Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr by Nancy Isenberg

Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr Reviews

• 
  Matt

  Let’s give it 4.5 stars, to differentiate it from other four star ratings.
  
  There are some who know Aaron Burr solely for his role in a 1804 duel with fellow politician, Alexander Hamilton, while others admit to knowing nothing about the man at all. Before I cracked open this book, I admit I was in the former category, but only just. While Nancy Isenberg does not deny that Burr has received significant mention throughout history (usually for the duel and other treacherous activities), much of what has been written about him seems to have come from the pens of amateurs, cobbling together vignettes piecemeal to suit their needs. This sewing together of small tales may serve some, but does little to offer a piece that presents the man in a balanced manner. Isenberg chose to use her role as a professional historian to set the record straight in this comprehensive biography, leaving the reader to decide for themselves . Well-documented and wonderfully written, Isenberg makes a strong case that Burr was a man whose role in the early years of American statehood ought not be forgotten or dismissed.
  
  Orphaned at an early age, Aaron Burr spent much of his young life with an uncle, before beginning his studies in the priesthood. This early career choice came from a history of important religious leaders on both sides of his family, though Burr soon saw that he was ill-suited for the pulpit and soon chose a legal career. Burr’s studies at Princeton allowed him to engage with other like-minded young men about the role that the colonies ought to play in a larger Britain, sparking a passion for all things political. Burr settled back in New York, but helped out in the War of Independence, having served as a key aide to senior military personnel, as Isenberg explores in the early chapters of his biography.
  
  Another key theme that arises throughout the biography would be Burr’s strong desires for the opposite sex, including his luring of Theodosia Bartow Prevost into his marriage bed during the military actions. Theodosia was older than Burr and used this refined nature to help shape him into the man he was to become, though Isenberg does not dispute that Burr always had a strong libido and love of women. Burr’s reputation followed him after the warring ended, when he entered life as a lawyer before taking on political roles. Fellow New Yorker, Alexander Hamilton, became a key player in Burr’s life, first as a legal partner and eventually as a political foe. Burr’s start in the New York Assembly honed his skills to seek higher office in the form of a Senate seat. Isenberg effectively shows how this Senate seat helped fuel the ongoing feud with Hamilton, who felt offended that the young man would seek to create controversy in the political arena. While Burr and Hamilton worked to push forth key elements of the New York delegation’s views on a new Constitution, they differed greatly. In an era before political parties, these two men helped lay the groundwork for this formalised political schism in the years to come. Not even the death of his beloved Theodosia could extinguish his focus on work in the Senate, where he sought to represent his constituents and apparently flirted quite openly, but always in a classy manner. Isenberg discusses Burr’s various letters, full of coded stories rather than lewd admissions.
  
  The height of Burr’s political footprint came when he ran for President of the United States in 1800. Burr entered what has been come to be known as the most intense election in US history, one in which the House of Representatives was forced to resolve. In the end, Thomas Jefferson emerged victorious, with Burr serving as his vice-president. Isenberg shows that Burr tended to be a strong statesman and served America well, overseeing the US Senate, as per his constitutional expectations. Burr made sure that Democratic-Republican laws were passed and kept an eye on the Federalists who sought to shape legislation and the young country in their own image. All the while, Alexander Hamilton continued his barrage and slanderous statements, through speeches and in the press, leaving Burr somewhat unsure how to handle things in a gentlemanly way. When he had reached his limit, Burr and Hamilton engaged in a duel—the way men handled their differences at that time—and this proved to be the event that history books knows best as it relates to Burr. While even Isenberg cannot be entirely sure who fired first, Hamilton was mortally wounded and died soon thereafter. His name seemingly cleared, Burr’s reputation took a serious hit and he was never to play a significant role in elected politics again. However, as Isenberg depicts so thoroughly, Burr looked to the West and sought to stir up some trouble in the newer states, fanning the flames for secession and almost cobbling together enough support to lead a third party into a future election. This led to further political crises that saw Burr tried for treason, with a full congressional court and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. Isenberg does a masterful job of portraying the background and story of the trial itself, in which President Jefferson sought to ensure his former friend was annihilated politically and personally. Thereafter, Burr slipped into a quieter life as his public persona dwindled. Isenberg offers up a few nuggets that the interested reader can discover in the waning pages of this strong biographical piece.
  
