Rating: 
Summary: A Burr Under Hamilton's Saddle?
Review: "Duel" by Thomas Fleming is a seductive and complex account of the final phase of the political struggle between President Jefferson, his Federalist nemesis, Alexander Hamilton, and one of the supreme villains of the early American republic, Aaron Burr, the almost-president. Unusual in its perspective that tells very little, only what is necessary, about Jefferson and Hamilton's Revolutionary War days, the book portrays Jefferson very unsympathetically, perhaps with reason, as a backstage political manipulator who does his dirty work through proxies while suavely staying above the fray. From the newspaper editor he suborns to libel George Washington, to his campaign to undermine Burr in his quest for new political life after Jefferson engineers his ouster from the 1804 national ticket, Jefferson emerges as a very modern politician, hardly the marble figure overlooking the Tidal Basin. Fleming's view of Jefferson is very close to the portrait painted by Gore Vidal in his fictional autobiography, "Burr," years ago, and which was also, incidentally, a very good read. As a sometime sympathizer of Burr, whose supposed villainy, at least before his unfortunate Western adventure, is never really explained here or elsewhere, I appreciated Fleming's balanced account, which made clear that Hamilton, not Burr was the instigator of the duel. There is an echo of Clinton (William J., not George or DeWitt) in the book, but who is it? Is it Hamilton, the pillar of financial rectitude who, having saved the finances of the Republic, has to toil all night by candlelight to earn enough money to support his family, as Talleyrand remarks in wonder to his friends, but who is so delusional that he sees himself as persecuted when he reveals devastatingly lurid personal correspondence with his paramour to prove his involvement with her was not pecuniary? Or is it Burr, who appears even in this sympathetic portrayal to be somewhat at the mercy of the latest wave of public opinion and who sems to find nothing inimical about secession, a prospect that Hamilton fights against despite his loathing of Jefferson? Or is it Jefferson himself, who schemes and politics to destroy his opponents behind the scenes? This was fascinating book, that moved rivetingly to the climax, with vividly drawn characters and a wealth of fascinating detail. A few minor cavils--Fleming repeatedly refers to American "ambassadors" abroad and the British "ambassador" to the U.S> even though American diplomats even into the late 19th Century only carried the rank of Minister. The references to "General" Hamilton were also jarring at times, but I put this down to a desire to convey to the reader how Hamilton was in fact addressed daily at the time. An interesting side speculation-- the exact insult that triggered the final fateful meeting at Weehawken may never be known, but Vidal says in his fictional work that Hamilton told his friends that Burr had slept with his own daughter, Theodosia! Read this book!
Rating: 
Summary: Great book on two of American's founding fathers
Review: A great book on Aaron Burr if you want/need to know more about this Vice President. Tells a sad story about the end of a great American - Alexander Hamilton. Good book to understand what the country was going through at this time of Jefferson.
Rating:
Summary: A solid retelling of a sordid affair
Review: As a lifelong Hamilton admirer, I was a little concerned about what I might uncover in the text of Duel.What I did find, was a rich and balanced accounting of the "great and the good" of the young United States. Fleming thrives on the detail of the times, chronicling the intersecting machinations of the Clintons, the Federalists, the Patroons, the Burrites, the Virginians, and a countless array of muckrackers and slanderers. Both parties receive a fair hearing. Although I've come away with the impression that both were dupes who were set on a collision course by their mutual enemies. What tends to bog down the flow of the book is the endless exchange of accusations among the politicos' hatchetmen, Callender, Cheetham, Croswell, Coleman, etc. Even the final exchanges between Hamilton and Burr and their seconds become confusing and it's hard to follow what compels Burr to seek satisfaction after such a long rivalry with Hamilton. But perhaps, this is precisely Fleming's point. Overall a solid account that dovetails well with McCulloughs' Adams and the excellent history of NYC, Gotham.
Rating:
Summary: A solid retelling of a sordid affair
Review: As a lifelong Hamilton admirer, I was a little concerned about what I might uncover in the text of Duel. What I did find, was a rich and balanced accounting of the "great and the good" of the young United States. Fleming thrives on the detail of the times, chronicling the intersecting machinations of the Clintons, the Federalists, the Patroons, the Burrites, the Virginians, and a countless array of muckrackers and slanderers. Both parties receive a fair hearing. Although I've come away with the impression that both were dupes who were set on a collision course by their mutual enemies. What tends to bog down the flow of the book is the endless exchange of accusations among the politicos' hatchetmen, Callender, Cheetham, Croswell, Coleman, etc. Even the final exchanges between Hamilton and Burr and their seconds become confusing and it's hard to follow what compels Burr to seek satisfaction after such a long rivalry with Hamilton. But perhaps, this is precisely Fleming's point. Overall a solid account that dovetails well with McCulloughs' Adams and the excellent history of NYC, Gotham.
