Customer Reviews

Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

To say that Aaron Burr has been vilified by historians is a gross understatement. It seems that hardly a generation goes by without each new group of historians falling into lock step with their predecessors in a general hatred of this founding father. Most recently Ron Chernow in his book Alexander Hamilton, the bile reserved for Burr is obvious.

Then comes Nancy Isenberg and her book Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr. I must admit that I started to let this one go. When it arrived at our public library last week I flipped through it and then put in it on the cart to be processed. Then I picked it up again. And again. Eventually I spent the weekend with Isenberg and Burr. I have to admit that I have started the process of being won over. Nancy Isenberg has spent a lot of time researching Fallen Founder. She includes copious notes which are worth reading.

Burr, the killer of everyone's darling Alexander Hamilton was the son of Aaron Burr, Sr. the president of Princeton University. He was bright, hansom, and a charmer. Is it any wonder that he was destined for success?
Some how, however, history has chosen to mark Burr as a murderer and traitor. Isenberg does a masterful job at examining Burr relative to his time in history.

At 414 pages of text and 107 pages of notes, you'll find the examination of Burr a complete one.

You'll want to read this one slowly.

I have long found Aaron Burr one of the most fascinating characters in early American history and this is a superb new biography of this political genius and scalawag. "Fallen Founder" is the first of many biographies of Burr written by a professional historian. Nancy Isenberg is on the faculty of the University of Tulsa. That, in itself, does not necessary mean that this book rises above the many other popular accounts of the life of Aaron Burr, but it does help ensure that the more productive methodologies, themes, and documentary resources will be brought to the task. Isenberg has done an excellent job in reinterpreting this important figure in American history.

"Fallen Founder" rescues Burr from the popular conception of him merely as a schemer, philanderer, dualist, and seditionist. He was, according to the author, truly one of the nation's founders. He had a significant impact on the implementation of the national government and served well in a variety of capacities. He also championed women's rights, the only founder to do so, and made important contributions to political discourse in that arena. His killing of Alexander Hamilton in a duel proved his political undoing, for it finally gave brutal political opponents the ammunition they needed to discredit him. Moreover, the author convincingly makes the case that Burr's western adventure for which he was charged with treason was essentially a filibuster into Mexico used by his enemies to completely and finally destroy him.

In the end, Isenberg corrects the popular historical perception of Burr in "Fallen Founder. She notes that many of Burr's alleged political and personal "sins" were exaggerated and misrepresented by his opponents and enemies. The man was certainly fallible, but Isenberg demonstrates that Burr deserves better and was indeed an important founder. Her book will be a starting point for all future studies of the life of Burr and will aid greatly in understanding the visceral politics of the early republic.

Fallen Founder, The Life of Aaron Burr by Nancy Isenberg is a wonderfully researched treasure. But, unlike a lot of recent biographies of the era, this is a work that stands out as well researched, even going to lengths to "see" a different Burr than many have come to believe they know. Isenberg dispels myths with aplomb and one can rest assured her detractors will feel she is either a biased historian or a Burr apologist. I believe she is neither, but one who desires to begin to set the record straight on this fascinating persona in America's historical landscape.

Professor Isenberg says it best in the preface of the book. "History is not a bedtime story. It is a comprehensive engagement with often obscure documents and books no longer read.- books shelved in old archives, and fragile pamphlets contemporaneous with the subject under study - all of which reflect a world view not ours. We cannot make eighteenth-century men and women "familiar" by endowing them and their families with the emotions we prefer to universalize; nor should be try to equate their politics with politics we understand. But this is what popular biographers do, and as a result, everything we think we know about Aaron Burr is untrue. It is time to start over."

Fallen Founder is not a "complete" biography in that it spends little time on Burr's youth. Rather it picks up where his influence on the American scene is in its nascent stages. Isenberg does a great job researching the reasons for his politics and his movements and political motivations between Washington City and Albany, New York. Her work on his many years as a political rival of Hamilton's is without parallel. Quite obviously it was the duel between the two that marked Burr's infamy. Sadly, the events that precipitated this, and the end of his political career have really never been well chronicled. Isenberg ends that in Chapter 7: The Ruin of the Vice President. The book might be faulted for being a bit "dense" but it is laden with well researched work so only the best narrative writers could improve upon it. That said, for those who might not want to read the full book, much can be gained from just this chapter. It is a thrilling, if tragic, story.

Isenberg has done a service to all historians with her research and writing on Aaron Burr. She is to be commended, something I imagine she will be, many times over - deservedly so.