  While much of the summary above could likely be found in a number of sources, it is Isenberg’s attention to detail to gather it together that makes this book one that is well worth the curious reader’s time. Told not only in a somewhat succinct manner, Isenberg does not ignore the many vignettes that serve to define the life of Aaron Burr. Her writing style is quite easy to comprehend and the narrative flows quite well. Taking portions of Burr’s life, Isenberg creates sizeable chapters to describe them, while using smaller division to help portray the pieces of the larger whole, making the entire process all the more digestible. Her use of extensive research can be seen throughout, not only with the number of quotations, but that the narrative presents as smooth and not disjointed. Isenberg seeks to fill in many of the gaps left by others—including outrightly criticising Gore Vidal’s biography for being vilifying—while not pushing out her own soapbox to depict Burr as entirely worthy of honour or villainy. The reader is given much of the information and permitted to judge for themselves, which is something many great biographical tomes I have read seem to do. Wonderful in its depiction of the man and with a great deal of information of the other players in early American politics, Isenberg has correctly titled this piece to show how Burr was a Founding Father of sorts, even if he fell from grace in the history books. A wonderful biography for those who want to know more about the early actors in American politics and how their lives differed greatly from the depictions we have of the current group who vie for power and notoriety.
  
  Kudos, Madam Isenberg, for a wonderfully researched piece that deserves all the praise I can offer. I feel more educated about the man and will look to see what else you may have published.
  
  This book fulfils Topic #1: Just the Facts, Ma’am in the Equinox #5 Reading Challenge. A hearty thank you to Susan in NC for suggesting this topic!
  
  Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
  
  http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
  
  A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge:
  https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
• 
  A.J. Howard

  Nancy Isenberg has a valid argument that Aaron Burr has been grossly misjudged by history. However, her restoration is tainted by her devotion to the man. Isenberg's Burr is a brilliant, progressive, selfless hero who deserves a spot on the pantheon of America's founders. His enemies were small, vainglorious, hypocrites who only served their own interest. She attacks other writers, such as Ron Chernow, for upholding the standard story. Isenberg may have a point, but I think the truth lies somewhere between Chernow's version and her own version of history.
  
  At some point, I realized that I no longer trusted the credibility of Isenberg's version of the facts. This started when she described the Jay Treaty. The Jay Treaty was widely criticized at the time but the majority of recent scholars have recognized the pragmatism behind it. The young republic had to make certain tough concessions to Great Britain but it was worth it in the end. Eventually, a large segment of the contemporary American populace recognized the benefits of the treaty, and the Jeffersonians were actually hurt by their continued denunciation of it. Isenberg does not attempt to delve into any sort of nuance whatsoever. Instead, she accepts Jeffersonian propoganda for what it is, using it to highlight Burr as a hero of the masses, and his opponents as craven elites. This type of sloppy history persists throughout the book. Isenberg's Federalists are villains, except when they are supporting Burr. Whenever Burr dirties his hands he is being a rational, whenever his opponents do they are playing dirty politics.
  
  Fallen Founder seems at times to be more devoted to restoring Burr's reputation than being solid history. For example, Burr went from being a consensus Republican vice presidential candidate in 1800 to being blacklisted completely and humiliated in the New York Governor's race in 1804. There must be more to this than Isenberg's attribution of scheming of Dewitt Clinton and Thomas Jefferson. She also whitewashes Burr's activities in the western frontier that led to his treason trial. While his actions may not have justified the government's prosecution, he was definitely up to something not completely legal and legitimate. Isenberg paints Burr as a great progressive, years ahead of his time in woman's rights, but she only glosses over the fact that he was a slave-owner for the majority of his life. Sure, many of the founders owned slaves but their modern biographers don't attempt to make them out to be modern defenders of liberty.
  
