logo

41 pages 1 hour read

Joseph J. Ellis

Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2000

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapters 1-2 Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapter 1 Summary: “The Duel”

The duel between Vice President Aaron Burr and former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton occurs on July 11, 1804, when the two men are rowed in separate boats across the Hudson River to a secluded spot near Weehawken, New Jersey. There, in compliance with duel laws, they exchange pistol shots at ten paces. Hamilton is hit on his right side and dies the following day, and the survivor, Burr, finds “that his reputation suffered an equally fatal wound” (20).

Ellis feels that a fuller narrative of events is needed in order to do justice to this “most famous encounter of its kind in American history” (20).

Though both duelers come to the event elegantly attired, they are very different men, with contrasting genealogies. Intense, power-hungry Burr hails from a distinguished New England bloodline, while Hamilton is, in party rival and former president of the United States John Adams’ libelous terms, ‘“the bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar [sic]’”(22). As a result of his origins, Hamilton is constantly compelled to prove himself, needing “to impress his superiors with his own superiority” (22). He therefore feels unable to refuse Burr’s challenge to a duel, even though his last will and testament shows that he hoped to avoid the encounter.

On the day of the event, two shots are fired, and Hamilton is hit just above the hip, with the projectile going through his liver and diaphragm. Everyone knows it will be a fatality, and Hamilton lapses into unconsciousness. On the boat back, wounded Hamilton believes that his pistol is still fully loaded and that he has not fired it. 

However, there is no agreed version of what happened in the firing of the shots, and the after-action reports by the duelists’ seconds—William Peter Van Ness (federal judge and close friend of Burr) and Nathaniel Pendleton (a lawyer and judge who served as Hamilton’s second)—degenerates into a battle of words. Pendleton and Van Ness agree that the two duelists abided by the code of duelists and that two shots had been fired. They also agree that there had been “a discernible” gap between the two shots (28). However Pendleton and Van Ness disagree about which duelist fired first—in Pendleton’s report, Hamilton does not fire at all; in Van Ness’s report, Hamilton fires first and misses. The purpose behind these conflicting accounts is to either paint Hamilton as a martyr or to portray Burr as an honorable man who had followed the dueling code and after exposing “his own life to Hamilton’s pistol, had responded in kind but with better aim” (30). 

In all likelihood, Hamilton fires first but aims to miss Burr, sending his ball into the tree above. He thus wastes his shot, honoring the pledge not to fire that is written in his will. Burr, who does not know about this pledge, feels justified in responding to the first shot, even if it missed him. Burr’s initial aim at Hamilton’s hip—the bullet only scores the vital organs because it bumps off Hamilton’s rib—is significant, as this is a place duelers fire when they only wish to wound their opponents superficially rather than kill them. The few seconds between what is probably Hamilton’s original shot and Burr’s responding one hold the key to Burr’s intentions, which will forever remain a mystery.

Burr and Hamilton’s physical duel is preceded by a verbal duel. Prior to the duel, there had been a fifteen-year-period of animosity between the two men because Hamilton was critical of Burr’s capacity for shifting his political allegiances in order to maximize his power, rather than merely out of conviction. When Burr is running for governor of New York, Hamilton is reported to have libeled Burr as ‘“despicable”’ in Dr. Charles Cooper’s letter in The Albany Register (32). On June 25, 1804, Van Ness (Burr’s representative) requires that Hamilton deny his degrading statements. When Pendleton enters proceedings as Hamilton’s representative, he issues a statement saying that Hamilton denies he made the charges reported in Dr. Charles Cooper’s proceedings. He emphasizes that in any event his statements related to Burr’s political dealings rather than his personal ones. 

Duels are supposed to involve only personal charges, so “[s]trictly speaking Hamilton’s concession should have been the end of it” (34). However, Burr digs in his heels and demands “a wholesale and unqualified apology” from Hamilton (35). Several more letters are exchanged between the two men’s representatives, as Pendleton looks for an honorable exit route for Hamilton. By June 27, Burr’s patience runs out, and he comes to the conclusion that the only solution is a duel, scheduled for July 11. 

The duel ends badly for Burr. Hamilton’s funeral is “an extravaganza of mourning,” and the common consensus is that “Burr had murdered Hamilton in cold blood” (26). Wild rumors about Burr wearing a suit made from bullet-deflecting material and meaning to shoot Hamilton in the heart emerge. Therefore Hamilton becomes a martyr, and Burr recedes into “political oblivion” (27).

The duel, an outmoded model of dispute resolution, shows that “the newborn American republic” is a place “where real and not just imagined conspiracies were prevalent, where the endurance of the political entity called the United States was still very much up in the air” (46). Both Hamilton and Burr attend the duel because they feel that the future of the United States depends on strong characters to mold it and are willing to fight to ensure that those with influence in the new republic are not libelous or corrupt.

