Founding Brothers: Chapter 1 Summary & Analysis

A basic summary of the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton states that both men shot each other, and that Hamilton was fatally wounded, dying the following day. Burr survived, but his political career and reputation did not. However, this does not capture the full story, which should be elaborated considering it is the most famous duel in American history.

Aaron Burr left his home in Manhattan at dawn on July 11, 1804, having slept in his clothes. His “devoted disciple and protégé, William Van Ness, accompanied him to the duel.  Alexander Hamilton, meanwhile, was accompanied by his doctor along with his “loyal associate,” Nathaniel Pendleton. Hamilton’s military rank, inspector general of the New Army, was higher than Burr’s. He was 49 years old, one year older than Burr. The two men had opposite coloring (Burr dark and Hamilton fair) and opposite personalities, with Burr subdued and Hamilton vivacious. Where Burr had an aristocratic heritage, Hamilton was an illegitimate child with “impoverished origins.”

Hamilton was born on Nevis, an island in the West Indies. He approached political problems as “personal challenges,” and the fact that he chose to accept Burr’s invitation to the duel was characteristic of his eagerness to accept challenges. On the evening of July 10, Hamilton drafted his will and noted that he did not harbor any resentment toward Burr. He saw their dispute as purely political and wrote that he intended to “throw away” his first shot, hoping to give Burr a chance to reflect.

Burr arrived at the “narrow ledge” where the duel was to take place around 7:00 in the morning, followed shortly after by Hamilton. Dueling was illegal in New York, so the event had to be called an “interview,” and the oarsmen and doctor had to turn their backs so as not to witness it. The duelers used a pair of “custom-made” pistols belonging to Hamilton’s brother-in-law, which contained a hair-trigger device that meant only one pound of pressure was needed to shoot. Hamilton chose not to use the hair-trigger, meaning that, as was common at the time, neither participant was likely to be seriously injured in the duel.

Hamilton was allowed to choose which position to stand in and chose a poor one, in the sun’s glare. At the last minute, Hamilton put his glasses on, which—contrary to his own claim—seems to suggest he wanted to hit Burr. What happened next is unclear, and will be explored in detail later in the chapter. Two shots were fired, one striking Hamilton in the side, penetrating his liver. He told his doctor that he was fatally injured before falling unconscious. Burr appeared to immediately be filled with regret, though Van Ness hurried him away in order to avoid legal trouble, refusing to let him speak to Hamilton.

As Hamilton was being taken home, he advised those around him to be careful with his pistol, claiming it was “still cocked.” This suggests he didn’t realize that he even fired a shot at Burr. He died the following afternoon, surrounded by his wife, children, and the Episcopal bishop of New York. His funeral was “an extravaganza of mourning” attended by enormous numbers of the country’s elite. Burr was vilified in the media; he was so ashamed he fled to Georgia, while Hamilton was memorialized as a martyr.

Following the duel, the two witnesses—Pendleton and Van Ness—initially published a “Joint Statement” asserting that the proper rules of dueling were followed (even though the whole thing was illegal). Pendleton and Van Ness agreed that both Burr and Hamilton fired their weapons, and that a few seconds passed between the shots. Yet according to the “Hamiltonian” version of the story, the shots must have occurred almost at the same time, as this version held that Burr’s initial shot caused Hamilton to fire back involuntarily as he was hit by the bullet.

Van Ness confidently testified that Hamilton shot first, and that it seemed as if Burr was hit, when in fact, Burr had only sprained his ankle on a rock. Yet this does not align with Hamilton’s own assertion that he did not fire (and did not intend to). Also, those returning to the site found a branch that had fallen to the side of Burr, suggesting that Hamilton had shot the branch, intentionally missing Burr. Ultimately, both the pro-Burr side and the pro-Hamilton side likely twisted the truth in order to make the man they supported seem more honorable and less guilty.

Ellis’ own interpretation is that Hamilton fired his gun on purpose and did so first, aiming to miss Burr. Burr, not knowing that this miss was intentional, was “perfectly justified” in shooting Hamilton with intent to kill. We can never know whether this was actually Burr’s plan, but it is true that he had “nothing to gain and everything to lose” from killing Hamilton, and details of the event suggest that Burr did not seek to seriously hurt his opponent. On the other hand, his hatred for Hamilton might have suddenly led him to act rashly. We will never know what was going on in his mind.

