Customer Reviews

Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, And The Future Of America

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(16)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Thomas Fleming's "Duel" paints history with broad, vivid, and colorful strokes and gives to the history a certain drama and interaction that makes it an engaging product to the reader.

However, the reader should be forewarned that the account given to the times of Hamilton and Burr is not (always) balanced. Fleming's open and articulated biases make it hard for the reader to accept "Duel" as an "objective" piece of history.

With that said, there are some real gems to be found in this book. Fleming's account of the genesis and execution of the Sedition Act is incredible. Also of great worth was Fleming's account of Hamilton's libel appeal before New York State's highest court. Until that time, TRUTH could not be asserted as a defense in a libel prosecution. Fleming illuminates this with great detail.

Many reviewers find sympathy with Aaron Burr, who has commonly been portrayed as a villain. Fleming does a lot of heavy lifting to rehabilitating Burr's historical character, but Fleming also leaves some of Burr's deceit intact (Burr's dreams of ruling a Western Empire).

What I find curious is that many reviewers felt little sympathy for Alexander Hamilton. While it is true that Fleming's account does portray Hamilton as a washed-up Federalist, it is important to note that (generally) ANY Federalist after 1800 was a washed-up Federalist. The Federalist fall after 1800 was sudden and complete. Fleming portrays Hamilton as having many admirable qualities (i.e. intelligence, diligence, a desire to re-invent himself - at least religiously, etc.)

The real villainry in Fleming's work is reserved for Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson is the mythical "Founding Father" that takes the hardest (deserved?) fall.

All in all, "Duel" is an engaging read and highly recommended - even with its apparent drawbacks.

"Duel" by Thomas Fleming is a seductive and complex account of the final phase of the political struggle between President Jefferson, his Federalist nemesis, Alexander Hamilton, and one of the supreme villains of the early American republic, Aaron Burr, the almost-president. Unusual in its perspective that tells very little, only what is necessary, about Jefferson and Hamilton's Revolutionary War days, the book portrays Jefferson very unsympathetically, perhaps with reason, as a backstage political manipulator who does his dirty work through proxies while suavely staying above the fray. From the newspaper editor he suborns to libel George Washington, to his campaign to undermine Burr in his quest for new political life after Jefferson engineers his ouster from the 1804 national ticket, Jefferson emerges as a very modern politician, hardly the marble figure overlooking the Tidal Basin. Fleming's view of Jefferson is very close to the portrait painted by Gore Vidal in his fictional autobiography, "Burr," years ago, and which was also, incidentally, a very good read. As a sometime sympathizer of Burr, whose supposed villainy, at least before his unfortunate Western adventure, is never really explained here or elsewhere, I appreciated Fleming's balanced account, which made clear that Hamilton, not Burr was the instigator of the duel. There is an echo of Clinton (William J., not George or DeWitt) in the book, but who is it? Is it Hamilton, the pillar of financial rectitude who, having saved the finances of the Republic, has to toil all night by candlelight to earn enough money to support his family, as Talleyrand remarks in wonder to his friends, but who is so delusional that he sees himself as persecuted when he reveals devastatingly lurid personal correspondence with his paramour to prove his involvement with her was not pecuniary? Or is it Burr, who appears even in this sympathetic portrayal to be somewhat at the mercy of the latest wave of public opinion and who sems to find nothing inimical about secession, a prospect that Hamilton fights against despite his loathing of Jefferson? Or is it Jefferson himself, who schemes and politics to destroy his opponents behind the scenes? This was fascinating book, that moved rivetingly to the climax, with vividly drawn characters and a wealth of fascinating detail. A few minor cavils--Fleming repeatedly refers to American "ambassadors" abroad and the British "ambassador" to the U.S> even though American diplomats even into the late 19th Century only carried the rank of Minister. The references to "General" Hamilton were also jarring at times, but I put this down to a desire to convey to the reader how Hamilton was in fact addressed daily at the time. An interesting side speculation-- the exact insult that triggered the final fateful meeting at Weehawken may never be known, but Vidal says in his fictional work that Hamilton told his friends that Burr had slept with his own daughter, Theodosia! Read this book!

