Burr Verses Hamilton: Two Views

On the morning of July 11th, 1804, in a field in the town of Weehawken, New Jersey, the sitting Vice President of the United States, Aaron Burr, shot and mortally wounded Alexander Hamilton while the two men were engaged in a duel! The contest was the result of years of rivalry and acrimony between the two men.

Over the last several months I have read biographies of both men: Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr by Nancy Isenberg and Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow. My general commentary on Isenberg’s book is here. My general commentary on Chernow’s book is here.

While both authors agree on multiple points concerning the rivalry, there are many differences presented, some in the forms of opinions, but a few as to the facts. I find that comparing both works makes an interesting case study regarding the interpretation of history and human events.

Both books agree that when dealing with his political rivals, Hamilton had a combative personality. He would often publish anonymous, personal, often scathing attacks upon those that he differed with. Though Chernow professes the opinion that Hamilton lived by a code of honor, Isenberg argues that such behavior was outside the bounds of what would be considered honorable behavior in Hamilton’s time as well as in our time. Furthermore, both authors concur that in Burr’s writing and political campaigning, he almost never engaged in such personal vitriol.

Each biography makes clear that as one of Hamilton’s chief rivals, Burr was the subject of these vituperatively written and spoken assaults. Isenberg emphasizes that based upon Burr’s personal conception of honor these attacks were outrageous and unacceptable. Though Alexander Hamilton includes many of Chernow’s opinions, he remains nonjudgmental but honest about this aspect of Hamilton’s behavior. This is contrasted by the fact that Chernow is highly critical of Burr, describing him as a man without convictions or honor. Chernow uses words such as  “roguish” and “opportunist” to describe Burr.

In turn, Isenberg is also honest concerning the negative facts about Burr. He was a lifelong slaveholder. He did initiate the famous duel that led to Hamilton’s death. However, as Chernow does with Hamilton, she provides little comment about these flaws while she labels Hamilton as dishonorable and at times “outrageous, hypocritical, even hysterical".

Consequentially I detect some bias in both authors. I must conclude that at times, even honest biographers and good scholars, as I believe that both Isenberg and Chernow are, become a little too fond of the people whom they are writing about!

Both biographers also agree that Hamilton provoked the duel with incendiary comments about Burr, and that early on, in written jousting between the parties, that an apology by Hamilton would have been appropriate and perhaps would have avoided bloodshed. It is Chernow who argues that Hamilton was so stubborn and fractious over the course of his life that he had a great deal of difficulty ever admitting that he was wrong, and would not likely have made such a concession.

A major issue of contention between Isenberg and Chernow are the circumstances of the duel itself. As per both books, in the era and place in question, while these contests at times ended in injury or death, often they did not. The pistols used were notoriously inaccurate and each participant got only two shots at most. Furthermore, duelists would often intentionally fire their weapons into the ground, or “throw away their shots”, not actually wanting to shoot the other combatant.

Both writers as well as online sources indicate that eyewitness accounts of the duel are conflicting and confusing. Chernow pieces together the diverging sources and contends that Hamilton either threw away his shot, or intended to throw it away, and only fired after he was hit in a reflexive action.

Isenberg believes that Hamilton fired first at Burr, probably prematurely and inadvertently. She asserts that Burr then returned fire and hit Hamilton with the fatal shot.

Isenberg has publicly criticized Chernow and others for what she believes is sub par scholarship on the matter. In this 2007 interview she states:

“I challenge Ron Chernow's interpretation of Alexander Hamilton. Chernow presents a very one-sided story about the duel: Hamilton's side. He relies on a lengthy document prepared before the duel by Hamilton, about how he intended to shoot in the air, and why he was morally opposed to dueling. Hamilton's close friend, Gouverneur Morris, who gave the eulogy at his funeral, confessed in his diary that he found Hamilton's claim about opposing dueling to be inexplicable. Hamilton opposed dueling - but died in a duel? Everyone - Chernow, Joe Ellis - ignores the fact that Hamilton, before the duel, put on his glasses, made adjustments for the sun, and aimed his gun. This is hardly the behavior of someone who intended to shoot in the air. This idea that Hamilton was so noble that he shot in the air and Burr shot to kill - it's so one-sided! It hardly reflects the whole story. Yet it's been told so often that it has acquired legitimacy. This is a perfect example of the vilification of Burr and the deification of Hamilton, in which a morality tale of good versus evil has been substituted for historical accuracy.”

