“Fallen Founder” - Nancy Isenberg
Isenberg begins by pointing out that history unfairly remembers Burr for only three things: 1) he shot and killed Alexander Hamilton, 2) his alleged treachery during his stint as VP to the Jefferson administration; and 3) he was an incorrigible womanizer. But unlike Jefferson, Hamilton, John Adams, et all, Burr never published his memoirs with an eye toward posterity, and he had no descendants to guard his memory as Eliza did for Hamilton. Based on the forgoing, Isenberg urges the reader to set aside all our preconveived notions of a villainous Burr. She cautions that few things are ever so one-sided.
Both Chernow’s Hamilton biography, and Ellis’ Jefferson biography indicate that Burr was a formidable opponent to these two greats. Isenberg concludes that we would be mistaken to dismiss Burr offhand if he generated such animosity in his political rivals. Burr certainly had a cadre of loyal supporters. There must be more to Burr than what history chooses to record. With these thoughts, Isenberg had me intrigued immediately. If we can assume his intellect and political skill were on par with the luminaries of his era, what went wrong for Burr?
I learned a great many positive things about Burr. Isenberg made it clear that we have all been presented with a weak account of his life. If you’re interested in revolutionary-era history, you’ll find Isenberg illuminates a much-maligned member of the revolutionary generation. Isenberg’s research uncovers a sober and ambitious politician, not merely a firebrand dilettante footnote in our history books.
Aaron Burr the feminist
Aaron Burr was remarkable for his egalitarian views towards women. The prudish Abigail Adams would recoil at this comparison, but she was intellectually in the same camp as Burr’s wife Theodosia, though not in the same sphere. Abigail would have envied the education both of Theodosia herself, and the rigorous, male standard of education they jointly applied to their daughter, also named Theodosia. Abigail would send beseeching letters to John Adams imploring him to approve courses of study for their daughter Nanby, which he was ambivalent about furthering. By sharp contrast, Burr himself took on the the task of educating Theodosia after his wife’s death. Isenberg describes this as a quasi-apprenticeship — such was the rigor of her education.
Burr and his wife
Theodosia was a complex woman, but she was clearly intent at not just surviving, but thriving during the revolutionary years. She maintained her position as a patriot-supporting wife of a British officer. It was no small feat to be welcomed among the inner circle of George Washington and his military family, without compromising her standing and property ownership interests.
It seems that history judges her more harshly than her peers did. Her estate was a warfree zone by design; she sought to protect her family and property.
Burr had enlightened views toward his marriage, and treated it as a partnership. It cannot be overstated how progressive Burr was in this regard.
Burr and his daughter
Many an eyebrow has been raised by Burr’s unorthodox (read: candid) relationship with his daughter. Isenberg puts their unusual relationship into context. He raised her to think like a man, and educated her accordingly. He was able - unlike most - to view his adult daughter as a friend. He called her an “idle slut” for not writing to him enough. 😲🤣 His letters to her were sometimes a saucy recounting of bungled courtship rituals that would make Jane Austen blush but probably also giggle. His tone in these letters was self-mocking, and the content was social satire.
Jefferson versus Burr
The repeated treason trial spectacles raise questions about Jefferson’s “thin-skinned political” conduct; an interesting counter to the “American Sphinx” portrayal. Jefferson engaged in schemes to oust Burr after receiving Burr’s crucial support during the presidential election. Jefferson could not have succeeded to the presidency without the Burr NY faction. Jefferson’s duplicitous behavior towards Burr, is reminiscent of his Hamilton vendetta during their Washington cabinet years. Jefferson’s desire to eliminate Burr was magnified because Burr was a threat from within the Republican party.
Post-duel with Hamilton
The post-duel portion of Burr’s life is surprisingly well-documented though it has always appeared murky, with accusations of treason and betrayal abounding. The reality is not as clear cut as all that. Whether fairly or (more likely) unfairly, Burr went from a dignified VP to a fugitive in a matter of years. To be sure, the entire filibuster idea (foolish in its inception, but later blown beyond reality), was an attempt to regain political relevance post-duel. Though it seems a quixotic obsession, Isenberg argues it was not so during Burr’s lifetime. Isenberg notes that westward expansion was a focus for most if not all of the founding generation. It was surprising that after multiple treason trials, that Burr would tour Europe continuing to promote his fillibuster idea.
Unfair criticisms of Burr
One of Hamilton’s most persistent criticisms of Burr pertained to his personal finances. But this was an unjust (and hypocritical) criticism as many of the revolutionary generation were plagued by financial woes. Hamilton himself died heavily in debt; a collection had to be taken up to support Eliza and their children. Jefferson’s years of spending beyond his means were at last addressed at his death. Even Washington favored a luxurious lifestyle that he could ill afford.
Burr’s wartime record was unimpeachable though usually omitted by history books. It was a definite act of hypocrisy that Jefferson (who never served) would take jabs at Burr’s service.
As to the charges of womanizing, I think most of his generation took a less puritanical view at the time than they later claimed. True, he was involved with numerous women (including his second ill-advised marriage), but so too, was Jefferson. Hamilton’s Maria Reynolds scandal has returned to our conciousness thanks to Lin Manuel Miranda. Despite the frequency of such dalliances, it is odd that Burr is often singled out in the role of a revolutionary scoundrel.
Burr didn’t play the game of flattery and feigned uninterest in holding political office. He sought to press any advantage to win. This led him to become our earliest and most successful political tactician. He campaigned and canvassed voters before these concepts were commonplace. He studied demographics and understood the power of the vote.
Isenberg’s epilogue
Isenberg set out to paint a complete picture of Burr, who has long been vilified by history. The image that emerged, was of a man no better or worse than the chief enemies with whom he is forever linked. She’s referring to Hamilton and Jefferson, and I have to agree with her finding. To be sure, Burr had his foibles, but his intellect was on par with the others, and he had a great many positive qualities that have been lost to history books (generosity and loyalty to friends, and his enlightened attitude toward women’s education, to name a few).
John Adams wrote that Burr “had to be an idiot or a lunatic”. You’ll want to read this thoughtful biography to understand the context of this summation.
Comments
Post a Comment