  Isenberg also never really proved that Burr belongs with Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton and others in any supposed pantheon. Burr served with decent distinction in the Revolutionary War but played no part in the debate over the Constitution. Burr seems to be no more or less principled than any other politician in that era. Like most politicians, he seemed to let his principles fluctuate with the times. His greatest accomplishments, other than his treason acquittal and his duel with Hamilton, seem to be his coalition building efforts, which invite comparisons with Martin Van Buren. The argument could be made that, if anything, Burr was a politician ahead of his time and a less successful Van Buren.
  
  There are some joys in the book. If condition yourself to look past some of Isenberg's apparent biases, there is some interesting stuff, particularly about 1790s New York politics. But Isenberg lets her affinity for her subject get in the way of solid history. It really is a shame, because Burr's story at least deserves a balanced, objective telling.
  
• 
  Tom Meyer

  This was a very irritating biography.
  
  To her credit, Isenberg is less credulous than other Burr biographers and generally brings a healthy level of skepticism to some of the more fantastic claims made about him. Her discussions of Burr's marriage and parenting of the younger Theodosia are also good.
  
  Isenberg is significantly less successful in her treatment of Burr's politics. Though her description of Burr's political niche is excellent, her attempt to portray him as politically principled completely fails. Burr was a moderate and an opportunist: his default politics were those of an urban Republican, but -- with only slight modification -- he could turn into a populist Federalist. If Burr's politically principled, so is Bill Clinton.
  
  Isenberg also has a habit of insulting other biographers that I found deeply off-putting. She accuses Ron Chernow of painting an unflattering portrait of Burr (there is some merit to this, though not as much as she implies) while she paints an equally nasty and unfair one of Hamilton. She also takes multiple, nasty shots at Burr's previous biographer, William Lomask, on one occasion denigrating him for the sin of lacking a PhD.
  
  Which brings me to the book's greatest failure: as narrative. Isenberg is a competent and clear writer -- no small feat, that -- but is incapable of telling a good story. Though Lomask made a number of mistakes that Isenberg has corrected, I found his biography as compelling and interesting as its subject. Isenberg, however, has managed to write a rather dull book about a decorated combat soldier, leading trial attorney of his generation, creator of American machine politics, rival of two of the most powerful men in the country (one of whom he shot to death), the subject of a sensational treason trial, and -- by all accounts -- a great and prolific lover.
  
  No small feat, that.
• 
  Aaron Million

  Aaron Burr probably has one of the worst reputations of any American historical figure. Maybe half a step above Benedict Arnold. The man who - while Vice President - killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, who later intrigued to invade Mexico, and who had political enemies seemingly underneath every rock, gets a heavily revisionist treatment from Nancy Isenberg. She sets out to dispel the many myths that have grown up around Burr and tries to paint him in a much more favorable light than history has shown him.
  
  Isenberg charts Burr's service in the Revolutionary War, his studies at Princeton University (then called the College of New Jersey), rise in New York politics, and passionate personal life. Of the latter, Isenberg does succeed in painting Burr as a proponent of women's rights. He strongly believed that women were equal to men, that they should also be able to vote, and that they should be well-educated. In this sense, he was a feminist. He was also way, way ahead of his time. Hardly any man thought that way in the late 18th century, let alone gave voice to those views out loud.
  
  Burr married an older woman, Theodosia (the two also gave this name to their daughter), and displayed an easiness and frankness when it came to sexuality. Burr was a highly sexual being, always pushing the envelope in letters that he would write. Burr flirted without restraint, and when his wife died of cancer, he weirdly kept up sexual banter with his daughter. Burr was quite comfortable treating her as an adult and an equal. He was very strict on her education, making sure that she got the best schooling that was available, and possessing high expectations for her learning. The result was a daughter who was extremely well-read and well-rounded; someone whom Burr felt comfortable talking to about subjects that a father would not normally talk with his daughter about.
  
