3/31/22

Before reading this biography, I knew two things about Aaron Burr: he shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel and he had some kind of involvement in a conspiracy which caused a treason accusation. While those things are certainly the highlights, there is more to this early American politician. I found Burr's relationship with his wife Theodosia interesting, and I wish this book had been able to discuss his relationship with Mary Emmons (to be fair, this book was published in 2007, more than a decade before DNA testing confirmed the relationship). I also learned I knew next to nothing about his political viewpoints, some of which still seem relevant and progressive today. Overall, this biography made for an interesting read and is a nice counterpoint to the many historical works featuring the more popular Alexander Hamilton. ( )

A flawed biography of a flawed man: enlightening but not transcendent.

Aaron Burr has had few defenders over the years, as a man who ultimately repelled both major early American factions: the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians. "Defend" is the key word for this book — or rather, "defensive." At nearly every turn, Isenberg refutes voluminous criticisms of Burr, often without even describing the critiques in detail. It's a little exhausting and a little amusing, such as how Burr has "friends" and "allies" while Alexander Hamilton has "cronies" and "flunkies."

The substance of Isenberg's defense is that Burr was not a soulless, calculating, fence-straddling murderer, but rather someone who endorsed a genuine third way between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians. Burr, in Isenberg's position, was more democratic than the High Federalists, but more friendly to commerce and banks than the southern Jeffersonians. (In this portrayal he's somewhat similar to the Swiss-Pennsylvanian Albert Gallatin, Jefferson's Treasury Secretary, and the two men were apparently friends.) Straddling the two main ideological groupings, Isenberg implies, led both sides to paint Burr as idea-less rather than as a moderate.

Isenberg also describes Burr as the most modern of the Founders, in both his personal life and his approach to politics. She highlights his relative feminism and downplays Burr's vaunted debauchery as no worse than many other Founders (and inflated by sexualized attacks from critics).

Much of this portrait of Burr is plausible but not necessarily convincing — in part because of the aforementioned hyper-defensive tone. I'm not sold on Burr's total innocence in the Hamilton duel and the Election of 1800, but she was pretty convincing that Burr did not, in fact, commit or intend treason in his Western expedition after leaving office. (He definitely did intend an illegal private invasion of Spanish Mexico, but almost certainly not the military coup he was charged with planning.)

It is worth qualifying that biographies of Burr are apparently limited by a short paper trail — far fewer letters, books and other documents exist for Burr than for other major Founders. Many of the texts that do exist were attacks by Burr's enemies. It's pretty clear how this can affect both pro- and anti-Burr historiography.

I'd be interested in reading a fairer, better-written biography of Burr, but this book is despite its flaws a decent introduction to the man, as long as it's read with a critical eye. ( )

People of a certain age may remember Aaron Burr best as a sandwich-choked laugh line from a milk commercial, but as Nancy Isenberg reminds readers of her book he was so much more than that. A lawyer, soldier, and politician, and expansionist, he had an impressively adventurous life during some of the most dramatic times in American history. Yet Isenberg argues that Burr's standing has suffered from the many scurrilous attacks leveled against him during his career, which have had the effect of defining him posthumously as a worse person than he deserves to be remembered. By contrast, her revisionist approach presents Burr as a strikingly modern figure, with surprisingly advanced views on democracy and women's equality. She also goes far to refuting the many accusations he faced about his public and personal life, mostly by an extremely effective fitting of Burr's conduct within the context of life in the early republic.

Yet in responding to these attacks Isenberg too often errs in the opposite direction, credulously accepting dubious evidence so long as it exonerates her subject. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than in her handling of the Burr Conspiracy, an episode for which we may never know the full truth about Burr's intentions, yet for which she all too willingly accepts Burr's protestations that the force he was assembling was really only intended for war against Mexico and not to create an empire of his own. Because of this, while Isenberg's book is the best biography of Burr available, it is one best taken in some parts with a grain of salt and read with an awareness of the author's all-too-evident biases. ( )

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. ( )

A fantastic read on the man that was Aaron Burr. ( )

This was informative but tedious and very drawn out. It was interesting that the author had a pro-Burr stance and presented him in a positive light even for most of his scandalous behavior. ( )

"It is time to start over," contends Nancy Isenberg in her iconoclastic "Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr" (Viking, 544 pages, $29.95). Burr is, of course, infamous for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel. But historians have also branded Burr a Machiavellian villain who schemed to deny Thomas Jefferson the presidency and most likely committed treason, even though he escaped conviction.

