The pictured pistols appear to be one flintlock and one percussion-cap. It is my understanding that (a) duelling pistols were supposed to be identical, thus affording no advantage, and (b) that the percussion cap was invented later than 1804. Unless one of the pistols was subsequently modified (why?)...
Can anyone shine a light on this one?
I sometimes wonder why we got away from this for people in political office.... Of course, I don’t think dueling is a good idea for us normal people, but for those ‘above the law’ as are Congresscritters, I think it should be THE LAW they MUST duel when they disagree...
I had always heard that Burr fired deliberately at Hamilton--this version seems to want to minimize Burr's guilt. I'm not surprised that Ellis would be part of it. He is a Jefferson scholar who rejected the story that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children, but reversed himself in 1998 when Democrat scholars thought trashing Jefferson would help Clinton survive the Lewinsky scandal. (There was new DNA evidence that came out about that time, but it was inconclusive.)
There have been several articles looking at the hair-trigger angle of the story over the years in magazines such as the Smithsonian. The crux of them as I take it is that Hamilton said he didn’t want the hair trigger set, but then set it himself secretly trying to get an “ethically challenged” advantage on Burr, but when he brought down his weapon too quickly, it fired into the air. In essence, he cheated, and lost.