Customer Reviews

Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson: A Study in Character

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This is an enormously satisfying book, one that goes farther to rescue Aaron Burr from an undeserved historical contempt than any book since Gore Vidal's elegant fiction BURR. It is still a reflex to dismiss Thomas Jefferson1s first Vice-President as a sly scheming traitor who murdered the well-beloved Hamilton in a one-sided duel where Hamilton deliberately and romantically threw away his shot.. It is all thoughtless and unscrutinized balderdash, and Kennedy has a wonderful time proving it. There are surprising and provocative ideas on every page, and fascinating portraits of the brilliant neurotic Hamilton, and the almost perfect hypocrisy and subtle genius of Thomas Jefferson. Most of all, however, is the picture Kennedy draws of the witty, graceful gentleman who was Aaron Burr. Kennedy calls him America's first professional politician, but he was far more than that. To say that he was an abolitionist or a feminist does not really do him justice; he practiced what he preached, as Kennedy amply describes, fifty, even a hundred, even two hundred years ahead of his time. His generosity was outsized, his intellect without cant or self-delusion. A scion of one of the colonies first and oldest familes, he was an honest to God Revolutionary War hero not once but many times, (unlike The Sage of Monticello, to say the least). Like Jane Austen's Gentleman, Burr never apologized and never explained. This last was a grievous mistake, because his silence, to his contemporaries and to posterity, though elegant, ceded much ground to his enemies. There was much to admire in both Hamilton and Burr, and their contemporaries did so. But Hamilton carried molten envy of Burr for many years, years during which Burr apparently had not a clue that his friend-rival-ally-competitor was viciously and continuously slandering him, sharing opinions about Burr that went beyond the norm of political rivalry, making certain that Burr would not succeed in politics even if it meant that Jefferson whom he despised, would. But Kennedy suggests that Burr was more than Hamilton's opponent; he was the man who, in almost every respect, from military heroism to family background to manners to wit to success with the ladies, Hamilton yearned to be. And everything Hamilton hated in himself, argues Kennedy, he projected on to Burr. And then there is Jefferson. It has become open season on Jefferson these last few years, and high time too. Jefferson's undoubted brilliance as a literary stylist and his extraordinary ability as a practical and cunning politician have kept him at the top of the heap for decade after decade, but perhaps there is less here than meets the eye. Kennedy is wonderful in discerning plausible motives to Jefferson's unquenchable need to destroy Burr, a man who might very well have moved up abolition1s cause by 50 years. The various accounts of back room snakiness by The Sage, and the similarity between Jefferson1s Western machinations both before and after Burr's trial for treason for the same activities(which Jefferson pushed with a Shakespearean malignity) are priceless. There are greater tragedies in American's past, I suppose, than the consignment of Aaron Burr to the Most Reviled Villain Category, but it feels terribly unjust. And the easy unscrutinized way many of our teachers and historians wave airy hands of dismissal does rankle, to say nothing of the ongoing worship of The Sage, also airy, also unscrutinized. Roger Kennedy has created a thoughtful, witty, outraged response to all that.

The author has amassed a lot of detail about primary figures in the early history of the United States. A fascinating read by a guy who's had a very diverse set of careers. By bringing out Burr's role in the early days of the USA the author has really made those times live again. Since many of us are taught canards in school- that Burr was a baddie and that Jefferson was a saint, it becomes very difficult to have much understanding of the finer points of early US history, this book is an antidote. By using evidence of his subject's character, the author is able to flesh out intent behind action. Occasionally the sentence structure is a bit complex but he's making sure you're getting your money's worth. A lovely passage describing the upper Mississippi river valley shows the author's ability to paint pictures of the natural world as well as that of human society. From Forrest McDonald's biography of Alexander Hamilton I always felt like I had a pretty good feel for the last 25 years of the 18th century and how my country was put together. After learning about the often dismissed alter ego of Hamilton, I have a much better feel for the personality and character of the principle individuals involved. As a principle elucidator and salesman for the Constituition and George Washington's right hand man we can give Hamilton a lot of credit for the strength and character of this nation, but it was Aaron Burr and those like him, the unique American type possesed of a certain wiliness and strength of character, that were the raw material it was formed out of.

