Analysis Of Founding Brothers By Joseph J. Ellis

The book Founding Brothers written by Joseph J Ellis recounts small moments of history following a few of the men known as the “founding fathers” of America. Through his work he connects these men through their interactions with each other and their very similar lives. The title previews the theme further expounded upon in the book and Ellis’s perspective about how theses founding fathers acted as brothers toward each other in addition to the fathers of The United States of America.

Founding Brothers commences with the account of Alexander Hamilton’s death. In beginning the tale, Ellis gives the succinct version of the story, stating only the moments before shots were exchanged, the basics of the encounter, and the after effects. After giving

Before meeting with Burr, Hamilton recorded his thoughts professing that if he die, he wanted all to know that he intended to purposefully waste his allotted shot. Likely, Hamilton in all likeliness spent his shot, for found in a tree at the site a bullet embedded itself in a branch nearby where Burr stood. Unfortunately for Hamilton the duel did not end in the expected outcome with both participants able to walk away, for Burr had hit his target. But had Burr ever intended to truly murder Hamilton? Most likely, the possibility of killing each other evaded true contemplation both men; as a result Burr probably had not wanted to end Hamilton’s life. After realizing his shot had connected with Hamilton, Burr meandered around confounded. His intention had not been to murder Hamilton because by ending Hamilton he would also be ending his career. By killing a “founding father” and the hope of the Federalist Party, as well as the nation, Burr immediately lost all chance of staying in a prominent political position. After giving an explanation of the fallout,

The events Ellis chose to channel in his rendition of history are a series of affairs where the historical record contains a small percentage of absolute facts and a great amount of information remains merely speculative. The qualms I have with Ellis choosing to remark on such uncertain occurrences depends not on the addition of his own theories or the insertion of beliefs held by others, only that he did not always clearly outline what was the truth and what was conjecture. The fact that he did this disappointed me as I feel it is the duty of Historians to present unbiased, or as unbiased as possible, information to readers, and to be as clear as possible when sharing their