Focusing in on the gravity well of the Founding Fathers
Review of Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson: A Study in Character by Roger G. Kennedy
Burr is something of an enigma: clearly a man connected and with a strong following, but he has been vilified as a scoundrel and, in spite of 3 trials, was acquitted of any crime, even as he killed Hamilton in the duel. Roger Kennedy sets out to explain all this by comparing him with his 2 greatest enemies, Jefferson and Hamilton. Rather than straight biography, the book is organized around themes, ranging across the history somewhat repetitively yet in a way advancing chronologically as well.
First, there is a comparison of the characters. Burr was a pseudo-aristocrat, from one of the most prominent Evangelical families, highly educated, and considered himself a "gentleman" in the 18th century sense. Jefferson was very similar, but in contrast he had both a better sense of seizing the moment (the ever-important talent for "timing" that all top politicians need), a long-term vision, and the writing talent to present himself to later generations as an oracular sage. Hamilton was self-made and, as an illegitimate son, a personality so prickly and loud mouthed that he made enemies easily, destroying his career in a most "ungentlemanly" way; but he too had a long-term vision and a shrewd eye on posterity, nurturing a posthumous career once he had ruined his. As such, Burr did not take advantage of many political moments, perhaps due to depression, and did not make his case to posterity – the others did. This was, for me, one of the most interesting sections.
Second, the Weehawken duel is examined in great detail. This includes the tradition at the time, a kind of dance of honor and gentlemanly maneuvering that rarely, but definitely could, wind up in real violence. No one knows precisely why Burr got so mortally offended, but Hamilton was consistent in his white hot, overt hatred of Burr even as they were regular dining partners. Departing from the historian's craft, Kennedy speculates that Hamilton was projecting his own qualities and personality characteristics on Burr or that he had some kind of suicide wish.
Third, there was Burr's political career. He was well liked and enjoyed deep friendships and loyalties, many of which lasted his lifetime. They included John Jay and some other founding fathers as well as many minor characters. But he also made a lot of enemies, including George Washington. Eventually, he was outmaneuvered, in particular because he often failed to defend himself in the public court of opinion, which a gentleman should not do, i.e. he didn't adapt well to the times.
Fourth, and most interesting, he was passionately opposed to slavery, which brought him into conflict with the powerful politicians of the south, at just the moment when cotton – connected as it was to the slave economy – was becoming the source of great fortunes as ambitious men pushed to the west. This ill-timed stand on principle doomed his efforts to start anew in Florida and the Louisiana territory, where he attempted to set up multi-racial plantations based on paid labor instead of slaves – many saw them as a dangerous challenge to the "natural order" as conceived in the south. This was by far the most revealing chapter, a revelation to me. He was also an early proto-feminist.
Fifth, in the most damning chapter regarding Jefferson's hypocrisy and machinations, Burr's trials for treason are followed. Apparently, Jefferson knew that the preservation of slavery was key to his political ascendancy as well as his personal fortune, in spite of his lofty rhetoric on freedom and equality. While I was unsatisfied with Kennedy's explanation of Jefferson's motives for hating Burr the way he did – that he was his only real political rival and threat – I learned a great deal about the politics of the times.
Ever since I read Gore Vidal's Burr in 1984, I have wanted to read a book like this. The man I found here was brilliant, passionate, perhaps manic depressive in Kennedy's formulation, charismatic, and beloved of many, but he also lacked the political instinct of aggressive seizure of opportunity at the right time and was reluctant to defend himself in the way of spin. In many ways, he was a natural leader with the right pedigree, but failed at the moment he might have grasped greatness and has been relegated to the status of a latter day Alcibiades. Kennedy proves, in my opinion, that history's judgment of him was too harsh, that it was engineered by vindictive men along with the mistakes he made in a few moments of passion.