Stepping back, what led Burr to challenge Hamilton to the duel in the first place? The two men had a long history of mutual hostility and hatred. While Burr was running for governor of New York in February 1803, Hamilton publicly expressed his low opinion of Burr’s qualifications. In June 1804, Burr confronted him about this. Instead of apologizing, Hamilton refused to confirm or deny what he had said, and gave Burr a patronizing lecture about language and meaning. Burr eventually wrote to demand that Hamilton publicly disavow all the “derogatory” statements he’d made about him.

Pendleton got involved, and encouraged Hamilton to make an apology in which Hamilton clarified that all of his criticisms were of a political, rather than personal nature. This should theoretically have ended the dispute, but instead further enraged Burr. Speaking on behalf of Burr, Van Ness demanded a full and unequivocal apology. After Hamilton once again refused to comply, Burr got so frustrated that he invited him to the duel. Following this invitation, both men made arrangements for the event that the duel should end in their death.

At the 1804 Independence Day dinner held by the Society of Cincinnati, Hamilton and Burr sat at the same table. While Burr was gloomy and quiet, Hamilton was jolly, and sang a military song whose lyrics eerily foreshadowed his imminent death. The day before, Hamilton had held a dinner party and invited Thomas Jefferson’s personal secretary, as well as the daughter and son-in-law of John Adams and Abigail Adams. Jefferson and Adams were both political rivals of Hamilton’s, so this dinner suggests Hamilton was demonstrating his ability to put aside political differences. During this time, Hamilton also produced a piece of writing for his eldest son about the dangers of having too many enemies.

Hamilton likely didn’t think he was going to die in the duel, but the invitation nonetheless made him pause and reflect. However, he stood by what he had said about Burr, which is why he refused to apologize. The consequence of the duel was that Hamilton came to be seen as “a martyr to the dying cause of Federalism,” and Burr was vilified. A new crackdown on dueling in the North also followed. The Burr-Hamilton duel is remarkable in part because it was the exception to the otherwise peaceful post-Revolutionary moment. Across history, revolutions usually end in leaders violently turning on each other. The only time this happened in the American Revolution was the duel.

Hamilton and Burr had been undermining one another’s political ambitions since 1789. Yet Burr was not even Hamilton’s main political enemy—Thomas Jefferson was (followed closely by John Adams). Yet Hamilton’s criticisms of Burr were nonetheless exceptionally harsh. He claimed that Burr was “unprincipaled, both as a public and private man” and that he only cared about advancing his own career. He declared that Burr was “beyond redemption,” comparing him to Caitiline, a notorious figure whose wicked betrayal “nearly destroyed the Roman Republic.”

It is hard to know if Hamilton’s accusations were justified, as Burr had a habit of giving vague answers and destroying his own correspondence. Burr was enormously skilled at maneuvering disputes without choosing a side, and was adamantly non-partisan. He would only ever pick the side that offered him “the bigger tribute.” When Burr learned that the Republicans planned to drop him as the vice presidential candidate during Jefferson’s run, he ran for governor as a Federalist, which was the incident that led Hamilton to call him unprincipled. Yet a group of Federalists actually recruited Burr as part of their plan for northern states seceding from the rest of the nation (a plan Hamilton opposed).

There were some similarities between Hamilton and Burr’s personalities, insofar as they were both talented, energetic, and ambitious. In fact, Hamilton’s fear was that Burr’s talent would be put to use in a way that would endanger the republic. In this sense, it is true that Hamilton did not attack Burr’s personality traits (such as his overspending and womanizing)—it was Burr’s politics than Hamilton worried about.

Hamilton’s reaction to Burr may have seemed paranoid and extreme, but that is because we, unlike Hamilton, know the United States survived and flourished after this period. Both Burr and Hamilton knew that they were part of a remarkable generation. Yet by 1804, both of their political careers were behind them. Their duel was “a dramatic final statement” about the era in which they lived. Soon the United States would develop institutions robust enough to override human corruption, trickery, and clumsiness. Yet for now “it still required honorable and virtuous leaders to endure.”