The Depiction of Hamilton Versus Jefferson Rivalry in Ellis' Work

Ellis discusses the conflicts of the American Revolution and the history of the United States of America. I will just go by each chapter first because I feel that is easier. In chapter one Burr and Hamilton both shot at each other causing Hamilton to be fatally wounded. After Burr survived his political career did not. Burr and Hamilton were actually very similar. Same age, both military men and both of the revolutionary generations. Ellis makes out the argument between Burr and Hamilton to be political.

Hamilton had made his political problems to be personal as well. The duel was actually illegal, so they had to call it an interview. Hamilton’s decision not to use the hair-trigger device on his pistol suggests that his participation in the duel was really just for show, and that he didn’t intend to harm Burr in any way. At the same time, the fact that both men went to such lengths to engage in an act that was actually illegal suggests they did take it seriously.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified writer

Proficient in: American Revolution

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

After Burr had shot Hamilton he was filled with instant regret. Burr had even wanted to speak to Hamilton after shooting him which to be showed that t was unintentional and he did not want to shoot him in the first place.

In chapter two Jefferson wrote that he remembered Hamilton looking “dejected beyond comparison,” and that Hamilton told him that the financial plan he’d given to Congress in January was a blockage. Hamilton felt that he had to resign, and that the whole nation would surely collapse after.

Jefferson offered to help by hosting a dinner party where key figures could hash out their views on the financial plan in private. This chapter also takes us back before Hamilton was shot. It would be about 15 years before. Jefferson’s account is the only one that is left of the dinner party today this makes it hard to come to conclusions about what had happened that night, yet it all seems to come together and make sense. Historians tend to agree that Jefferson’s version of the story is basically true, as Hamilton and Madison did indeed meet at Jefferson’s home in June 1790, and the agreements they supposedly made there were put into effect shortly after. Jefferson admitted to Washington that the deal had been “the greatest political mistake of his life.” The fact that Jefferson came to regret the bargain makes his account of the dinner party seem more believable, as it would be strange to make up a story that put himself in a bad situation. Ellis first tells the story: At a dinner held in 1790, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton set aside their political differences to come together on a plan to pay off the national debt and to locate the new capital in the South. Ellis then considers whether the story tells us more about Jefferson than about the compromise, which Ellis believes might have been arranged before the dinner ever took place. He recounts how he led the politicians to reach an agreement, by convincing Madison not to dissuade his party members from supporting the financial plan, even if he himself would not vote for it. In return, Hamilton agreed to use his influence to locate the new national capital on the Potomac River, a location that favored the Southern states which Madison represented. Ellis notes that Jefferson's account of the dinner is the only extant one.

The third chapter discusses the the difficutly in slavery. Southern representatives were outraged that Franklin and Quaker tried to end the African slave trade. While southern representatives didn’t want it to end, Northern representatives wanted to broach the issue. Madison believed that if you did not think about the situation then it when soon go away. However, the next day the Pennsylvania Abolition Society sent yet another petition to Congress, this time advocating abolition. The petition argued that slavery violated the values of the American Revolution and challenged the constitutional ban on restricting the slave trade. With Franklin’s support on tThe House of Representatives, under James Madison's tactical leadership, quickly formed committees to debate their next course of action. This move quickly inspired a breakdown of decorum in the House, where representatives openly and passionately confronted the question and each other.he petition Madison was wrong, it would not go away by ignoring it.

Chapter four discusses how Ellis discusses George Washington's retirement from the presidency, suggesting it was not a sign of failure but of strength and foresight. Washington knew how powerful his influence was, and believed that by setting a two-term precedent for Presidency, he would ensure the strength of the country. Ellis also considers how his hatred of press criticism and his failing health fed the decision. The chapter ends with a discussion of the major points in Washington’s Farewell Address. Ellis’ description of the Founding Fathers as god-like does not mean that these men were superhuman or without flaws. Rather, it discusses the reputation that they enjoy in contemporary times was also present in their own lifetimes. In the midst of all the chaos of the Revolutionary era, people trusted figures such as Washington as sources of strength and hope. It was not long before Washington’s Farewell Address became legendary, but when it was first published, most people focused on the fact that it simply meant the American people were “now on their own.”

Ellis turns his attention in the final two chapters to the relationship between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. After having forged a friendship during the Revolution, the two men were separated by political differences, even during Adams's term as the country's second President, in which Jefferson served as Vice President. Adams's presidency was ruined by a variety of issues, but his most grievous resentment was reserved for Jefferson, who unfairly criticized him for the sake of political gain. Jefferson won the office in 1800, largely through the success of these attacks, and despite the fact that Adams's final decisions in office have been proven wise by history. Adams and Jefferson were opposites. Adams was a short, truthful, healthy New Englander who was always talking and loved to argue; Jefferson was tall, elegant, mysterious, and disliked disagreement. Yet despite these differences, the Revolution had made them a unit. They complimented one another not only through physicality but also through personality. Adams was combative, often allowing his emotions to dictate his reactions. Jefferson always remained coolly detached. “They were the odd couple of the American Revolution,” which is precisely why they worked so well together.

In the final chapter which is also chapter six Ellis examines the renewed friendship between Adams and Jefferson, which persisted through correspondence until their deaths. After Jefferson won the presidency, neither man wrote to the other for well over a decade.They clearly had an on again off again friendship. After time passed, they resumed a friendship, in which they discussed their views of the Revolutionary period, current events, and the country's future. Ellis details their exchange, noting that both former Presidents were writing both to one another and to posterity. Their long friendship ended on July 4, 1826, the nation's 50th Independence Day, and the day on which they both died.

Ellis reminds the reader that though Americans take the fact of their independence for granted, their forefathers were not so certain of revolutionary success. Had certain circumstances favored the British in the war, these forefathers might as easily have been hung for treason as celebrated for victory. Yet these men acted as though there was an air of providence and predestination, and a fortunate combination of luck served to shape the foundation of the United States. No other colony at that time in history had ever successfully won its independence to form a lasting republic. In fact, the United States remains the oldest surviving republic in history. The Revolution built institutions and codithe language and ideas that still define Americans’ image of themselves. However, revolutionaries justified their new nation with new ideas that changed the course of history and sparked a global “age of revolution.” But the Revolution was as odd as it was unpredictable. A revolution fought in the name of liberty allowed slavery to persist. Resistance to centralized authority tied disparate colonies together under new governments. The revolution created politicians eager to foster republican selflessness and protect the public good but also encouraged individual self-interest and personal gain. The “founding fathers” instigated and fought a revolution to secure independence from Britain, but they did not fight that revolution to create a “democracy.” To successfully rebel against Britain, however, required more than a few dozen “founding fathers.”

Ellis cites the two 'founding moments' in U.S. History as the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the signing of the Constitution in 1787. To centralize a government was to counteract the Revolutionary principles. The colonists had fought to break from a distant, dislocated control, and a government in New York City would have seemed totally alien to a Southern colony, another form of monarchy. The basic question of a central Constitution broke the nation into factions that threatened to cede the progress of the Revolution. The Articles of Confederation were acts of extreme collaboration between all political factions. While leaders like Washington and Hamilton feared the strength of the states and the public, others like Jefferson feared the limit of individual liberties at the hands of government.

The Founding Brothers made me view our government and presidents in a new perspective. It also made me feel a lot of drama between them. It shows the challenges that our founding Fathers faced creating America after the revolution. At first it was slow and I couldn’t really get an understanding of the book but as time went on it was becoming easier and more understanding. When all was said and done the book uncovered the side of history not told in our history books. A major theme for this book would be posterty and in terms of what these men hoped would say about them and their creations.