  While I do appreciate Isenberg showing that Burr was more than just the man who shot Hamilton, she lays on the hagiography way too thick for me. In any conflict, Burr invariably comes out looking better than his opponent. Questionable things that Burr does are excused or justified. Burr's many enemies are always unscrupulous (this may be accurate, I just question Burr being portrayed as a choir boy who sometimes simply got caught up in events). As one example, on page 246, Isenberg writes about Burr causing a stir at an 1802 dinner arranged by Federalists (Burr was a Republican). Burr was criticized for going, and for giving a toast. But Isenberg excuses this by writing "Burr had actually rejected the Federalists' invitation to dine, dropping by at the conclusion of the meal... Discovering the business at hand, he offered his toast as a courtesy, and then quickly retired." My question is why show up to begin with if you know that your presence there will most likely cause you political trouble? Isenberg chooses not to answer that question.
  
  Isenberg exhibits a startling lack of curiosity about many events and actions in Burr's life. Burr served a term as Senator from New York in the 1790s. He seemed to possess influence then, being at the peak of his political powers. But he only served one term. Why was he not re-appointed by the state legislature? Was it due to his long-running feud with the Clintonian faction (supporters of George Clinton, a longtime Governor)? Did he not wish to serve another term? There is no indication of that. Did the majority party in the legislature switch, and thus he was not going to be re-appointed no matter what he did in office? Isenberg does not tell us.
  
  In the disputed election of 1800, when both he and Thomas Jefferson tied in electoral votes the election was thrown to the House of Representatives to decide who would be President (this was before the system was altered to specifically show which votes were for President and which for Vice President). Isenberg admits that pretty much everyone knew that the electors who voted for both men had clear intentions that Jefferson was to be President. He was already a national political figure for the past quarter century, one of the quintessential Founding Fathers, someone with deep experience in foreign affairs, had already served as Vice President, and of course had written the Declaration of Independence. Burr, by contrast, was a local figure known mostly in NY, a one term Senator who was a successful lawyer and a veteran in the war. While I do believe that Burr did not engage in any backroom dealings to make himself President, neither did he disavow the tie by issuing a statement saying that he recognized that the people clearly want Jefferson as President, and thus even though he and Jefferson are tied, he will accept the Vice Presidency without rancor. Why not come out and say "Jefferson is the next President, and I will serve under him?" Burr could have done that. He could have persuaded some of the Congressmen to switch their votes to Jefferson. Instead, he did nothing, and let the possibility of a Constitutional crisis creep closer. Isenberg, of course, finds no fault with Burr here, instead focusing her attention on proving that Burr did not actively seek the Presidency. While I believe her, that just isn't the whole story here.
  
  In early 1804, while he was Vice President, he chose to run for Governor of New York. Why? Was it because he had no influence in the Jefferson Administration? Was it because he saw that Virginia Republicans were going to be successful in removing him from the 1804 ticket as Jefferson's running mate? Did he think this was his best move career-wise? I would think so, but Isenberg doesn't bother to explain what his exact motivation was.
  
  As for the infamous duel with Hamilton, why did Burr intentionally shoot him? There remains dispute over whether or not Hamilton fired into the air or not. But there is no dispute that Burr aimed to kill. But why? Certainly by this point, he and Hamilton despised each other. I'm not defending Hamilton here. Far from it. Hamilton has enough flaws to fill more than a few books. Yet this does not explain Burr's fatal decision. Did he believe that Hamilton intended to kill him? Did he really think that, by shooting Hamilton and possibly killing him, that his life would not materially change, that he could return to being Vice President and then move onto something else the following year? Burr was far too intelligent, one would think, to be that naïve. Yet again, Isenberg does not investigate this momentous decision. She instead focuses on what precipitated the duel. She paints Hamilton here as the villain, but to me either man could easily have stopped this.
  
  Following this, Burr decides to attempt a filibuster in Mexico, which was then a Spanish colony. Filibuster back then had an entirely different meaning than it does to us today. In Burr's time, it was used to describe invading another country, but doing it privately, without the help or possibly even the knowledge of your own government. Why did Burr want to engage in more reckless behavior? Isenberg says it was a mix of economic (Burr wanted land so he could sell it) and political philosophy (Burr believed in expansion, and he also wanted to jettison the Spanish from the North American continent). But come on, this was stupid and foolhardy. Isenberg won't say that though. She just goes along with it, and quickly morphs into full-throated defense of Burr when he is subsequently arrested and put on trial for treason. Was Burr treated fairly by Jefferson's Administration? No, not even close. Jefferson, by this point, could not stand Burr and wanted to see him convicted. While Isenberg makes a good case that Burr was maliciously prosecuted, and that no real evidence was ever brought against him, thus resulting in acquittal, she does not call Burr to the carpet to accept any responsibility for his own foolish actions.
  