Ms. Isenberg faults historians and biographers for not examining Burr's papers — although many were lost, thus obscuring the man, she acknowledges. In popular fiction, as well, she notes, Burr has been portrayed as a Gothic villain, highly sexed and unscrupulous, a depiction that derives from the notion expressed, for example, in the "Federalist No. 6," that "sexual corruption (i.e., seductive women) could be equated with disunion." Yet, she adds: "It should be clear that Hamilton was not one degree less libidinous than Burr:"

If one reads the newspapers, rather than simply relying on the papers of prominent founders (Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams), it soon becomes clear that sexual satire pervaded politics. The sexualization of Aaron Burr was a means for his opponents to increase their political capital, because the vocabulary to do so was already part of the political scene — not because of Burr's particular shortcomings.

Gore Vidal made the same point in "Burr" (1973), which Ms. Isenberg briefly mentions, but she does not acknowledge that her book validates Mr. Vidal's view of a man abiding by important principles the shifty Thomas Jefferson never respected, and living by a code of honor that the scandalmongering Alexander Hamilton could not fathom. Surprisingly, Ms. Isenberg spares not a word for William Carlos Williams's essay on Burr in "In The American Grain" (1925), which portrays the fallen founder as the very feminist Ms. Isenberg lauds, a man who believed in equal rights for women and practiced his principles in regard to his wife and daughter.

A man with an excellent war record as a staff officer under Washington, attorney general of New York, then a senator, Burr received 30 electoral votes for the presidency in 1796, and tied Jefferson in 1800. Indeed, many electors favored Burr over Jefferson because Burr was a man of both action and principle. He had an admirable reputation in New York —arguing for lower and fairer taxes and various public improvements — that aroused the envy of his rival, Hamilton.

There is no evidence that Burr tried to undermine Jefferson's election — Burr was quite amenable to serving as Jefferson's vice president. But Burr did resent Hamilton's swinging his support to Jefferson in the 1800 election, and the tension between them increased when Hamilton bruited about charges that Burr was a "despicable" man and public servant. Burr demanded that Hamilton explain what he meant, and Hamilton waffled, giving his version of "it depends what you mean by sex."

Hamilton accepted Burr's challenge to a duel in New Jersey (where such affairs of honor were legal), even though Hamilton claimed he opposed dueling. Hamilton left word that he would not aim to wound his opponent. Yet, as Ms. Isenberg notes, Hamilton carefully examined the dueling ground, took up various positions to check the sun's angle, and then put on his spectacles — not exactly the behavior of a man who did not intend to shoot straight. Afterward, Gouverneur Morris, a man who was an excellent "bullshit detector" (to use Hemingway's term) doubted the veracity of Hamilton's pre-duel pacifist declaration.

While many condemned Burr — even alleging that he had somehow got the drop on Hamilton (it is not clear who shot first) — many believed he behaved like a gentleman, and his popularity soared in the South. Jefferson had no qualms about dining several times with Burr after the duel, and all charges against Burr were eventually dropped. He returned to Washington, D.C., and presided with dignity and acumen over the impeachment trial of Justice Salmon Chase, drawing praise even from his political enemies.

But Burr's political career in New York was over. As many Americans did then and since, he went west, hoping to recoup his political power, and earned the admiration of men like Andrew Jackson. Burr's enemies said he was forming an army to occupy the West and overthrow Jefferson's administration. Jefferson himself, besotted with suspicion after reading Republican newspapers and relying on doubtful intelligence, rigged a treason prosecution. Already acquitted by three grand juries, Burr faced trial in Richmond, emerging triumphant both in the jury's verdict and in Chief Justice John Marshall's judgment. At worst, Burr was guilty of a misdemeanor, for organizing a "filibuster," a private army intent on liberating Mexico from the Spanish — although no proof was ever produced that such an army actually existed.

As in Mr. Vidal's novel, Thomas Jefferson emerges in Ms. Isenberg's biography as a chief executive who never seems to have understood the crucial importance of an independent judiciary or of the rule of law. It was sufficient for him to believe the "will of the people" had turned against Burr and therefore he should be punished. Burr, for his part, submitted himself to the legal process again and again, trusting in the courts. He was a brilliant lawyer, of course, but his exoneration was no mere "technicality."

