Founding Brothers-"the Duel" "The Interview

Founding Brothers-"the Duel" "The interview at Weehawken," as the July 11, 1804 duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton was known because of the fact that the period's society did not tolerate duels, took place because of a series of reasons -- most related to the tensioned political landscape. Joseph Elis's book "The Founding Brothers" first chapter, "The Duel" recounts the exact steps leading to the event, the event itself, and the consequences it had on the American society.

The conflict is one of the most controversial to have taken place in American history. It is not certain exactly what the key motive for the duel was, but most sources point to an episode in which Hamilton wrote a defamatory article in regard to Burr's political approach. The duel itself is also a mystery, given that there are no eye witnesses to it, with the people present being reluctant to watch because they feared being held accomplice to the illegal act.

As stated by Ellis, all that is known in regard to the duel is that Burr "has shooted dead great Hamilton" (Ellis, p. 27). It appears that the relationship between Burr and Hamilton was particularly stressful, as the two men have had previous political divergences until the duel.

In spite of the fact that one can identify more than one reason for which the two chose to let the duel decide who was better; the most probable reason for the conflict is the article Hamilton published at the time of the 1804 New York gubernatorial race. In his article, Hamilton called Burr the Catiline of America, making a reference to the fact that Burr brought damage to the American Republic through his actions.

Catiline was an individual in Ancient Rome who was apparently determined to overthrow the power of the Roman Republic with the purpose of installing his own government. During the gubernatorial elections, Hamilton's position was not superficial, as the former U.S. Secretary of Treasury took on a complex campaign meant to do as much as possible to prevent Burr from taking the majority of votes. Taking into account Burr's actions during the era, one can easily understand Hamilton's behavior and his choice to openly insult the American Vice-President.

It appears that Aaron Burr was more interested in his own well-being than in that of his party or of the nation as a whole. Given that he was willing to renounce the party he belonged to and furthermore that he did not pay great importance to the U.S. - disposed to create secession in the union in order to accomplish his personal goals, it becomes clear that this was an unprincipled man.

This is certainly surprising, given that Burr was to a certain degree responsible for the creation of the United States. All things considered, Burr was a man who considered his personal gains to be more important than morality. Hamilton's article came as a blow to Burr, especially given that he had lost the gubernatorial elections. He could not accept being publicly insulted and demanded for the article's author to come forth with an apology.

Hamilton's response only caused more stress on Burr, as the former claimed that he did not even remember insulting him. One can also consider the duel to be the physical materialization of the long history of divergences between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists. One of the first instances to raise tensions between Burr and Hamilton went back to 1791, when the former took a Senate seat from the latter's father-in-law.

When all's said and done, both men involved in the duel lost in their own way, as Hamilton lost his life while Burr's political career was ended. Hamilton was "safely buried and assuming legendary proportions as a martyr" (Ellis, 26) whereas Burr was "out of town, eventually headed toward bizarre adventures in the American West, but already consigned to political oblivion" (Ellis, 26). Even with the fact that the duel can easily.