Unlike the current flood of Founding Father hagiography, Roger Kennedy's look at the fractious ties between Jefferson, Hamilton, and Burr gives you the sense of these characters as their contemporaries knew them. Kennedy writes the way your favorite college professor lectured---with humor and a profound grasp of how motrals act in the political trenches. His insights into the early struggle over slavery at that early stage in our history are worth the price of admission alone. Kennedy offers clearly stated conclusions on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. But the reader comes away with confidence that those opinions are come by after lengthy research and throught. If you have a friend who is addicted to early American history, this is the gift.

Aaron Burr has long been dismissed as one of the bad boys of American history. The Revolutionary War hero and onetime VP under Jefferson shot his political future in the foot when he killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804, and was later tried for treason for conspiring to invade Mexico.

Here Roger Kennedy retrieves Burr from the slag heap of history and rehabilitates him as perhaps the most progressive of the founding fathers: a fervent abolitionist, early feminist and friend to the Indians long before such ideals were considered kosher. To Hamilton and Jefferson, Kennedy is not so kind. Hamilton cuts an almost pathetic figure as a frustrated politician who projects his own failures onto Burr and determines to ruin him even at the cost of his own life. Meanwhile, Kennedy's Jefferson is craven, duplicitous and vindictive.

But Burr's image has suffered because he could never match Hamilton's skills as spin doctor, nor could he compete with the voluminous paper trail left behind by Jefferson. Whereas the sage of Monticello meticulously copied every scrap he wrote, most of Burr's papers were lost at sea, along with his last surviving daughter and would-be biographer, Theodosia.

Despite this imbalance in the documentary evidence, Kennedy presents a compelling case that Burr was not a traitor, as Jefferson charged in 1806. (Burr was later acquitted of treason by four separate juries, an indication of Jefferson's stubbornness as much as Burr's probable innocence.) Instead, Kennedy shows that Burr exhibited every sign of loyalty to the young republic, whose borders he probably hoped to expand by force--much as Jefferson would do by checkbook with the Louisiana Purchase.

This book is a "must-read" for anyone truly interested in early American history. It is a much-needed critical and honest analysis of Founders that are usually worshipped - and of one who is usually pilloried. The book is breath-takingly comprehensive, and reflects a terrific amount of research and practical, real-world thinking from someone who has direct experience in Presidential politics. About the only criticism I have is that the last third of the book is so detailed it gets a bit confusing - that portion of it could do with some tough editing. Still, the end of the book is so touching, it left me in tears. A masterful work, overall!

"Idiosyncratic" would be a charitable description of Roger Kennedy's book. I began it with high hopes, sharing what I took to be Kennedy's belief that Burr has been carelessly treated by many historians. I was a little put off by the author's enthusiastic use of exclamation points, and my uneasiness grew with the frequency of expressions like "one can well imagine . . ." and "could it be that . . ." This wasn't the tone of responsible, even-handed sifting of evidence. Then there was the distracting structure of the book: Kennedy chooses to tell what he often calls a "tale" with "three protagonists," but the narrative structure is continually undercut by the author's seeming inability to develop any thread for more than a few pages before leaping years backward or forward. (The first chapter alone is divided into seven subtitled sections--in only thirteen pages.) The eccentric organization of the book kept me hoping that the many early unsupported generalizations would eventually be justified, but once all the chronological ping-pong was worked through, it became clear that a number of central assertions remained only assertions. Is Kennedy engaging in hyperbole when he again and again observes that Hamilton "destroyed" Adams's chance at re-election, indulging in such metaphors as Hamilton's taking a "machete" to Adams's prospects--or this remarkable simile: "It was as if they were climbing a mountain together, as if Hamilton kicked Adams down an icey slope, let Jefferson pass, and then stood athwart the trail with an ice ax in his hand, ready for Burr"? How much influence did Hamilton have on Adams's loss? We never get to judge for ourselves. There are simply too many "as ifs" in Kennedy's approach, and his willingness to take speculations and run with them where Hamilton and Jefferson are concerned contrasts awkwardly with his indignation over other people's willingness to speculate about Burr. He accepts, unhesitatingly, the turn-of-the century psychoanalyzing by Hamilton's grandson, and blandly offers as a matter of fact that Hamilton "projected on Burr his own sexual and financial profligacy, and regaled the world with his projections," to the point that the duel of 1804 was Hamilton's "sacrficial suicide" designed to "kill the evil twin" by forcing Burr to kill Hamilton. Such an argument was made, twenty years ago, in the Journal of Psychohistory, but to simply pass it along uncritically is irresponsible; "killing the evil twin" is Jerry Springer stuff. Here is where the book ultimately fails: Kennedy's case for rehabilitating Burr rests on thinly supported, anachronistic characterization of him as a pioneer of feminism and racial equality, in contrast to Jefferson's patronizing sexism and racism. Now, it has become fashionable to accuse Jefferson of hypocrisy, especially in light of the recent evidence regarding Sally Hemings, and Kennedy doesn't scruple to clutch at straws in order to find any stick with which to beat "the Sage" (his favorite snide epithet). Still, he inadvertantly offers the awkward evidence that Burr, living in a society where manumission was far easier for both master and slave than in Jefferson's Virginia, remained a slave-owner five years after New York's legislature (with his vote) made gradual emancipation the law. Moreover, it is not enough that Burr should be a war hero (a plausible if generous characterization), while Jefferson certainly was not at his best as the civilian governor of Virginia; Kennedy (who questions the motives of any contemporary critic of Burr) tut-tuts at the failure of Jefferson to win even an honorary membership in the Order [sic] of the Cincinnati, citing this as evidence that his war record was somehow less respectable than that of other signers of the Declaration--none of whom, he grudgingly admits, served in the Army. "That may be correct," grumbles Kennedy, "but though correct it is not fair." Not fair because some other signers (Federalists, by the way) did receive honorary memberships. But the Society of the Cincinnati was not simply a veteran's organization: much more than the American Legion, more even than the post-Civil War Grand Army of the Republic, it was a political movement, one that Jefferson warned Washington was a dangerous attempt to create a hereditary upper class, and one that played a role in the creation of the first political party division that separated Republicans from Federalists. Washington was influenced by that warning, but Kennedy never examines the Society's motives. Evidently Burr can only be elevated by bringing Jefferson down, in any way possible.

