Book Review

Though early American political history has long been in decline, the leading statesmen of the early United States have remained perennial favorites for publishers, authors, and scholars. Indeed, there almost seems to be an inverse relationship between interest in the Founders and the centrality of political history to the discipline as a whole. As the latter wanes, the former waxes and waxes. The three works under review here are only the tip of an iceberg that seems to be getting larger all the time.	1
Founder studies being as fashion-plagued as any other area of scholarship, it should come as no surprise that up-close-and-personal narratives are currently in vogue and that a spate of recent work has focused on the early republic's most dysfunctional and ultimately violent relationship, that between the New York leaders Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Thomas Fleming's Duel is one of four books published since 1998 that devote substantial attention to Burr and Hamilton, and the volumes by Fleming, Arnold Rogow, Roger Kennedy, and Joseph Ellis will soon be joined by Joanne Freeman's forthcoming study. A prolific novelist and popular historian, Fleming has produced the most enjoyable and least controversial entry in the series thus far. Relying on the letters of Burr and Hamilton along with various biographies, the major New York newspapers of the period, and an influential article by Freeman, Fleming sets the dispute firmly within the context of early national and New York politics. To an admirable degree, we follow the thoughts and machinations of Burr and Hamilton equally, along with those of their most prominent allies and enemies. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are here, but so are figures who will be less familiar to the general readership the book aims for, such as Burr's "Little Band" of henchmen and the Clinton and Livingston families who triumphed politically over both duelists. Fleming also devotes a surprisingly large amount of space to the career of Napoleon Bonaparte up to 1804, not only in his role as the driver of many important events that Burr and Hamilton lived through but also as a kind of role model for both men.	2
Fleming's main purpose is to tell a good story, and he succeeds wonderfully in this task. At the same time, the book also contains a fairly clear interpretation. Like many writers on the topic, Fleming wants to invest Burr and Hamilton's "interview" with immense significance, to see it as a great turning point in determining the "future of America" (as invoked in his subtitle). Yet Fleming's text does not really support that hope, depicting the two men as quite similar in their situations and aspirations. Indeed, one strength of the book is Fleming's even-handedness in depicting the Burr-Hamilton dispute, a feat of scholarly detachment that few other writers have been able to manage.	3
Both Burr and Hamilton were basically military in their outlooks, Fleming argues, and shared other traits as well, including tremendous legal reputations, chronic financial difficulties, and womanizing tendencies. While Burr was more skilled at popular politics than Hamilton was, by 1804 both found themselves outfoxed and isolated by competitors (especially Jefferson) who were still more skilled. Both Burr and Hamilton were convinced that Jefferson was a pusillanimous dreamer whose incompetence would soon lead the country to disaster, and each saw great potential for retrieving his political fortunes as a "man on horseback," a military hero who would rescue the country from Jefferson's crisis or else accomplish imperial goals that he never could. Each dreamed of being the Napoleon of America and saw the duel as an attempt at establishing his martial bona fides while destroying his most dangerous rival at the same time.	. . .