Chapter 2 Summary: “The Dinner”

On June 20, 1790, Thomas Jefferson, President George Washington’s Secretary of State, hosts a dinner party at his Maiden Lane apartment in New York City to resolve a dispute between then Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, a prominent Virginian congressman who had helped draft the Bill of Rights. Madison had blocked Hamilton’s plan for federal government to assume the states’ debts. According to Hamilton, the new United States’ debt is $77.1 million, with $11.7 million owed to foreign governments and $40.4 million owed in domestic debt, most of which is from the American Revolution. His idea is to restore “public credit” and put the country on a firm fiscal footing (61). Jefferson hopes the dinner will help them resolve the dispute together. At the dinner, Madison agrees to permit “the core provision of Hamilton’s fiscal program to pass; and in return Hamilton agreed to use his influence to assure that the permanent residence of the national capital would be on the Potomac River” (49). The dinner party earns the nickname “‘The Compromise of 1790”’ and will be one of the most significant of American history (50). 

But is the story of the dinner party true? It is certainly true that Hamilton and Madison met at Jefferson’s quarters in late June of 1790 and that Jefferson was anxious that they find a compromise regarding this financial agreement, “‘for the sake of the union’” (50). The debate over Hamilton’s financial plan and the location of the national capital has produced a legislative paralysis that reflects the battle between the federal government and the states. 

In the 1790 Report on the Public Credit, Hamilton proposes that “all citizens who owned government securities should be reimbursed at par—that is, the full value of the government’s original promise” (56). The federal government would assume all of the states’ accumulated debts, especially those accrued during the Revolutionary War. From Hamilton’s perspective, “assumption was not a plot to destroy the political integrity of the states; it was a plan to consolidate their debts and nationalize [sic] the economy for the benefit of all” (62).

The problem is that many original holders of government securities who received them as payment for their service in the Revolutionary War, had sold them at a fraction of their original value to speculators. This, Madison observes, means that “battle-worn veterans” of the war for independence are being cheated out of their rewards by moneymen (56). Also many of the southern states, including Virginia, have already paid off the majority of their wartime debts, so Hamilton’s assumption proposal could compel them “‘after having done their duty, to contribute to those states who have not equally done their duty’” (57). Moreover, from a perspective of sovereignty, Madison worries that “under the guise of doing the states a favour by assuming their debts, the federal government was implicitly, even covertly, assuming sovereign authority over the economies of all the states’” (58). 

A point of legislative deadlock is reached as the northern states claim that Madison is “threatening the survival of the republic” by blocking Hamilton’s fiscal policy, while the southern states fear that “the states would be absorbed by the new federal government” (59). Thus, the dinner presents two conflicting views of how the United States should be run. From Hamilton’s perspective, it is best to take the English model of strategic management and organization of resources to a national level; from Jefferson and Madison’s perspective, however, this idea of central organization is “the institutions and symbols the American Revolution had supposedly repudiated forever” (63). Hamilton prefers to see money concentrated in the hands and purses of the urban elite, and the national debt “permitted the clustering of resources in the hands of a small group of enterprising men who would invest and not just spend it” (64). For Virginians such as Madison and Jefferson, “land, not fluid forms of capital, was their ultimate measure of wealth” (65).

Another matter to be consolidated at the dinner is the identification of a permanent seat of government. Every state on the Eastern seaboard wants to be within close proximity to the new government. By March 1790, sixteen possible locations for a seat of government are put to the table. Even prior to the dinner, in letter correspondence, the men had decided on a location near the Potomac River, a central point between Maine and Southern Georgia. By January of 1791, the capital will be “the hundred-square-mile-area stretching east from Georgetown to the mouth of the Potomac” (80). By “selecting the Potomac location, the Congress had decided to separate the political and financial capitals of the United States,” in order to prevent “the dangerous corruptions likely to afflict a nexus of politicians and financiers” (80). 

Whether it occurs because of a singular dinner or a series of exchanges, “The Compromise of 1790 is most famous for averting a political crisis that many statesmen of the time considered a threat to the survival of the infant republic” and also shows up incompatible expectations of what America should be (78). 

Chapters 1-2 Analysis

Ellis shows how both the dinner of 1790 and the duel of 1804 became definitive events within the mythology of the new American republic. Both involving Alexander Hamilton, the two occasions can be contrasted: the dinner shows how conflict can be resolved in debate, while the duel represents the last vestiges of European chivalric traditions. Though both the dinner and duel are described as singular events, in actual fact, they are both the culmination of earlier exchanges and communications. Nevertheless, the simplification of these disputes into single occasions gives them a “romantic gloss,” suitable for the founding myths of a new nation (73). From a mythologizing perspective, dinners and duels, which are intimate affairs and involve a limited number of participants, also serve to highlight the individual contributions of the revolutionary generation. Heroes and heroic events are isolated and celebrated, even if the reality is more complex. 

The duel, though formalized and following the conventions of the code duello, is a unique flashback to outdated European methods of conflict resolution. While neither Burr nor Hamilton can resist the duel, Hamilton  condemns it as an illegitimate practice, given the resolution in his will. Certainly, the public and the press wholeheartedly condemn the duel as a practice that has no place in their new republic. 

The dinner, on the other hand, with the panoply of debates surrounding it, is different because a compromise is reached without either party needing to resort to violence. The compromise, an agreement to disagree on the powers of the federal government over the states, is reached—a truce that lasts for seventy years until it demands bloody resolution in the Civil War of 1861. In order to ensure the survival of the still fragile new republic, contradictions can be lived with at this stage. Overall, the dinner and the duel represent tensions between debate and violence. Though the new republic will generally gravitate toward the former, there are still undertones of the latter. 

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text