To be fair, Kennedy's arguments that Jefferson was vindictive and abusive in his attempt to prosecute Burr for treason have real force. But by the time they are finally made (after the continual chronological back and forth), Kennedy has lost much credibility. It's not only that he applies a double standard for evidence; he just plain gets facts wrong. I read, and re-read, and re-read again one passage, but there it was: this historian thinks Richard Henry Lee (Jefferson's ally in the Continental Congress) and Lighthorse Harry Lee (Jefferson's enemy in later years) are the same man. See for yourself, on pages 48-49. There are other lapses (quoting John Adams as referring to "Princeton University" in the 1790's, decades before anyone applied that name to the College of New Jersey, for instance) and one really weird moment in which he says this of Jefferson: "As late as 1803 he [Jefferson] wrote, 'His policy was still as diffident as that of James Buchanan in 1858: God bless them both, and keep them in the union, be it for their good, but separate them, if it be better.'" Some editor at Oxford University Press must share the blame for that, and maybe also for a baffling footnote on the Whiskey Rebellion which begins, out of the blue, "Those who wish to follow the bibliography of duck soup [sic] may find it in Hidden Cities, p. 313 . . ." OUP probably ought to share the responsibility for the index, which is both woefully incomplete and occasionally inaccurate. That might seem to be nit-picking, but Kennedy's fragmented approach drove me to the index often in hopes of reconnecting when an incident was revisited several times, each increment separated by chapters from the previous one.

So--Kennedy has a good case, badly made, about the Hamilton-Burr controversy, a plausible case, made with fervor but little real evidence, about the character of Burr, and an important re-evaluation, lost in the thicket of pot-shots and side trips, of the treason trial of 1806. As "A Study in Character" (his subtititle) it comes off much as Burr himself does in so many contemporary descriptions: he may be brilliant, but he can't be trusted.

This book has been given quite a good number of reviews on this site, so I would like to merely add some pertinent points. In my opinion, the format that Kennedy used in this book, zooming backward and forward in time, and in and out from one scenario or character to the next, was wholly appropriate given the task he set for himself. Kennedy did not intend, nor claim to intend, to review the full chronological history here. His intention was to zoom in on what he saw as the salient elements of the characters of these men. This style should not be confusing to one who has read previous biographies and histories of these men. I found the book immensely gratifying. I have been a "student" of Burr history for over twenty years. The truth is, there are a tremendous number of discrepancies in prior accounts of Burr, which no previous scholar has resolved. Kennedy has pulled together a massive amount of material to bring together the facts which lead to his insights, and I believe that those insights are dead-on right.