Another area where the authors differ is on Burr’s personality and behavior. Though Chernow does grant that Burr had positive traits, for example he was an ardent Feminist, avoided personal attacks on his opponents, and often moderated disputes among his associates, he ultimately concludes that Burr was an unprincipled man who lacked morals and convictions. Chernow asserts that Burr did not have any political convictions and would take any side that would benefit his own career prospects. In contrast, Isenberg looks at the facts of Burr’s political and legal career and concludes that he was a moderate who sometimes agreed with the opposition party and was also willing to compromise.

Another disagreement between the writers concerns the presidential contest of 1800. In the run up to the election, Jefferson and Burr were both Republicans (This party was not the predecessor of the modern American Republican Party) and were running mates. Jefferson stood for President while Burr stood for Vice President. At the time, electors voted for President, not the general public. Due to quirky, arcane election rules as well as chance, when the votes were counted, Jefferson and Burr tied for Presidential votes. In these cases a tie was to be broken in the House of Representatives, which was controlled by the Federalists, who were the opposition party to the Republicans.

For weeks, the Federalists hemmed and hawed and threatened to pick neither man for President. Some Federalists suggested that they might choose Burr if he agreed to come over to their side. Chernow’s account repeats the tale that Burr was quietly keeping the door open to an underhanded selection of himself as President. Chernow provides no evidence for this charge other than the speculation of various Federalist politicians. Isenberg refutes this by detailing Burr’s actions and statements during the time period. Burr clearly stated to everyone who would listen that Jefferson should be chosen for President. Once again Isenberg and Chernow seem to be in agreement on the facts but differ in their interpretations. When I consider both views, Burr’s actions seem to me to be beyond reproach on this matter.

Chernow also takes swipes at Burr for his promiscuity as well as indebtedness. Isenberg convincingly argues that in both of these areas both Hamilton and many other contemporaries had similar shortcomings.

Chernow is a biographer, not a professional historian as Isenberg is. In Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr, Isenberg, who is a Professor of History at Louisiana State University, criticizes writers who have vilified Burr as often being non- historians who overly rely upon negative accounts of Burr drawn heavily from the writings of Burr’s enemies including Hamilton himself. Furthermore Isenberg contends that she has used sources never accessed by other historians. When reading both books I did look at the reference notes. Indeed, Chernow’s accounts of Burr draw very heavily upon the writing’s of Hamilton and well as Hamilton’s son.

It is important to keep in perspective that both of these men were flawed. Hamilton was downright nasty and malicious when dealing with political opponents. Chernow even concedes that at one point he threatened to use military force against the opposition. For his part, Burr did kill Hamilton in a duel that he initiated. In my opinion even if we accept Isenberg’s version, the circumstances of this killing at least rise to the level of manslaughter. In addition, while giving lip service to abolition, Burr was a life long slaveholder.

I find that Isenberg’s Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr is the more balanced work. Her notes indicate that she relied on a broader variety of sources. The portrait that she portrays of Burr, as a fairly well rounded but flawed human being who was by far more principled and affable then Hamilton was, rings truer then Chernow’s account.

As for the circumstances of the duel, due to conflicting eyewitness accounts, the actual facts will likely never be known for sure. Again however, as she herself points out, Isenberg cites more credible sources then does Chernow. Therefore, her assessment of the circumstances surrounding the incident seems to me to be more reliable.

