God I have lived to see another day, and all’s well that ends well. Do not worry.
Nikita Khrushchev to John F. Kennedy, 24 & 26 October 1962
Two letters: one almost brings the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation, and the other brings it back. When US spy planes spot Soviet nuclear missiles on the Communist-ruled island of Cuba, President John F. Kennedy faces probably the greatest crisis confronted by any commander-in-chief. America cannot allow the missiles to remain there and threaten American cities, yet any attempt to remove them may spark apocalyptic war. The young president imposes a blockade on the island, turning back further Soviet ships. The Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, writes an aggressive letter that threatens war. The crisis darkens.
Two days later, a second, more conciliatory letter from Khrushchev arrives. Kennedy agonizes over their meanings. Finally, Kennedy decides to ignore the aggressive letter and simply answer the conciliatory one. A deal is agreed: Khrushchev is to withdraw his missiles and Kennedy is to never invade Cuba—and to secretly remove US missiles from Turkey. If for nothing else, Kennedy’s conduct justifies his reputation. As for Cuba, its Marxist leader Fidel Castro had been willing to risk nuclear catastrophe and never forgave Khrushchev’s betrayal. As for Khrushchev, his comrades were infuriated by his erratic recklessness and overthrew him a few months later.
MOSCOW, OCTOBER 24, 1962
Dear Mr. President: I have received your letter of October 23, I have studied it, and am answering you.
Just imagine, Mr. President, that we had presented you with the conditions of an ultimatum which you have presented us by your action. How would you have reacted to this? I think that you would have been indignant at such a step on our part. And this would have been understandable to us.
In presenting us with these conditions, you, Mr. President, have flung a challenge at us. Who asked you to do this? By what right did you do this?…
You, Mr. President, are not declaring a quarantine, but rather are setting forth an ultimatum and threatening that if we do not give in to your demands you will use force. Consider what you are saying! And you want to persuade me to agree to this!…
No, Mr. President, I cannot agree to this, and I think that in your own heart you recognize that I am correct. I am convinced that in my place you would act the same way….
And we also say—no….
The Soviet Government considers that the violation of the freedom to use international waters and international air space is an act of aggression which pushes mankind toward the abyss of a world nuclear-missile war. Therefore, the Soviet Government cannot instruct the captains of Soviet vessels bound for Cuba to observe the orders of American naval forces blockading that Island. Our instructions to Soviet mariners are to observe strictly the universally accepted norms of navigation in international waters and not to retreat one step from them. And if the American side violates these rules, it must realize what responsibility will rest upon it in that case. Naturally we will not simply be bystanders with regard to piratical acts by American ships on the high seas. We will then be forced on our part to take the measures we consider necessary and adequate in order to protect our rights. We have everything necessary to do so.
Respectfully,
N. Khrushchev
MOSCOW, OCTOBER 26, 1962, 7 P.M.
Dear Mr. President:
I have received your letter of October 25. From your letter, I got the feeling that you have some understanding of the situation which has developed and (some) sense of responsibility. I value this….
I think you will understand me correctly if you are really concerned about the welfare of the world. Everyone needs peace….War is our enemy and a calamity for all the peoples….
I see, Mr. President, that you too are not devoid of a sense of anxiety for the fate of the world understanding, and of what war entails. What would a war give you? You are threatening us with war….
In the name of the Soviet Government and the Soviet people, I assure you that your conclusions regarding offensive weapons on Cuba are groundless….
You are mistaken if you think that any of our means on Cuba are offensive. However, let us not quarrel now. It is apparent that I will not be able to convince you of this….
But, Mr. President, do you really seriously think that Cuba can attack the United States and that even we together with Cuba can attack you from the territory of Cuba? Can you really think that way? How is it possible? We do not understand this….
If you are really concerned about the peace and welfare of your people, and this is your responsibility as President, then I, as the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, am concerned for my people. Moreover, the preservation of world peace should be our joint concern, since if, under contemporary conditions, war should break out, it would be a war not only between the reciprocal claims, but a worldwide cruel and destructive war….
If assurances were given by the President and the Government of the United States that the USA itself would not participate in an attack on Cuba and would restrain others from actions of this sort, if you would recall your fleet, this would immediately change everything….Then too, the question of the destruction, not only of the armaments which you call offensive, but of all other armaments as well, would look different….
/>
Let us therefore show statesmanlike wisdom. I propose: We, for our part, will declare that our ships, bound for Cuba, will not carry any kind of armaments. You would declare that the United States will not invade Cuba with its forces and will not support any sort of forces which might intend to carry out an invasion of Cuba. Then the necessity for the presence of our military specialists in Cuba would disappear….
If you did this as the first step towards the unleashing of war, well then, it is evident that nothing else is left to us but to accept this challenge of yours. If, however, you have not lost your self-control and sensibly conceive what this might lead to, then, Mr. President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose.
Consequently, if there is no intention to tighten that knot and thereby to doom the world to the catastrophe of thermonuclear war, then let us not only relax the forces pulling on the ends of the rope, let us take measures to untie that knot….
There, Mr. President, are my thoughts, which, if you agreed with them, could put an end to that tense situation which is disturbing all peoples.
These thoughts are dictated by a sincere desire to relieve the situation, to remove the threat of war.
Respectfully yours,
N. Khrushchev
Alexander Pushkin to Jacob von Heeckeren, 25 January 1837
Written in History Page 18