This is an enormously satisfying book, one that goes farther to rescue Aaron Burr from an undeserved historical contempt than any book since Gore Vida1's elegant fiction BURR. It is still a reflex to dismiss Thomas Jefferson's first Vice-President as a sly scheming traitor who murdered the well-beloved Hamilton in a one-sided duel where Hamilton deliberately and romantically threw away his shot.. It is all thoughtless and unscrutinized balderdash, and Kennedy has a wonderful time proving it. There are surprising and provocative ideas on every page, and fascinating portraits of the brilliant neurotic Hamilton, and the almost perfect hypocrisy and subtle genius of Thomas Jefferson. Most of all, however, is the picture Kennedy draws of the witty, graceful gentleman who was Aaron Burr. Kennedy call him America's first professional politician, but he was far more than that(and if he was that, what was Jefferson?) To say that he was an abolitionist and a feminist does not really do him justice; he practiced what he preached, as Kennedy amply describes, fifty, even a hundred, even two hundred years ahead of his time. His generosity was outsized, his intellect keen, without cant or self-delusion. A scion of one of the colonies first and oldest familes, he was an honest to God Revolutionary War hero not once but many times, (unlike The Sage of Monticello, to say the least). Like Jane Austen's Gentleman, Burr never apologized and never explained. This last was a grievous mistake, because his silence, to his contemporaries and to posterity, though elegant, ceded much ground to his enemies. Much of Burr's abolitionist activity was done in association with Alexander Hamilton, whose anti-slavery views were grounded in his youth in the West Indies, where he could see slavery and its affect close up. There was much to admire in both of these men, and their contemporaries did so. But Hamilton carried a molten envy of Burr for many years, years during which Burr apparently had not a clue that his friend-rival-ally-competitor was viciously and continuously slandering him, sharing opinions about Burr that went beyond the norm of political rivalry, making certain that Burr would not succeed in politics even if it meant that Jefferson whom he despised, would. But Burr was more than Hamilton1s opponent; he was the man who, in almost every respect, from military heroism to family background to manners to wit to success with the ladies, Hamilton yearned to be. And everything Hamilton hated in himself, argues Kennedy, he projected on to Burr. And then there is Jefferson. It has become open season on Jefferson these last few years, and high time too. Jefferson's undoubted brilliance as a literary stylist and his extraordinary ability as a practical and cunning politician have kept him at the top of the heap for decade after decade, but much of that vaunted reputation The Great Democrat, or The Great Commoner, or the Great Something or Other, does not hold up under close scrutiny. Jefferson knew when to flatter, and when to betray, as when he broke his oath to Burr in 1800 and bargained for the Presidency. He wrote the undying phrase that all men are created equal, and then strangled the L'Ourverture Revolution in Haiti because he was terrified of black sovereignty. Kennedy is wonderful in discerning plausible motives to Jefferson's unquenchable need to destroy Burr, a man who might very well have moved up abolitions' cause by 50 years. The various accounts of back room snakiness by The Sage, and the description of the similarity between Jefferson's Western machinations both before and after Burr's trial for treason for the same activities(which Jefferson pushed with a Shakespearean malignity) are priceless. There are greater tragedies in America's past, I suppose, than the consignment of Aaron Burr to the Most Reviled Villain Category, but it feels terribly unjust. And the easy and even glib way many of our teachers and historians wave airy hands of dismissal in Burr's direction does rankle however, to say nothing of the ongoing worship of The Sage, also airy, also unscrutinized. Roger Kennedy has created a thoughtful, witty, outraged response to all that.

Roger Kennedy freely acknowledges at the beginning of this study that he has a point of view: Aaron Burr had a greater character and value to our nation than his reputation provides, while Hamilton and Jefferson had lesser character and value to our nation than their reputations. This book is a clear and concise defense of Aaron Burr, amply annotated, easily read, and quite entertaining. On a larger scale, the study gives reason to contemplate the formulation of reputation, especially historically. Had not Burr's daughter perished at sea with all his notes and letters, we might have a much greater opinion of Burr. Any fair reader of this book will come to a much deeper appreciation for Burr, the man, and the failures and shortcomings of Hamilton and Jefferson. I highly commend this book to your attention.

This is an immensely fascinating, but difficult book to read. Kennedy provides some thought-provoking insights on character. Most of the difficulty with the book is its style. Kennedy will introduce a topic, then rewind the narrative and then come forward. Also the pieces to some of the intersting topics are spread piece-meal thoughout the book. Rewarding if you can stick with it.