  Finally, why was Burr so universally hated? Yes, many of his enemies were not exactly Mother Theresa. A lot of those guys were real cut-throat. But was Burr any better? Why did he have two different political factions in NY try to destroy him? Why did Jefferson despise him? Why was he constantly getting himself mixed up in unsavory events? Why did he end up going to Europe after the trial, only to not be welcomed anywhere except in Sweden? What was it about Burr that made so many disparate groups of people not want anything to do with him? And how much accountability does he bear for the destruction of his own reputation? Isenberg will not say. She is too busy defending him, apparently trying to set the record straight on Burr. To simply describe him as the man who shot Hamilton is too simplistic. and it ignores Burr's many considerable abilities. But to continually paint him as the aggrieved party, while offering tepid criticism at best for Burr's poor decision-making, is not believable to me. I agree that Burr was due for a bit of a correction in the historical context, but not nearly to this extent.
  
  Grade: D
• 
  Carol Storm

  How do you write a boring book about Aaron Burr? How, how, how? The guy was a glamorous celebrity who got away with murder, as remorseless and slick as OJ Simpson. He was a boy hero destroyed by dark demons from within. Hello, Jim Morrison! He was a colorful con man who bumbled his way through the west launching one silly scheme after another, like Harry Mudd in STAR TREK. He was a compulsive womanizer with an unhealthy interest in his beautiful daughter's sex life. Just like Donald Trump, except Burr kept a "sex diary" and recorded every dirty thing he ever did!
  
  How can you make this guy boring?
  
  Tell the reader he's a feminist. Every time he does something slimy, just say, "but he's a feminist!"
  
  Keep mentioning how much he loves Mary Wollestonecraft. Over and over. For no reason. "He shot Alexander Hamilton -- but he loved Mary Wollestonecraft. He loved her! He had her picture!"
  
  Keep using the word "Enlightenment." Use it over and over. "He had Enlightenment values, and he believed in the Enlightenment. He's planning to destroy the United States and start his own empire out west -- it's just like the Enlightenment! He's sending his daughter dirty poems, like they did in the Enlightenment! Hamilton's screaming in pain now, Burr is laughing and it's just . . . so . . . Enlightenment!"
  
  And then there's always the "everybody did it" excuse. "Burr slept with prostitutes . . . but everybody did it! Burr kept a sex diary . . . but everybody did it!" Repeat for two hundred pages.
  
  Just so you know, I don't hate Aaron Burr. Apparently his mother and father died when he was just a little boy. He was raised among strangers, and I suspect he learned very young that he had to be charming and keep his emotions hidden to survive. But that's, you know, an insight. And there are none in this book.
• 
  Christopher

  How you approach a biography of one of the truly mysterious figures of America's Founding Era?
  
  Well, if you're Nancy Isenberg, you make it clear to the reader in the Introduction that you are the first PROFESSIONAL historian to write a biography of Aaron Burr and that everything you've read about him is WRONG. How do we know this? Because this book was written by a PROFESSIONAL historian. And being written by a PROFESSIONAL historian, you know what's you're about to read is PROFESSIONALLY written, by a PROFESSIONAL. Professionally.
  
  Soooo, that's how this work starts. Seriously.
  
  Burr is one of the greatest myteries of the early republic. Almost universally portrayed as a kind of mad villain, he's always been a fascinating character. At times he seems to have been hated by everyone--yet somehow rose to become Vice President under Jefferson in the latter's first term before shooting Alexander Hamilton in a duel, being tried for treason for an abortive fillibustering expedition to Mexico and ultimately fleeing to Europe for several years until he quietly returned nearly two decades later.
  
  That received history on Burr (traitor, cad, murderer, etc) is almost certainly false or exaggerated in several respects. But from reading Isenberg's "Fallen Founder"--you're left with the impression that Burr was a superman of unmatched ethical, military, political, legal, and even moral billiance doomed to suffer persecution based on those jealous of his sheer awesomeness.
  
