Joseph J. Ellis by Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation

The standard collection of documents is Harold C. Syrett and Jean G. Cooke, eds.,
Interview at Weehawken
(Middletown, Conn., 1960). The authoritative collection, with an accompanying introductory note of considerable grace and wisdom, is Syrett, vol. 26, 235–349.
      2. The standard Burr biography is Milton Lomask,
Aaron Burr
, 2 vols. (New York,1979–1982). Still helpful because of its original material is James Parton,
The Life and Times of Aaron Burr
(New York, 1864).
      3. There are several excellent Hamilton biographies. The standard account is Broadus Mitchell,
Alexander Hamilton
, 2 vols. (New York, 1957–1962). For sheer readability, John C. Miller,
Alexander Hamilton and the Growth of the New Nation
(New York, 1964), is quite good, now joined by Richard Brookhiser,
Alexander Hamilton, American
(New York, 1999). The most incisive and sharply defined portrait is Jacob Ernest Cooke,
Alexander Hamilton: A Biography
(New York, 1979). Old but reliable, and with an excellent account of the duel, is Nathan Schachner,
Alexander Hamilton
(New York, 1946).
      4. “Statement on Impending Duel with Aaron Burr,” Syrett, vol. 26, 278–281.
      5. Parton,
The Life and Times of Aaron Burr
, 349–355, offers a splendid description of the site as it still appeared about fifty years after the duel.
      6. On the history of the duel as an institution, the works I found most helpful were: Edward L. Ayers,
Vengeance and Justice: Crime and Punishment in the 19th Century American South
(New York, 1984); V. G. Kiernan,
The Duel in European History: Honor and the Reign of Aristocracy
(Oxford, 1986); Lorenzo Sabine,
Notes on Duels and Dueling …
(Boston, 1855); Bertram Wyatt-Brown,
Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South
(New York, 1982).
      7. Merrill Lindsay, “Pistols Shed Light on Famed Duel,”
Smithsonian
, November 1971, 94–98; see also Virginius Dabney, “The Mystery of the Hamilton-Burr Duel,”
New York
, March 29, 1976, 37–41.
      8. Syrett, vol. 26, 306–308.
      9. David Hosack to William Coleman, 17 August 1804, ibid., 344–347.
    10. Joint Statement by William P. Van Ness and Nathaniel Pendleton on the Duel Between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, 17 July 1804, ibid., 333–336.
    11. Benjamin Moore to Coleman, 12 July 1804, ibid., 314–317.
    12. Ibid., 322–329.
    13. William Coleman,
A Collection of the Facts and Documents, Relative to the Death of Major-General Hamilton
(New York, 1804), which reviews the newspaper coverage and multiple eulogies for Hamilton. I have also looked over James Cheetham’s editorial assaults on Burr in the
American Citizen
during July and August of 1804, as well as the pro-Burr editorials in the
Morning Chronicle
at the same time. The story of the wax replica of Burr in ambush comes from Parton,
The Life and Times of Aaron Burr
, 616.
    14. See the exchange of letters between Van Ness and Pendleton, then “Joint Statement,” Syrett, vol. 26, 329–336.
    15. See the several documents and notes in ibid., 335–340.
    16. The scholarly consensus accepts the Hamilton version of the duel, primarily because that version dominated the contemporary accounts in the press, and also because it is the only version that fits with Hamilton’s purported remarks about the still-loaded pistol. While absolute certainty is not within our grasp, what wemight call “the interval problem” strikes me as an insurmountable obstacle for the Hamiltonian version. For that reason, while the mystery must remain inherently unsolvable in any absolute sense of finality, the interpretation offered here seems most plausible and most compatible with what lawyers would call “the preponderance of the evidence.” It also preserves what the Hamilton advocates care about most; namely, Hamilton’s stated intention not to fire at Burr. There is a pro-Burr version that argues otherwise. See Samuel Engle Burr,
The Burr-Hamilton Duel and Related Matters
(San Antonio, 1971).
    17. Burr to Van