This biography of Aaron Burr unsuccessfully tries to resurrect his sullied reputation. While as a biography it provides an excellent account of his life, its interpretation of his role and character in the founding era is utterly unconvincing. To give an idea of just how biased the biography is, its title "Fallen Founder" astounds me. While Burr was an officer during the Revolutionary War, seeing most of his action in Canada, he had no hand in the drafting of the Constitution. His primary role during the founding era was as a prominent New York politician. He was very state centric in his political dealings. In fact, it is unclear what his role was during the debate over ratification of the Constitution in New York, although he was against it. To put him in the pantheon of a founding father is not only a stretch, but frankly a little ridiculous.

There is a positive aspect of this biography in that it is it is very well researched and provides a good account of Burr's life. The best part for this reader was to provide a detailed account of Burr's actions after his Vice-Presidency where he as accused of treason for plotting to separate southwestern states from the United States and create his own country. I do believe that the author has proven, to the extent possible, how his political enemies used his actions to lead a filibuster into Mexico, to create an incredible and unbelievable set of charges against him.

That said, for the most part this biography fails to convince that Burr wasn't just a power hungry opportunist. The author clearly demonstrates what a nasty, mean spirited political world it really was back then. Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and his political enemies in New York are shown to be vicious politicians who were untrustworthy and used personal attacks, often attacks that were not true or so exaggerated as to be the same as untrue, to undermine their opponents. Jefferson, of course, being the sly fellow he was, used others to do his dirty work while staying out of the fray to protect his reputation. Hamilton was willing to throw his name out there with is attacks, which eventually lead in a more roundabout way to the duel where Burr killed Hamilton. Isenberg tries to paint Burr has having a higher level of honor and code of ethics in his political dealings than his opponents. While he didn't necessarily use the personal attacks, his machinations in New York politics, during the debate over the tie for the Vice-Presidency with Jefferson, and his questionable, if not treasonable actions in trying to lead a filibuster into Mexico belie this. Isenberg spends a lot of time talking about sexual ethics of the founders, particularly Hamilton, as they were all philanderers and had what some would consider questionable ethics in their private lives, which they often used to attack each other. She points out that Burr is no better or worse than his contemporaries in sexual morals. This is undeniably true. But this reader also believes that Burr was no better or worse than his opponents in his hunger for power and political position. It is clear that he was unfairly and viciously attacked by his opponents, but the bottom line for this reader is he is not as bad a man as his opponents made him out to be, but I doubt his political ethics are as pristine as this biography suggests.

Finally, you can't write a biography of Burr without talking about his duel with Hamilton. Historically the key question is the intent of both parties and who fired first. Neither of these can be answered with any certainty. Some claim Hamilton intended to waste his shot hoping for a peaceful, non-lethal resolution of his dispute with Burr. Burr obviously killed Hamilton. The historical record here is very muddy and the author does of good job of discussing it without drawing conclusions where none can be found. Given the accounts of the seconds at the duel I have no idea what Hamilton's intent was, despite some proof exists he did indeed intend to waste his shot, at least he told this to others. But I do believe, as Isenberg's account and others have conveyed, that the actions of Hamilton and his stray shot over Burr's head would have appeared to any reasonable person to be an attempt to kill Burr. And given the descriptions of the duel, I lean toward believing Hamilton fired first or they fired at nearly the same time. Either way, given the gravity of the situation and the enmity between the two men, it's hard to blame Burr for his actions during the duel given culture of the time period.

In conclusion, I find the thesis of this biography unbelievable. His opponents, including Hamilton, did unfairly and viciously attack him and he was probably a better man than history has painted him. Burr was no better or worse than any of the other political players of this era. But the author goes too far in trying to make a claim that, in fact, his political ethics were more honorable than those of his opponents.

Isenberg takes on the noble task of giving a different, more compassionate look at Burr. Some of it seems plausible, but there comes a point when it feels like revisionist history. There's a healthy chunk of editorializing "Hamilton was ALWAYS calculating..." and conclusions about character that historians shouldnt be so comfortable in making. Taking on the public persona of Burr the cad and snively twit is a thankless task, and one I could have been more empathetic with if Isenberg hadn't made Burr out to be a blameless victim of the manipulations of others out to destroy his character.

This letter is from an 1815 letter of John Adam, which Nancy Isenberg quotes (I got this off the web). I found her book a refreshing and well-referenced addition to my Burr library. I am an avid Burrite. I also feel that every American should be able to debate these men and the politics involved - because then we could have far more intelligent discussions of men and politics today. The more things change, the more human nature reveals itself as the same. Yes, Adams was also a target of Hamilton's venomous arts; but Adams is also agreed to be honest and decent, which means he could probably never get elected today:

"I have never known the prejudice in favor of birth, parentage and descent, more conspicuous than in the instance of Col. Burr. That gentleman was connected by blood with many respectable families in New England. [...] He had served in the army, and came out of it with the character of a knight without fear, and an able officer. He had afterward studied and practiced law with application and success. Buoyed up on those religious practicalities, and this military and juridical reputation, it is no wonder that Governor Clinton and Chancellor Livingston should take notice of him. They made him Attorney General, and the legislature sent him to Congress, where, I believe, he served six years. At the next election, he was, however, left out, and being at that time somewhat embarrassed in circumstances, and reluctant to return to the bar, he would have rejoiced in an appointment in the army. In this situation I proposed to Washington, and through him to the triumvirate [Washington, Hamilton and Pinckney] to nominate Col. Burr for a brigadier-general. Washington's answer to me was, 'By all that I have known and heard, Col. Burr is a brave and able officer; but the question is whether he has not equal talents at intrigue.' How shall I describe to you my sensations and reflections at that moment. He had compelled me to promote over the heads of Lincoln, Clinton, Gates, Knox, and others, and even over Pinckney, one of his own triumverates [Hamilton] the most restless, impatient, artful, indefatigable, and unprincipled intriguer in the United States, if not in the world, to be second in command under himself, and now dreaded an intriguer in a poor brigadier. He did however propose it, at least to Hamilton. But I was not permitted to nominate Burr. If I had been, what would have been the consequences? Shall I say that Hamilton would have been now alive, and Hamilton and Burr now at the head of our affairs. What then? If I had nominated Burr without the consent of the triumvirate, a negative in the Senate was certain."

That is, in conjunction with other works such as Chernow's on Hamilton. My most wasted hours in High School were the idealized histories taught about the founder's. This book, and others, tell a much more compelling story of American History that our young people should hear.

To the book itself: Burr like many of the prominent men (and women) of the late 18th Century, was ambitious. I believe the author focuses her thesis to strenuously on protraying Mr. Burr as a heroic victim (partly due to his early progressive-feminist beliefs), but this may be necessary to break the negative mind-set so ingrained in conventional history. The reader must also parse the "could have been" and "one could assume that" kind of statements where the author is conjecturing based on limited factual information. These opinions are where the "Rose-colored glasses" come in to play, however, there is compelling evidence supporting her argument without these interpretations adding dubious gloss to his reputation.

The author does a tremendous job shedding light on the early politics and rancor that that suffused our country at its birth, and set the stage for the Civil War.

Another highlight is the cavalier way in which rumor was disseminated by the press which makes one cognizant of how far Journalism has come (except, maybe, for the NY Times, and parts of the internet), and it's still great influence on the country. Imagine the impact the internet would have had on the election of 1800. It would have been interesting blogging indeed.

Overall, the factual information in the face of the conventional historical interpretation of Burr, as well as the little known actions of otherwise revered founders in all their vindictiveness, ruthlessness and greed is worth the read.

You don't have to buy into Dr. Isenberg's positive characterization of Burr to enjoy this book, but, if you truly idealize Jefferson and Hamilton, you may get a little indigestion along the way.

Often times, the narrative of history is spiced up by the seeming division of its participants into "good guys" and "bad guys". In the Revolutionary Era, the heroes are such folks as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. The villains are Benedict Arnold, King George III and Aaron Burr. Of course, real life is not as simple as merely good vs. evil, as is the point in Nancy Isenberg's biography of Burr, Fallen Founder.

Burr's historical role as one of U.S. history's villains is due principally to three things: his role in the 1800 Presidential election, his attempt to create a breakaway nation and most notably, his killing (murder?) of Alexander Hamilton in a duel. As Isenberg demonstrates, however, Burr is more the victim of bad press than a truly bad person.

The 1800 election was one of the most controversial in U.S. history (along with 1824, 1876 and 2000). While it had always been the intent of the fledgling Republican party to have Jefferson as President and Burr as Vice President, a Constitutional flaw (since corrected by amendment) resulted in a tie. The rap against Burr is that he used this tie to attempt a power grab, but Isenberg portrays Burr as more willing to take the Number Two spot.

Hamilton may be one of the most important of the Founding Fathers and his untimely death gave him a level of martyrdom, but he was also a very abrasive personality who had no problem publicly insulting his opponents. Though at times he actually worked with Burr, he also could be quite spiteful towards the Vice President. With more Hamilton partisans than Burr ones, it is little wonder that Hamilton comes off as the victim in the duel; Isenberg, however, lays more (but not all) of the blame on Hamilton.

As for Burr's alleged treason - an attempt to form a breakaway republic out of the southwestern states - it becomes apparent that the charges were principally based on lies and twisted facts. Jefferson was willing to bypass the legal system to obtain a conviction (Isenberg's book is not the first to describe Jefferson's often duplicitous nature), but the real bad guy in this story is General John Wilkinson, depicted here (and in other books) as a truly nasty fellow. (I wonder if someday a biography of Wilkinson will appear trying to redeem his reputation.)