When I used to think of early Federalist America and had to pick a villain, I unhestatingly would say "Aaron Burr." However after reading this sweeping (and at times hard to follow) book, I have a certain sympathy for Burr, a little less respect for Alexander Hamilton (whom the author constantly and annoyingly refers to as "General Hamilton" eventhough he never really commanded troops as a General) and a whole lot less respect for Thomas Jefferson who it now appears was a failure as war time Governor of Virginia and was overrated and weak as a President. Burr though comes across as hardly a saint. One of the best features of this book is to show the reader that secession (which one thinks of purely in terms of the Confederacy and the Civil War) was actually a very real prospect as New England and the (Mid) Western territories constantly spoke about breaking away from the dominace of Virginia. Burr's actions after the fateful year of 1804 did border on treason as well as his Napoleonic delusions of grandeur in Mexico, Texas and Louisiana reveal a conspiratorial side to him that is decidedly unattractive. Alexander Hamilton comes across as a washed up Federalist has-been who if not for his "martyrdom" that July morning on Weehawken Heights, would be reagrded with less enthusiams by latter historians. (I aslo learned that Hamilton's son was killed in a duel a few years earlier). Fleming tells a good story, unfortuantely it does get hard after a while to remember all the names he throws at you, and what the people stood for. Nevertheless I found it for all its 408 pages, a fast read as the inevitable climax to the Burr-Hamilton (and Jefferson) feud comes to fruition on July 11, 1804. As a resident of New York City, I also enjoyed Fleming's description of New York.

Like an earlier reviewer, I found this book to be confusing at times. If anything, it's too detailed as it unpeels the many layers of the political goings-on that ultimately led to the duel between Burr and Hamilton. Like many others, I've tended to view these two (and Jefferson as well) as stick figures associated with one or two of the things they taught us in high school. This book demonstrates them to be far more complex. Hamilton is much more complicated than I ever took him to be. Burr isn't as big a villain, though no one would ever confuse him for a sunday school teacher. But even more illuminating is the picture of Thomas Jefferson as a conniving politician, with little more going for him than the current occupant of the office--he certainly wasn't above a little old-fashioned political assassination. This book has sparked my interest to know more about Jefferson and his era.

All in all, even with it's flaws, this is a very good book. You certainly learn that politics hasn't changed a whole lot. I'm just not sure whether that's a comforting thought.

I have studied the Jefferson/Burr/Hamilton trio for almost twenty years. While in law school, I wrote a paper, which I intend to publish soon, on the Jefferson/Burr Electoral Tie of 1801 in which I prove the correctness of Burr's actions. What has always astounded and discouraged me has been the insistence with which historians have excoriated Burr, based not on primary documentation, but more often than not on unsupported assertions and opinions.

Fleming's book is the first I have seen in these twenty years (and reading back 200 years) that takes a fair look at the facts and draws reasonable conclusions. Indeed, I think he reaches the level of true insight at times.

I have only two objections to Fleming's work here. His conclusion that Burr's and Hamilton's actions were based largely on pursuit of "fame" - a word that, in any case, meant different things then than it does now, but nonetheless I do not agree with this conclusion.

Secondly, Fleming bases his last chapter, the "Afterward," which deals with the Burr Conspiracy, on the work of Thomas Perkins Abernethy ("The Burr Conspiracy," 1954), a work full of inaccuracies and strongly prejudicial to Burr. Fleming did not cite to Walter Flavius McCaleb's book, "The Aaron Burr Conspiracy" (originally published in 1903, with several later, expanded & updated editions through 1966), which is a far better source on the Conspiracy.

Burr was not perfect. His unwillingness to agree to step down if he were elected President insulted and frightened Jefferson, but it was Jefferson who "bought" the election, not Burr, as Fleming reveals, and Jefferson then retained the power to injure Burr, the man who had practically assured his triumph in the first place. Spurned and betrayed by those for whom he had worked and supported, is it so unreasonable that Burr would turn his sights elsewhere to perfectly legitimate enterprises in the west? His intrigues with the British and French ministers can be seen as steps towards establishing possible future contacts were the United States to disintegrate, which Burr had good reason to believe might occur.

In any case, these are all issues that Fleming does not quite deal with, but, then, "Duel" is primarily about the duel, and, as such, it is a monumental achievement.

Parts of this book make calling it a "historical account" an insult to historians. While it does supply ample history that coincides with much of the original source material I've read, the author asks us to accept what the author has concluded about his subjects on faith.

Fleming spends an inordinate amount of space for a historian attacking the professed faith of Alexander Hamilton, and fires an inappropriate shot at Washington's as well. Hamilton, you see, cannot be a genuine Christian because he did some bad things, according to Fleming's view of the Christian faith. By that standard, no one can ever truly be a Christian. By my estimation, there are approximately four pages detailing this analysis, which in my opinion, requires too much analysis, judgement, and speculation of Hamilton's thoughts and the requirements of the Christian faith in general to be included in, lack of footnotes notwithstanding, an otherwise excellent and readable historical narrative.

