On July 11, 1804, Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton rowed across the Hudson River in separate boats; they were going to fight a duel. Burr was accompanied by his faithful protégé, William Van Ness; Hamilton brought with him Dr. David Hosack and his loyalist, Nathaniel Pendleton. They met on a narrow ledge 20 feet above the water and measuring ten feet wide and forty feet long, a popular spot for duels, as they were illegal at the time and this site ensured isolation. Due to legal issues, Pendleton, Hosack and Van Ness had to turn their backs on the proceedings so that, if they were ever brought to trial, they could all honestly say they saw nothing. This was called the "language of denial" and was part of the duello code, which was the established etiquette that duelists were expected to follow. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay It was about two men, founders of the country, who were supposedly members of a group of people who “knew each other and trusted each other. So what brought them to Weehawken? Ellis in Founding Brothers does not immediately give the reader this answer. Rather than starting at the beginning, he begins at the end: the day of the duel. Ellis first describes Burr, presenting him as full of style and a commanding presence, mentioning his title of colonel. He says Burr was quite nonchalant about it all, heading toward the Hudson River with "the air of a natural aristocrat heading toward a date with destiny." He also states that although no one could really know what was going through Burr's mind as he was taken back to Weehawken, historians today generally believe that Burr thought he had finally caught Hamilton and that he was more than ready to strike. and kill.Ellis stays in the same time frame, but now examines Hamilton. He says that Hamilton, like Burr, behaved with a gentlemanly air and recounts how, when faced with a general, Burr was outplayed. There is no mention of flair, but rather of Hamilton's delicate bone structure. Although light and subtle, the different tones in the two descriptions make Hamilton a sort of father figure and Burr an impulsive child. The narration reinforces this premise by describing Burr as "dark" and as an "eagle" or "raven" and Hamilton as "peaches and cream". Ellis said it was as if Burr's New England puritanism was coiled inside, waiting to explode, and Hamilton was transmitting kinetic energy that came out in bursts of brilliance. As Ellis continues, he focuses heavily on Hamilton, perhaps because Hamilton had left the world with insight into his thoughts on the duel. Attached to his will, Hamilton left a personal statement saying that he now felt ill will toward Burr and wished to reserve and cast his first fire. Because it was Hamilton who had been challenged, he was allowed to choose weapons. He chose a pair of guns with concealed triggers that required only a pound of pressure to fire a round. The trigger was not set for dueling, which meant that to fire it required twenty pounds of pressure. This, along with other factors, made the weapon's aim very unreliable and made it unlikely that either party would be harmed during the exchange. If both sides fired and missed, a conference would be held to decide whether they should go again or whether the obligations of honor had been fulfilled. Ellis gives the reader the rules andinstructions that were given to Burr and Hamilton, and tells a twist in the story that goes against what Hamilton had said about not wanting to shoot Burr. It is said that upon arriving at the designated location, Hamilton asked for a moment to put on his glasses and tested aiming his gun at several imaginary targets, which would not be necessary if he did not have a weapon.intention to shoot Burr. Ellis then skips over the moments following Hamilton's actions and gives himself the opportunity to think that these moments, which are described by different people in quite contradictory ways, prove that there is no objective truth - only a set of negotiable perceptions. the duel began, two shots were fired and Hamilton was hit. Burr seemed surprised by the shot and wanted to go talk to Hamilton, but Van Ness would not allow it and rushed Burr towards their boat. While on his own boat, Hamilton did not appear to realize that his own gun had been fired, warning the men to be careful as it was cocked and not unloaded. Hamilton died the next day at 2 p.m. The popular consensus was that Burr had killed Hamilton in cold blood. Anti-Burr newspapers created false stories (for example, that Burr wore a suit capable of deflecting bullets), fabrications (that while Hamilton's wife cried, Burr was toasting her death), etc. Burr fled, ashamed and dishonored, not stopping until he reached Georgia. Hamilton was the American martyr and Burr the traitor. Perhaps Burr would have been spared this shame if some information had been added to the historical record. Unfortunately, the crucial five-second interval during which the shots were fired is missing, making it impossible to know precisely what happened. People could only guess based on the duel of words between the only two