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.

Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton is a massive and comprehensive account of this American Founder’s life. In this work the author presents a balanced account of Hamilton’s momentous existence. The narrative is interesting as it is detailed. This book spans over seven hundred pages of fairly dense writing and will satisfy all but the most serious scholar. For all its intricacies it is a page-turner that is difficult to put down if one has any interest in the subjects covered. Though sometimes a little too apologetic about Hamilton’s enormous character flaws and questionable actions, Chernow honestly illustrates the good, the bad and the in–between that encompassed Alexander Hamilton.

Of Scottish and French descent, Hamilton was born around 1755 in Charlestown, on the island of Nevis. He later spent most of his impoverished and tumultuous childhood on the nearby island of St. Croix. Hamilton experienced misery at a young age. His father abandoned his family and his mother died when Hamilton was only eleven, leaving the boy to be raised by relatives.

In 1772 Hamilton immigrated to America. After several years of college, he joined the Revolutionary Army in the war for independence against Britain. Though he saw combat, Hamilton’s most notable role in the conflict was as the secretary and aide to General George Washington. The association and friendship that developed during this period spanned the remainder of Washington’s life. During this time Hamilton also established relationships with such key personages as Henry Knox and the Marquis de Lafayette.

Hamilton possessed a vast intellect. Even during the war years he studied and became extremely versed in the subjects that we would label today as economics and finance. These interests would serve both himself as well as the young United States for years to come.

In the post war years Hamilton was elected to the pre-Constitution Congress under the Articles of Confederation and pursued a distinguished and successful legal career. During this period Hamilton, who was always a prolific writer, began to shine as a political and economic theorist and philosopher.

Hamilton really came into his own during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. A major architect of the blueprint of the American Government, Hamilton advocated for a more elitist and less democratic system. As one of the founders who recognized that America needed a strong central government, Hamilton helped to fashion much of the framework of the document. Of particular note, at the convention Hamilton distinguished himself as a fierce opponent of slavery and was arguably the most pro-abolitionist of the founders.

Ratification of the constitution by the individual states was not guaranteed after the Convention, as it faced stiff opposition by the Anti–Federalists. Perhaps the key factor in winning acceptance was Hamilton’s co–authorship of the Federalist Papers. These voluminous treatises were written as an argument in support of ratification. These documents serve as a great philosophical landmark that extolled the virtues and benefits of strong and balanced republican government.

After successful ratification, Hamilton once again served Washington as the young nation’s Treasury Secretary. In this position he established a new financial structure for the country. This included the establishment of a central bank, a credit system and a structured and planned national debt. He also strongly encouraged a market economy. During this time he engaged in bitter and, at times, personal debates with enemies of these policies. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led this opposition.

After leaving the Washington administration, Hamilton continued to exert influence. It was during this period that Hamilton’s actions became the most questionable. When war with France loomed in 1798, Hamilton was slated to be the de facto commander a newly organized American Army. It was during this phase that Hamilton, through his statements and actions, indicated that he had designs on suppressing political opposition in America using military force. He also began to engage in an unauthorized planning of the military conquest of Spanish territories using the reconstituted American army.  Around this time Hamilton became somewhat paranoid about his enemies. Hamilton’s scheming was halted when President John Adams, one of Hamilton’s bitter rivals, initiated an unexpected compromise with France that averted all-out war. Subsequently Adams ordered the new army disbanded, infuriating Hamilton.

Hamilton’s feud with President Adams, as well as revelations concerning an extramarital affair, eventually knocked the former Treasury Secretary from his position as leader of the Federalist Party. Though no longer the head of that faction, Hamilton continued to play a vigorous part in American political and economic debate.

Hamilton was extremely combative with political opponents. He often engaged in anonymous, personal and vituperative attacks on his rivals. He was involved in long running and bitter feuds with Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and even his fellow Federalist John Adams. He nearly had a fistfight with James Madison. In 1804, his conflict with Aaron Burr ended in the duel where Hamilton was fatally wounded.

Chernow presents an account of Hamilton’s and Burr’s rivalry and subsequent duel that is very different from the account that Nancy Isenberg presented in her Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr. My commentary on that work is here. I will likely focus on this conflict and differing versions of it in a separate and upcoming blog post.

For of all his faults, it is worth contemplating the enormous influence Hamilton had on the history of American and Western economics and finance.  Beginning with his tenure as Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton almost single handedly created the modern economic and mercantile United States that emerged in the nineteenth century and helped shape the concept of the capitalistic democratic state that eventually spread throughout the world.

Hamilton espoused various principles and structures that were extremely controversial in his time and afterwards. Starting with the economic and mercantile model of Great Britain, Hamilton fashioned an economic structure that propelled the United States into an economic and military empire. Over the strenuous objections, Republicans (not to be confused with the modern day American Republican Party, this early Republican Party has actually survived into present times and is now the modern day American Democratic Party) like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Hamilton created a national bank, a system of financial securities, organized the national debt and helped institute a national system of taxation. In complex economic treaties he postulated that such innovations were necessary for a modern commercial based republic.

Hamilton advocated for a strong capitalistic system and fiscal policy based upon manufacturing and trade, that was supported but also regulated by a strong, active and involved central government.

I observe that today, many Americans, particularly those on the far right as well as the far left of current political thinking, continue to vilify Hamilton’s policies. He was one of architects of the modern, trade based capitalistic world of activist governments and strong central banks. Currently on both sides of the American political spectrum, one often hears calls for the abolition of the United States Federal Reserve as well as the modern banking and finance system. While I consider myself a strong progressive who can be often heard excoriating the power and abuses of the world banking and financial structures, I believe this system, partially founded by Hamilton, has done more good then harm and I would be loath to abolish it. This system is a necessary part of the infrastructure of the contemporary world, without which poverty and misery would be much, much more prevalent. It has been one of the key drivers of human progress. (I grant that there is a strong argument, with technology and industrialization potentially threatening the very existence of humanity and civilization, that it would have been better had a technological-industrial society never developed. That argument is beyond the subject of this particular blog post). I advocate for major reform that curbs on the power and abuses perpetuated by this system. When I look at the policies that Hamilton advocated, I think that he would support such reforms.

In our time, many mistake Hamilton for a laissez-faire small government conservative. Hamilton would have recoiled at that description. He advocated a strong central government, with relatively high taxes, that was involved in all sorts of projects ranging from public infrastructure to public education. He championed a government that would take an active approach in both encouraging and regulating commerce. In other words, he established a blueprint for the modern, market-orientated democracies that include healthy doses of government intervention in their economies. Hamilton is often caricatured as an unabashed supporter of the wealthy and financial markets, Chernow points out that this depiction is inaccurate. In terms of a macroeconomic world view, I think that Hamilton got it just about right.

There is so much more to Chernow’s book and to Hamilton’s life than his economic theories and accomplishments. In meticulous detail Chernow explores Hamilton’s equally important contributions to Republican government, the American military cause during the Revolution, as well as his upbringing and personal life. For all of its detail, Alexander Hamilton is an engrossing read and should be of immense interest to anyone interested in the man, his time, or the world that he helped to create.

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