Isenberg's theme seems to be that Burr was no better or worse than most of his peers. I suppose one of the things that hurts him is his lack of a lasting legacy: he didn't write the Declaration of Independence or Constitution or play a leading role in the Revolution; he's most well-known for his killing of Hamilton (as mentioned in a classic "Got Milk?" commercial).

While no one expects a historical biography to be a page-turner like a thriller, I occasionally found Isenberg to be a slow read. She is a good writer in the sense that she provides a lot of important detail, and while she is readable, I wish she was just a little more so. The importance of Fallen Founder, however, goes beyond the quality of writing, however: it offers an alternate view of the early years of the United States, and the more such views you get, the better you can see how things really were.

Isenberg's book is designed to a be a corrective to the image of Burr predominant among historians to the present day--i.e. that he was the Mephistophelian foil to all the public spirited virtues of our more highly touted founders. Certainly, the book is most effective in showing that those marble clad men of the Revolutionary generation, brilliant though they were, could be sly, hypocritical, unfair, and calculating in their politics--to the point of character assassination. The rank and irreconcilable partisanship of recent decades is nothing new in our polity.

However, Isenberg cannot muster the evidence necessary to show that her image of Burr--a gentleman of high honor, the ultimate democrat, tribune of the people, accomplished political philosopher, even proto-feminist--is an accurate one based on hard evidence. She makes death-defying leaps of faith in attributing only the best motives to him, when there is no direct evidence of his motivation and the context and outcome seem to condemn him. (The 1792 New York Governor's race being the best example, when Burr was part of the process to disqualify votes in Otsego County and helped snatch victory from Jay and the Federalists, receiving a reward after the fact from Gov. Clinton.) She fails to look for the patterns in his behavior which suggest his motivation quite strongly:

(1) That he was a political opportunist, most interested in achieving a level of power and influence that his accomplishments did not justify. That his repeated disappointments and wounded ego in this regard were his chief motivation in the notorious acts for which he is best known today--the duel with Hamilton and his filibuster plan in the West.
(2) That he was, more than anything else, the forerunner of the classic New York machine politician in the spirit of Martin Van Buren, Thurlow Weed, or William Marcy Tweed. If Burr was a political philosopher or an idealist, he left very little evidence of it.
(3) That he was more concerned about public reputation than private character--to seem rather than to be--mostly because of his political ambitions.
(4) That his feminism might be attributable to the fact that he had only a single child, Theodosia, upon whom he doted and transferred the expectations he might have felt for a son. That his feminism, in fact, did not transfer into respect for womankind in general, given the loose way in which he handled matters of intimacy. Perhaps, it was, in fact, a useful pose to effectuate sexual conquest.
(5) That aspersions upon his private character were well justified, by the standards of his day or any day, given his notorious association with a married woman during the Revolution, and his well-documented sexual escapades later in life. William Byrd's Secret Diary could scarcely compete with the sequence of amours he records in his journal and, as we know, such habits usually begin early in life and were probably characteristic of his youth, as well. In this sense, Hamilton's aspersions, though ill-judged and irrelevant to Burr's aptitude for public office, were well-justified in fact. A true man of honour would acknowledge his private failings, not fight a duel to defuse the truth.

In the end, I'm glad I read this book, because it provided me with a more rounded view of the Revolutionary generation. But its argument is weakly supported and the prose is dry and tendentious throughout. Its worst crime is that it manages to make a mysterious and intensely interesting anti-hero into a rather bland and unconvincing case of misunderstood motives.

To begin, I think this is a well-written and researched book. It also pretty well written. That said, Isenberg's constant drum beat of blind support for Burr make it difficult to take the material seriously. Certainly, Burr was no more the vile snake than Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison and Hamilton are the saints they are portrayed as by history.

Isenberg does little to assist Burr's cause, as her thesis is too easily discounted due to her completely one-sided, sometimes disingenuous and many times childish support for Burr. A reader without a foundation in this era would believe that Burr is (1) a founder of the republic and (2) the actual mythical figure of the pure revolutionary American that was besmirched and ruined by moneyed interests and unscrupulous politicians. Often times, rather than acknowledging Burr's faults, Isenberg excuses them. For me, when a historian makes excuses they eliminate any possibility for objectivity. When she excuses some of Burr's financial schemes and other bad behavior by stating that Hamilton's or other contemporaries were worse, I almost put the book down.
Overall, her attempts to re-create Burr as a man of utmost political and moral character that was virtually the only man of public life during the formative years of this country that remained true to his political cause and refused to engage in dirty tricks, financial schemes and political machinations is so preposterous, that her obviously detailed work backfires. It would have done Burr a better service to portray the man for what he was, with all of his faults, which would have achieved Isenburg's goal -- to show he was not the dastardly villian most know him as. Her attempt to elevate him upon a pedestal above even Washington, Jefferson and others makes her sound ridiculous.