Fleming doesn't falsely claim, as Ellis did, that DNA evidence shows that Jefferson IN FACT sired any children with Sally Hemmings, but just pointed out the accusation that was made in Jefferson's day, sans the inconclusive and falsely reported DNA test made amidst the Clinton scandal.

One other thing I found disheartening about the book was Fleming's claim that Hamilton wanted to be another Napoleon (certainly Jefferson and the Adams' Family thought he did). There just doesn't seem to be enough evidence presented in 'Duel' to draw that conclusion as conclusively as Fleming does and still call it history. With Burr, on the other hand, Fleming cites plenty of evidence that he wanted to head either a secession or revolution in the Louisiana territory, provided the source material is correct, which isn't all annotated.

All in all I do recommend this book for entertainment and a particular point of view. My only fear is that others will read it and consider it a history book, when many parts of it are merely dramatic speculation. Anyone who would represent it honest and plain history is trying to sell something besides a book, and prospective readers should proceed with this in mind.

This is a great book because it really makes the historical figures discussed come alive. If you're the type of person who can't deal with seeing your personal historical heroes dissected, then this is not the book for you. Stick with haigiography. If, on the other hand, you have mature tastes and are ready for a "warts and all" approach, then dive into Duel. You'll learn that the true story behind the famous "interview at Weehawken" was much more complex than what you may have learned in school. Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were all brilliant but flawed men. Hamilton was a notorious womanizer. Jefferson had trouble living up to his lofty rhetoric. Burr was too ambitious for his own good. The world of the early U.S. republic was too small for three such massive egos. This book, while it does not rehabilitate Burr completely, does help the reader understand why he killed Hamilton. In the end, these men are portrayed as they probably really were--human beings with foibles and flaws, not giants who loomed over the landscape like demigods. Far from being "fiction," this book is an example of how a skillful writer/historian can make an esoteric subject a fascinating case study but putting it in its proper context. If you have any interest at all in Hamilton, Burr, Jefferson or post-Revolutionary War history, do not miss Duel.

The details of the political world of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton are both the triumph and the undoing of this book. Thomas Fleming has obivously put a lot of energy into his research, to the point where all of the politicians mentioned and the events they are related to becomes a little overwhelming. Many of these details are fascinating as well, however.

The various schemes that Burr was involved with are fascinating, as is the precarious state the Union itself was in at the time. And of course the telling of the duel itself is extremely well written. The retelling of the deadly contest between Burr and Hamilton by Thomas Fleming made me sympathize with both of them.

The author does a very good job at sketching both protaganists in a fair, objective light, and steers clear of demonization, especially of Burr.

A great, if sometimes complicated, read.

Thomas Fleming's style of writing is approachable and clear. He does a wonderful job in explaining the political climate of the time. The book describes in great detail the underlying differences between the Federalist and Republican parties. The conflict between England, France, and Spain, the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson and Virginia's political hegemony, increasing rumblings of New England's secession, and a corrupt US Commander in Chief all played a role in bringing the duel between Burr and Hamilton.

Fleming also describes the days leading to and after the duel in touching detail. This is a heart breaking story. (While reading Duel I wondered what Shakespeare might have done with this drama.)

My only mild criticism of the book is a chapter that describes what might have led Hamilton to accept Burr's challenge. Fleming declared that while Hamilton presented himself as a Christian, he had not truly accepted the tenants of Christianity - and he quoted a biblical story as evidence. This passage seemed oddly inappropriate. Also in this chapter, Fleming developed an unsettling ability to read the mind of Alexander Hamilton. But this brief chapter does nothing to dampen my overall enthusiasm for the book.

I hope you enjoy it too.

Thomas Fleming has written a great piece of history than reads almost like a novel. Burr and Hamilton come alive with all of their virtues and their many faults. One of my favorite ancedotes is Fleming's account of how during the revolution, when Martha Washington named the tomcat she kept "Hamilton," after her husband's military aide, because of the cat's amorous ways. The biggest surprise in the book is the recounting of the large contributions Burr made to an idependent judicary by thwarting Jefferson's attempt to have Justice Samuel Chase impeached. This occurred AFTER Burr killed Hamilton. "Duel" stands with Ambrose's "Undaunted Courage" as one of the best American History books of the last five years.