I haven't done justice to Ms. Isenberg's scrupulous handling of evidence. Her work is profoundly original, and if American historians do not "start over again," they will be doing their own profession — not to mention the history of their country — an injustice. ( )

This biography attempts to make up for two-centuries of scholarship on Aaron Burr that’s been informed by myth and fiction. Isenberg makes Burr’s case – while not ignoring his mistakes and flaws – as one of the important leaders of the early United States republic, albeit one whose career ended in failure. Not only that, but since his posterity has had no supporters, much of what is taught about Burr comes from the writings of his political rivals Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Isenberg also makes it clear that Burr had many positive qualities that have been overlooked: a war hero in the Revolution, an excellent lawyer, an intellectual, a feminist, an innovative political campaigner and someone who often refused to play the game of sycophancy nor venomously maligning his political rivals. These last traits though honest would hurt him in both his military and political careers as less noble figures would claw their way past him.

In this book Hamilton comes across as the Fox News pundit of the Federal period willing to wield his poison pen to bear false witness against his political rival. Jefferson on the other hand is intent on building a Virginia dynasty and while willing to have Burr get him votes from New York did not want to lose power to the Northern Democratic-Republican Party. Isenberg explores all the famed events of Burr’s life – the contested election of 1800, the duel with Hamilton, and the western filibuster – and Burr comes out looking pretty good in all of them, at least on a relative scale. For if Burr is ever immoral, corrupt, or dishonest he is no more so (and often less so) than his contemporaries who have much better historical reputations.

Isenberg’s final paragraph sums it best:

These were our founders: imperfect me in a less than perfect nation, grasping at opportunities. That they did good for our country is understood, and worth our celebration; that they were also jealous, resentful, self-protective and covetous politicians should be no less a part of their collective biography. What seperates history from myth is that history takes in the whole picture, whereas myth averts our eyes from the truth when it turns men into heroes and gods. ( )

I found this book to be a solid winner. Isenberg's writing style is easy and engaging, and she tells a compelling story largely vindicating Burr not only from his reputation as murderer, traitor, and libertine, but also vindicating him from his undeserved obscurity compared to others of the period. Though through extensive reading on the Revolutionary period I had some idea of the importance of Aaron Burr, this book fully confirmed my perception that Burr was as worthy of a prominent place in our memory as Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and Marshall (if admittedly not as prominent a place as Franklin or Washington).

On first reading this book, a serious amateur historian may find Isenberg's story to be too favorable to Burr. At times, parts seem to cross from historical revelation to personal advocacy on Burr's behalf. DO NOT BE FOOLED! Isenberg made what I feel was a great decision to allow the narrative to push into advocacy in order to maintain the coherence and flow of the work. But Isenberg provided over 115 pages of notes on her truly remarkable research; each and every time I read something that seemed to depart even slightly from academic objectivity, I referenced the notes, where without fail I not only found the authors detailed description of the source, but where Isenberg also frankly and honestly described alternate views and refuting evidence just as fully sourced as her own opinions.

In the end, I found this writing decision very good. Isenberg bog her readers down with extensive references and discussion of all alternative views, she just laid out her case. At the same time, she respectfully acknowledged alternative opinions, showing a great deal of respect for her readers and presenting a confident style by providing us all the sources we need to decide for ourselves.

Excellent book. I rate this in the league of David McCullough's "John Adams," true standouts in a genre full of solid, intelligent work. ( )

I really enjoyed this biography of a much maligned and poorly understood character in American history. It is interesting to see the political machine in the early days of the republic. It offered me a good perspective of politics today and how our current issues are really just a continuation of that early unstable time.

Isenberg paints a very sympathetic picture of Burr. For the most part, the facts support this opinion, especially from a modern point of view. Unfortunately, in her attempt to exhonerate him of the unfounded murder and treason charges which have persisted throughout history, she is a bit too forgiving in some of his policital blunders. Mainly trusting the wrong people and not knowing when to stop.

Overall, I would say this is a highy entertaining read for anyone who is interested in early American history and can read a story with the knowledge that the protagonists downfall is just around the corner. ( )

http://www.aaronburrassociation.org/ - I found this website while I was researching some items brought up in the book.