Rating:
Summary: Duel- The epic story of two great men
Review: Duel teaches the reader that the fateful duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr was not only a personal conflict, but also an outlet for bi-partisan strife that had been growing ever since George Washington died, leaving the newborn republic without its strong icon. Mr. fleming gives rich details, and sets the story in a fashion that all of the loose ends are tied together in the conclusion. Mr. Fleming is a master storyteller, and his work is wonderful.
Rating: 
Summary: Seeing Aaron Burr as a Non-Villan
Review: I enjoyed reading "Duel" as well as a similar book "Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson" because I have always felt that Burr has been badly treated in most histories. This book explains the complex issues leading up to the fatal meeting of Burr and Hamilton. It helps put clearly into view how Hamilton's obscessive hatred of Burr is primarily the cause of the duel, and how easily Hamilton, had he wished, could have avoided it. It is easy to believe that Hamilton hated Burr enough to attempt to have him blamed for his murder in the event that he was the loser of the duel..his self-serving "pre-duel" notes strike one as totally fake and nothing more than a set-up. The one thing the author did not pursue in detail is Hamilton's reason for hating Burr..his all consuming jealousy of his (Burr's) status and background and his near win of the Presidency, which Hamilton could never attain. All in all, Aaron Burr was a more admirable person than Hamilton. He did not deserve his fate.
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic, if you love history and drama
Review: I would consider this a very balanced account of the backgrounds and lives of Burr and Hamilton. Unlike some historians who are obviously prejudiced against one man or the other, Fleming's style allows the reader to decide. The events leading up to the duel are sobering. Reading the exact words that Burr and Hamilton exchanged in letters that led up to the fateful day, evoke true emotion. You do not need an historian to explain what Burr and Hamilton meant to say in these exchanges - it is there for you to read in black and white and to interpret on your own - it is very powerful. All in all, a great read for those interested in the drama of american history.
Rating: 
Summary: Book lies here unread (pun intended)
Review: One need not eat the whole egg... Continuing in the tradition of the enterprising journalist who first diverted readers with the Sally Hemings saga, regurgitated here of course, yet again, this book invents more history than it explains.
Rating:
Summary: Intellectually engaging, with flaws
Review: Parts of this book make calling it a "historical account" an insult to historians. While it does supply ample history that coincides with much of the original source material I've read, the author asks us to accept what the author has concluded about his subjects on faith. Fleming spends an inordinate amount of space for a historian attacking the professed faith of Alexander Hamilton, and fires an inappropriate shot at Washington's as well. Hamilton, you see, cannot be a genuine Christian because he did some bad things, according to Fleming's view of the Christian faith. By that standard, no one can ever truly be a Christian. By my estimation, there are approximately four pages detailing this analysis, which in my opinion, requires too much analysis, judgement, and speculation of Hamilton's thoughts and the requirements of the Christian faith in general to be included in, lack of footnotes notwithstanding, an otherwise excellent and readable historical narrative. Fleming doesn't falsely claim, as Ellis did, that DNA evidence shows that Jefferson IN FACT sired any children with Sally Hemmings, but just pointed out the accusation that was made in Jefferson's day, sans the inconclusive and falsely reported DNA test made amidst the Clinton scandal. One other thing I found disheartening about the book was Fleming's claim that Hamilton wanted to be another Napoleon (certainly Jefferson and the Adams' Family thought he did). There just doesn't seem to be enough evidence presented in 'Duel' to draw that conclusion as conclusively as Fleming does and still call it history. With Burr, on the other hand, Fleming cites plenty of evidence that he wanted to head either a secession or revolution in the Louisiana territory, provided the source material is correct, which isn't all annotated. All in all I do recommend this book for entertainment and a particular point of view. My only fear is that others will read it and consider it a history book, when many parts of it are merely dramatic speculation. Anyone who would represent it honest and plain history is trying to sell something besides a book, and prospective readers should proceed with this in mind.
Rating:
Summary: How little things change...
Review: Reading about the drama of politics nearly two centuries ago really shows how little things change. Our founding fathers were wonderful men, but men all the same. A captivating and intelligent piece of literature.
|