My conclusion here is that both Isenberg and Chernow have produced mostly accurate and enlightening works. They actually agree on the vast majority of the facts. In my opinion this lends respectability to both scholars.

Both writers do ultimately draw very different conclusions. In these opinions both writers treat each of their respective subjects with greater understanding then their respective rivals. Reading these two works as well as other sources concerning the two antagonists, illustrates the need to hear multiple sides whenever attempting to understand historical or contemporary events or controversies.

Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr by Nancy Isenberg

In Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr , Nancy Isenberg, Professor of History at Louisiana State University, contends that she is the first historian to write a biography of America’s third vice president. She takes to task previous biographers as well as writers of fiction, who she argues, have distorted and maligned Burr’s character. Isenberg sets out to rehabilitate Burr’s reputation here. This is a well-written and thoroughly researched and engaging biography and should be of great interest to anyone interested in Revolutionary and post Revolutionary America or the history of government in general. It has much to commend it.

Burr was born in 1756 in New Jersey to a semi-prosperous family but was orphaned at a young age. He was educated at College of New Jersey in Princeton. He later became a military hero in the American War for Independence. After his service in the Continental Army, Burr became a successful attorney as well as a leading figure in New York State, and eventually national politics. Though some pushed him to be president, he emerged from the presidential election of 1800 as Thomas Jefferson’s Vice President. Amazingly, while serving in this position, he fought the famous duel that ended in the death of Alexander Hamilton. After being pushed out of office prior to the second Jefferson Administration, Burr spent several years endeavoring to establish conditions and an organization conducive for a private force to attack and conquer the Spanish Territories of Florida and Mexico, with an eye toward enlarging the young United States. As a result of these machinations, Burr was brought up on, what Isenberg argues, were trumped up charges for treason against the United States. Eventually Burr was acquitted of all crimes. Though politically ruined and hounded by creditors and political enemies for most of the remainder of his life, Burr was not personally broken, and he eventually settled down and continued to practice law and be socially accepted in New York State.  He died in 1836. For two hundred years biographers and others have vilified Bur as an immoral schemer, traitor and sexual deviant.

Isenberg makes a strong case that unsubstantiated character assassination not only destroyed Burr’s political career, but led to his demonization for two hundred years. As the practice of attacking leaders and other public figures, sometimes based upon inaccurate facts and false conspiracy theories, is ripe in the world today, I believe that we can learn important lessons from Burr’s story and from Isenberg’s chain of reasoning.

Isenberg defends Burr in several ways. First she readily acknowledges Burr’s imperfections but argues that few historical figures can be described as pure heroes or villains. She very perceptively writes that “History is not a bedtime story” and goes on to state that Burr was “no better and no worse” than the other founders of America. For example, Burr’s detractors often harp upon the fact that Burr was in debt and had a multitude of unpaid creditors. These debts were the result of poor speculative decisions. However, this tendency to accrue huge and difficult to pay liabilities was symptomatic of many of Burr’s generation, including such esteemed personages as Alexander Hamilton. Any student of Thomas Jefferson’s knows that he piled up more and more debt throughout life, in his case the result of lavish uncontrolled spending.

Another line of attack against Burr was that he was wildly and recklessly promiscuous. While he did have multiple affairs with women after the death of his wife, this pattern of behavior also was very common among Burr’s peers, including Hamilton, Jefferson as well as Benjamin Franklin.

For me, the most problematical event in Burr’s life was the killing of Alexander Hamilton in the famous duel at Weehawken, New Jersey. While difficult to fully justify Burr’s actions, there were strong extenuating circumstances involved. As Isenberg points out, and I believe to be true from other sources, Hamilton could be a verbally vicious man who slandered and attacked his political enemies both in writing and through gossip. After years of nasty personnel baiting, Burr had had enough and resorted to challenging Hamilton to combat. While extremely dangerous, dueling rarely resulted in the death of the participants. Though the author points out the are conflicting accounts of exactly what happened at Weehawken, she presents a strong argument that Hamilton’s death was more of a matter of chance rather then of malice.

