On July 11, 1804, Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton rowed across the Hudson River in separate boats; they were about to duel. Burr was accompanied by his faithful protégé, William Van Ness; Hamilton brought with him Dr. David Hosack and his devotee, Nathaniel Pendleton. They met on a narrow ledge located 20 feet above the water and measuring ten feet wide and forty feet long, a popular location for duels, as they were illegal at the time and this site provided isolation. Because of the legal issues, Pendleton, Hosack, and Van Ness were required to turn their backs on the proceedings so that, if ever brought to court, they could all truthfully claim they had seen nothing. This was called the "language of deniability" and was part of the dueling code, which was the established etiquette that duelists had to abide by. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay. They were two men, founders of the country, who were supposedly members of a group of people who "knew and trusted each other." So what brought them to Weehawken? Ellis in Founding Brothers does not immediately give the reader this answer. Instead of starting at the beginning, he starts at the end: the day of the duel. Ellis first describes Burr, making him appear full of style and commanding presence, mentioning his title of colonel. He says Burr was quite casual about the whole thing, walking toward the Hudson River with "the air of a natural aristocrat walking to a rendezvous with destiny." He further states that although no one could really know what was going through Burr's mind as he rowed towards Weehawken, it is the general consensus among historians today that Burr was thinking he had finally captured Hamilton and that he was more than ready to strike and kill.Ellis remains in the same time frame, but now examines Hamilton. He says that Hamilton, like Burr, carried himself with the air of a gentleman and talks about how, in front of a general, Burr was outclassed. We're not talking about flair, but rather Hamilton's delicate bone structure. Although slight and subtle, the different tones in the two descriptions make Hamilton a sort of father figure and Burr an impulsive child. The narrative expands on this premise by describing Burr as “dark” and like an “eagle” or a “crow” and Hamilton as “peaches and cream.” Ellis says it was as if Burr's New England puritanism was coiled inside, waiting to explode, and that Hamilton conveyed 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 understanding of his thoughts on the duel. Attached to his will, Hamilton left a personal statement saying he now bore a grudge against Burr and wished to reserve and throw away his first fire. Since Hamilton had been the one to be challenged, he was allowed to choose weapons. He chose a pair of pistols that hid triggers that required only a pound of pressure to fire a shot. The trigger was not adjusted for dueling, which meant twenty pounds of pressure was required to fire. This, along with other factors, made gun aiming highly unreliable and made it unlikely that either party would be injured in the exchange. If both sides fired and missed, a conference would be held to decide whether they should go for another round or whether honor obligations were met. Ellis provides the reader with the rules and instructions that were given to Burr and Hamilton, and tells of a peculiarity in the story that goesagainst what Hamilton had said about not wanting to shoot Burr. It is said that, upon reaching the designated location, Hamilton asked for a moment to put on his glasses and test the gun's sights at several imaginary targets, which would not have been requested if he had not intended to shoot Burr. Ellis then skips the moments after Hamilton's actions, and gives himself a chance to reflect on the fact that those moments, which are described by different people in quite contradictory ways, demonstrate that there is no objective truth, but just a bunch 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 quickly took Burr to their boat. While on his boat, Hamilton did not appear aware that his own gun had been fired, warning the men to be careful because it was cocked and not unloaded. Hamilton died the next day at 2. The popular consensus was that Burr killed Hamilton in cold blood. Anti-Burr newspapers created false stories (such as that Burr wore a suit that could deflect bullets), fabrications (that while Hamilton's wife cried, Burr toasted her death), and the like. 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 in which the shots were fired is missing, making it impossible to know exactly 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 at the time. Before the details of the duel became a frantic struggle between the parties, Van Ness and Pendleton issued a joint statement saying that both men had behaved in accordance with the dueling code, which meant that the men had essentially behaved like gentlemen. This was important at the time, as behaving like a gentleman was often more important than obeying the law. Van Ness and Pendleton agreed that both men fired their weapons, and that there was an interval of a few seconds between shots. And that's all there is to it between the Hamiltonian and Burr versions. The Hamiltonian version is this: Hamilton came to the duel, certain that he would not kill Burr. By this logic, it wouldn't make sense for Hamilton to shoot first. Rather, Burr fired while Hamilton's gun was still in the air and the impact of Burr's shot caused Hamilton to shake the trigger in surprise and send a shot into the trees above Burr. This would explain Hamilton's remarks about his loaded gun while on the boat. Additionally, Van Ness claimed that he returned to the ledge the next day and saw a severed branch above where Burr was standing. What this interpretation would not explain is why there was a gap between shots. If Hamilton had simply fired in surprise, the reaction would have been immediate. Burr's account: Van Ness said Hamilton shot first, but missed, and Burr waited a few seconds for the smoke to clear from Hamilton and for Pendleton to begin the count. Pendleton was caught up in the drama and speechless. Not wanting to risk missing the shot, Burr fired and Hamilton fell instantly. According to Van Ness, Burr informed him that after Hamilton shot his foot became caught in a stone or piece of wood, causing a sprained ankle. Ellis saysthat this was an excuse on the part of Burr, who actually fired in surprise after Hamilton's shot and did not want to appear startled. Neither story fits together perfectly, especially since the stories were built around selfish motivations. The Hamiltonians were to claim that their leader was a martyr who would expose himself completely to Burr's fire. They needed to change the sequence of events so that Burr shot first to preserve Hamilton's reputation. Burr's side was to assert that Burr had acted honorably and in accordance with the dueling code. They needed to distort Hamilton's honorable intentions to justify Burr's response. Now that Ellis has presented the reader with the stories that both sides had invented and the reasoning behind distorting them as they did, he provides an explanation of what he believes really happened. He says Hamilton shot first, but honored his promise not to shoot Burr by sending his shot into the trees above Burr. Burr, who could not possibly have known of Hamilton's promise, knew only that a shot had come at him and that the dueling code said he had every right to fire a fatal shot at Hamilton. But, Ellis wonders, what if he did? He would gain nothing by killing Hamilton except shame. The events following Burr's shooting sufficiently confirm that he had no intention of killing Hamilton; his reaction to Hamilton's collapse was one of shock and surprise, for example, and the need to talk to Hamilton. When the men talked about having only one doctor, he said that not even one was necessary. Furthermore, when duelists wanted to leave their opponent with a simple superficial wound, the most common targets were the hips and legs; Burr's shot missed the target being a mere flesh of only two or three inches. Even in this convincing argument about what really happened at Weehawken, Ellis admits that one can never truly know what happened based on the evidence that exists. He says it's very likely that Burr was so hateful towards Hamilton that he purposely 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 actually aware of what he was saying. Or, a less likely explanation is that Pendleton and Hosack invented the observation to support their story. It is also possible that Burr's shot was accidental, given the unpredictability of weapons aiming at the time. It makes sense to focus so heavily on what happened in the exchanges involving all these men, since most history books contain the Hamiltonian version - and that version is most likely 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 disagreement, a “duel of words” that took place before the fateful duel at Weehawken was initiated by Burr. In June 1804, Burr was running for governor of New York. Two months earlier, a letter in the Albany Register mentioned Hamilton questioning Burr's qualifications for the position. It was on June 18 that Burr brought this to Hamilton's attention. Burr expected Hamilton to deny ever having said those words, but Hamilton responded vaguely, saying he could not help what others might infer from his words. This greatly irritated Burr and prompted him to insult Hamilton in one of the worst ways, saying that Hamilton "lacked the spirit to maintain or the magnanimity to retract" his own words. Burr said.