witnesses, Van Ness and Pendleton, and the pro-Hamilton and pro-Burr supporters of the time. Before the details of the duel escalated into a frenzied fight between the parties, Van Ness and Pendleton issued a joint statement saying that both men had conducted themselves in accordance with the duello code, meaning that they had essentially acted as gentlemen. This was important at the time, because acting as a gentleman was often more important than following the law. Van Ness and Pendleton agreed that both men fired their weapons and that there was an interval of several seconds between the shots. And that's about all that is agreed between the Hamiltonian account and the Burr version. The Hamiltonian version is this: Hamilton came to the duel, certain of not killing Burr. With that logic, it wouldn't make sense for Hamilton to shoot first. Instead, Burr fired while Hamilton's gun was still in the air and the impact of Burr's shot caused Hamilton to jerk his trigger in surprise and send a shot into the trees above by Burr. This would explain Hamilton's remarks about his loaded gun while in the boat. Additionally, Van Ness claimed to have returned to the ledge the next day and seen a cut branch above where Burr was standing. What this interpretation would not explain is why there was a gap between the shots. If Hamilton had simply taken a surprise shot, the reaction would have been immediate. Burr's account: Van Ness said Hamilton fired first, but missed, and Burr waited a few seconds for the smoke to clear around Hamilton and Pendleton to begin counting. Pendleton was caught up in the drama and left speechless. Not wanting to risk losing his shot, Burr fired and Hamilton went down instantly. According to Van Ness, Burr has itinformed that after Hamilton was shot, his foot got stuck in a stone or piece of wood, causing him to sprain his ankle. Ellis says it was an excuse on Burr's part, who really took the shot by surprise after Hamilton's shot and didn't want to appear flinching. Neither story fits perfectly, largely because the stories were built around self-serving motives. The Hamiltonians were to claim that their leader was a martyr who would fully expose himself to Burr's fire. They had to change the sequence of events so that Burr shot first in order to preserve Hamilton's reputation. The Burr side had to argue that Burr had acted honorably and in accordance with the duello code. They had to misrepresent Hamilton's honorable intentions to justify Burr's response. Now that Ellis has introduced the reader to the stories both sides made up and why they distorted them, he gives an explanation of what he believes really happened. He says Hamilton shot first, but he honored his promise not to shoot Burr by sending his bullet into the trees above Burr. Burr, who could not have known of Hamilton's engagement, knew only that a shot had been fired at him and that the duello code said he had every right to fire a fatal shot at Hamilton . But, Ellis wonders, would he gain nothing by killing Hamilton except out of shame. The events following Burr's shooting sufficiently confirm that he had not intended to kill Hamilton; His reaction to Hamilton's collapse was one of shock and surprise, as well as an urgent need to speak to Hamilton. When the men talked about having only one doctor, he said one wasn't necessary. Additionally, when duelists wanted to leave their opponent with a simple bodily injury, the most common targets were the hips and legs; Burr's shot missed a mere two or three inches of flesh. Even in this compelling argument about what really happened at Weehawken, Ellis admits that one can never really know what happened based on the available evidence. He says it's very possible that Burr was so hateful toward Hamilton that he deliberately fired a fatal shot. It is possible that Hamilton shot first and missed intentionally, and the only plausible explanation for his words on the boat is that, in his semi-consciousness, he was not really aware of what he was saying. Or, a less likely explanation is that Pendleton and Hosack are making up the remark to support their story. It is also possible that Burr's shooting was accidental, given the unpredictability of gun aiming at the time. It makes sense to focus so much on what happened in the exchanges involving all of these men, because most history books contain the Hamiltonian version - and that version is probably inaccurate. The real question is: why were the men in Weehawken in the first place? The duel was the result of personal animosity and political disagreements, a "duel of words" that took place before the fateful duel at Weehawken was started by Burr. In June 1804, Burr was a candidate for governor of New York. Two months earlier, a letter in the Albany Register noted that Hamilton questioned Burr's qualifications for such a position. It was on June 18 that Burr brought this matter to Hamilton's attention. Burr expected Hamilton to deny ever saying those words, but Hamilton responded vaguely, saying he couldn't help but understand what others might infer from his words. This greatly angered Burr and prompted him to insult.