I would surmise that the death of Hamilton would likely fall under our present day definition of manslaughter. While this incident certainly must be included in any summation of Burr’s life, I would further extrapolate Isenberg’s point that we need to make a fair comparison between Burr and his peers, by considering ugly incidents and character traits exhibited by the other men of the founding generation. For instance, Washington ordered multiple executions of both his own men as well as for loyalist and British adversaries, for minor offenses during the Revolutionary War. Washington, Jefferson and many other powerful men held large numbers of slaves during the same period. There are many other examples of founders behaving immorally. These flaws in others, in no way justify Burr’s actions. However if we do condemns Burr for Hamilton’s death, I think that such condemnation needs to be leveled for other, perhaps more severe offenses, committed by many cherished American icons at the time.

Conspiracy theories play an important part in past and present attacks upon Burr. After his tenure as vice president, Burr was involved in organizing and planning a “Filibuster”, or civilian invasion and conquest of what were then Spanish territories, presumably in conjunction with an American war against Spain. Isenberg’s book argues that Burr’s plans against Spain were twisted and distorted by hysterical enemies into a non- existent plot to formant succession of the western United States, as well as the overthrow of the Jefferson Administration by force. Supporting the contention that there was no truth to the accusation of treason, is the fact that although Burr was subjected to several trials arising out of these charges, he was eventually acquitted of all involvement with any crimes.

The claims revolving around Burr’s supposed seductive power and escapades also remind me of similar attacks leveled upon modern politicians and even American Presidents. Burr was and is often portrayed as a rakish womanizer. Isenberg argues that the fraction of stories that are accurate, in no way set Burr apart from many of his historically esteemed peers such as Hamilton and Jefferson. There was however another dimension to these attacks and insinuations. Both as a political leader and organizer, as well as a planner of a potential Filibuster, Burr seemed to attract many young men as dedicated followers. Isenberg speculates that Burr’s appeal may have been attributed to a strong and compelling personality, and surmises that he may have exuded a charisma not unlike Humphrey Bogart or Clint Eastwood. Burr’s enemies characterized this tendency to attract such followers in a sinister light, as some kind of homosexual erotic seduction.

Burr’s adversaries often portrayed Burr as having no real ideals, of taking whatever position benefited him at the time. Isenberg points out that the opposite was true. Politically, while a moderate, he was steadfast to his beliefs and loyal to his friends. Contrary to false allegations, several episodes, including the contentious Presidential election of 1800, found Burr acting both ethically and fairly.

 Furthermore, Isenberg presents Burr as an enlightened and progressive thinker. He was an advocate of the political philosophy of Utilitarianism. He championed and advanced the right of the public to directly elect representatives. He held and exorcised, what for the time, were radical feminist ideals, strongly advocating education for women as well as women’s rights in all areas. He educated his daughter beyond the level of most upper class men of the time. This was unprecedented for late eighteenth century America.

Isenberg makes a strong case that Burr has been terribly maligned in his time and throughout American history. I do tend to distrust the general consensus historically or contemporarily, when a person is either exalted or vilified.  I am leaning towards the opinion that Isenberg ‘s interpretation is fair and relatively accurate. As my knowledge of Burr’s life was sketchy before reading the book, however, I need to be exposed to contrary sources before being really certain. Isenberg points out that Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton presents a much more negative take on Burr. That book is sitting on my shelf and I need to read it in order to really be more confident that I comprehend the issues.

I must conclude that Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr  lays out a case study as to how a prominent figure’s enemies can create a web of slander and inaccurate impressions aimed at damaging and ruining the victim. In our age where media outlets, as well as communication networks, such as cable television stations, newspapers, partisan websites, etc. very effectively pursue nearly identical tactics, this history book should be read as a cautionary tale.

My commentary comparing Nancy Isenberg’s “Fallen Founder” and Ron Chernow’s “Alexander Hamilton” can be found here.