Customer Reviews

A Fatal Friendship: Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr

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

 

 

Arnold Rogow's "A Fatal Friendship" does not set out to villify Aaron Burr, nor does it exhalt Alexander Hamilton unduly.
Instead, it accurately gauges parallel events of their unique relationship, as befits a historian. Readers should remember Rogow is a psychologist, first and foremost, and thus he is permitted to speculate as to Burr and Hamilton's motivations. Rogow consistently qualifies any statements he makes, without overstatements or hyperbole. Therefore, any reader who wants a simple parable of good and evil will be greatly disappointed.

While a history undergrad, I purchased this book simultaneously with Thomas Fleming's own interpretation, "Duel." I was pleased with both books, but I must say Rogow's writing satisfied more because of his more objective stance. Fleming seems to always nurture a slight, though forgivable, bias against Aaron Burr. It is refreshing to see a just assessment of that unprincipled, infuriating, but somehow likeable rogue. As for Hamilton, Rogow ably commends his great political contributions, but also reminds us of our "flawed giant"'s scandalous affair with Maria Reynolds and scurrilous smear campaigns against Federalist president John Adams. Finally, Rogow portrays Hamilton as the true instigator of the vendetta leading to Burr's final challenge and the duel of 1804.

Aaron Burr was no saint, but neither was Hamilton an angelic martyr for the Republic. Two complex historical figures with a tangled common thread. Rogow's study has helped us unravel a Gordian knot of American history. A pity "A Fatal Friendship" is now out of print.

Author Rogow presents a well crafted dual biography of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, trying to piece together the events that culiminated in the duel which left Hamilton dead and Burr an outcast. More emphasis is laid on Hamilton and his life, with Aaron Burr becoming more of a cipher. Burr seems to never have committed his thoughts to paper so his stand on various political issues isn't clear. Hamilton on the other hand, wrote volumes about all facets of his political life. The two came from a very different background yet both ended up as successful attorneys in New York City. Hamilton never stopped trying to sabotage the political rise of Burr and the reasons never seemed very clear. Many political figures of the time commented on questionable ethics and morals of Burr yet Hamilton himself was immersed in one of the first major political sex scandals.

Rogow tries to analyze both men and provide various ideas about what could have led to the duel. It is interesting to note that Hamilton seemed to possess a "death wish" in the final years of his life, after his eldest son Philip had been killed in a duel. This seems to be the only context in which the duel makes any sense. Hamilton could not end his own life but dying a noble death and making Burr an outcast too boot was simply to enticing.

The book was very well done and I especially liked the fact that the author didn't seem predispose to agree or disagree with either man. The men were shown with all their faults and yet their contributions to the founding of the country is richly demonstrated.

I originally purchased this book as a source for a term paper on the subject, and actually planned to only spot-read the book. Yet, after reading Rogow's introduction, I found his argument so intriguing that I felt I just had to read the whole thing. Imagine, Hamilton having "playground" issues with Burr's wealth. Its such an odd little interpretation of history, and its presented so well, that it not only makes for an interesting read, but actually does its job in convincing you of the argument. If you have a penchant for early American History, this is a must read.

I found "Fatal Friendship" to be an original, engaging and well-written account of a fascinating and still largely unresolved incident in American history. The book was also refreshingly free of the typical "anti-Burr" bias that has been the norm from the 1800's through Fawn Brodie. Rogow did an excellent job of discussing the protagonists' differing characters in the proper historical context. History of this sort cannot be neatly tied up with simple black-and-white explanations (despite what the grammatically-challenged reviewers from Oklahoma and Kansas below would seem to prefer). Rogow deserves credit for tackling an interesting subject from a new perspective. Two very recent books, Kennedy's "Burr, Hamilton and Jefferson" and Fleming's "Duel," follow Rogow's lead in examining this period and these two Founding Fathers from a new angle, and also are higly recommended.

On the whole, I found this book a disappointment. I believe Rogow, at the very least, took liberal license of the historical evidence. His approach reminded me of a soap opera. The context included Hamilton's insecurity regarding his bastardy and humble beginnings vs Burr's patrician upbringing, and the numerous amorous foibles of each (a strange relationship between Hamilton and his sister-in-law, the hint of an incestuous relationship on the part of Burr, a love triangle including a prostitute, and finally a possible homosexual attraction between Hamilton and Burr.) Surprisingly, after all the juicy and very questionable speculations and psychological analyses, Rogow never took a firm stand on the reasons for the duel or the validity of the later treason charges against Burr.

In Rogow's defense, I think there is room for this type of analysis but it requires more development and may be better placed under the headings of speculative or historical fiction. He provided enough detail to give a good feel for the period. Also, there were some typical acerbic quotes from John Adams that gave me a chuckle.

I disagree with the above reviews that this is a work of 'fiction'. The author tries and i think suceeds in showing some of the hypocresy of Alexander Hamilton. He makes no attempt at 'explaning' the motivations of Aaron Burr. What he does do is write about two complex men who's destiny's seemed preordained. I would have rated this work a four star rating if only the author hadn't 'overwritten' parts of the book. I still recomend it as a 'fair' look at two historic people.

Americans like their history neat and simple. Thus, in the famous conflict between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, Hamilton is seen as the virtuous statesman and Burr the dastardly villian. Rogow's excellent book reminds us that the truth was much more complex. While he does not exactly rehabilitate Burr, Rogow argues that Hamilton's obsessive hatred for the man and long-running attempts to ruin his political career eventually left Burr with no other choice but to challenge Hamilton to an "interview" at Weehawken. The fact is both of these men were brilliant--though flawed--and their careers put them on a collision course. Don't believe what The New York Times says about this book. It is not poorly written; Rogow tells the story with gusto. True, the book does not "read like a novel," but good history shouldn't do that anyway. If you want to read a novel about the duel, pick up Gore Vidal's "Burr."

The lives & loves & political rivalries of the founding fathers are a fertile land for many recent books. Perhaps the most scandalous event in AM HIST survey books that involved these people was the Burr/Hamilton duel. Rogow's book brings the details behind their rivalry to the reader's attention. The book's weakness is that it is too heavy on historiography -- with Rogow trotting out all the the evidence & commenting on whether it is robust or not, the narrator's biases and so forth. Another weakness, I felt, was the heavy-handed & sometimes questionable use of psychobiography, especially in the early part of the book. A final weakness that affected readability was the fact that neither person, Burr or Hamilton, seems very likeable to our "liberated" 20th century eyes. That cannot, of course, be laid at Rogow's feet.

Despite the 3-star rating, I do recommend the book. So long as the reader can be patient enough to slough through the historiography -- or if you like that style of writing.

Although a mildly useful work, the author seems content to conclude that a simpleton argument is the underlying reason for the two men's duel and fails to disclose perhaps the most revealing, yet little-known fact of all surrounding this most famous event -- that in 1804 Alexander Hamilton had exposed political moves by Vice President Burr, Jr. and Burr's cousin, Theodore Dwight, among others, ultimately designed to return the United States back to British rule. Like so many others here, I rate this book in the category of "mostly fiction".

The author of this book was no historian, just a man with an idea. When he tried to find proof that Alexander was the bad guy, he could not. He then decided to come up with as much falsified and non-backed evidence that he could. I found this FAIRY-TALE quite comical because of all the mis-directing lies. It was almost as if Bill Clinton had written it.