  Isenberg does an excellent job of relying on Burr's surviving papers and correspondence which give a glimpse into his character (or at least, that glimpse he wanted to commit to paper), but she takes every written word at face value. In an era rife with hypocritical characters (Jefferson, Monroe, Hamilton, Adams) that would publicly say one thing but privately write something else, Isenberg never critically examines Burr in the same manner and assumes that he is always forthright and upstanding in what he says.
  
  The best parts of the book are the descriptions of Burr's courtship of his wife, Theodosia, and their commitment to raising their daughter in an admittedly progressive manner, consistent wuith Rousseau and Wolstoncraft's philosophies. Also of great value are the portions dealing with his legal practice and treason trials where Isenberg draws on court records/transcripts to recount the extensive arguments and legal wrangling contained therein.
  
  Where the book falters is that it never critically examines WHY Burr was simultaneously so popular and so hated. Those that passionately supported him simply did and those that so passionately opposed him simply did. But there's little-to-no examination how HOW Burr was able to generate such devotion and opposition. The best Isenberg does is to present the position of his detractors who called him a political seductor of young impressionable men. Yet, she never gives the reader a sense of how or why he was able to accomplish this--either via a unique personal political philosophy or via his particular strength of personality. He was Aaron Burr and he was awesome. That's it.
  
  I couldn't help but think of Ron Chernow's excellent biography of Alexander Hamilton while reading this book. Like Burr, Hamilton had devoted followers as well as enemies. Those that hated him did so with a passion. But Chernow had the ability to help the reader understand WHY both sides held the positions they did as a result of Hamilton's actions/positions/writings/etc (or the perception of the same). And while Chernow clearly sympathized with Hamilton, at least the reader was generally free to make their own assessment.
  
  Isenberg's Burr just comes across as a constant victim, a man out of time, so progressive and enlightened that he was made to suffer the calumnies of those beneath him. Yet due to his sheer magnanimity, he would never lift a hand or pen to those against him. It's all a little too much.
  
  Ultimately, because it's one of the few books devoted exclusively to Burr, it's worthwhile, but the overwrought praise of the man detracts from the overall quality of the work.
  
  
• 
  Jerome Otte

  An entertaining revisionist biography, definitely biased in Burr’s favor. It could have been researched better, for sure.
  
  Isenberg is definitely biased in Burr’s favor, but she doesn’t ignore his flaws, and the book is insightful and does a good job showing Burr’s influence, intellect, pragmatism and liberalism, and talent as a lawyer, along with his ambition. Her coverage of the chaotic early American political scene is pretty good. She does a good job showing how he felt his gifts to be limited by bickering politicians around him. She seems to want to make the argument that Burr wasn’t any better or worse than many of his contemporaries in the founding generation. She also does a decent job explaining how and why Burr decided to take part in machinations that were later viewed as treasonous, and that involved some of America’s least trustworthy citizens.
  
  I’m not sure Burr can really be considered a “Founder,” though, given his small role in the Revolution, and his lack of impact on America’s founding. The book tries to be “revisionist” and portray Burr as the founding era’s misunderstood hero, and Hamilton as its villain, and these parts of the book can feel preachy. Burr had flaws, for sure, but Isenberg often dismisses them as smears made by his enemies. When she does bring up Burr’s failings, she doesn’t usually give them much in-depth analysis. It’s true that politics in the founding era was vicious and that insane personal attacks were very common, but were the ones made against Burr unique? Isenberg herself often attacks other founders and their supporters as “toadies,” and she seems to consider Hamilton and Jefferson hopelessly incompetent. When discussing Burr’s schemes, she refers to them as a seperatist movement. I thought Burr was trying to seize territory and add it to the US?
  
  Isenberg admits that Burr was “flawed” but doesn’t really explore them in detail. Whenever she addresses one of Burr’s controversies, she seems to favor Burr’s version of the story. In other books Burr often comes off as an opportunist. Isenberg pushes back against that image, but her case isn’t all that convincing. For example, she claims that Burr really wasn’t interested in the presidency in 1800, that Hamilton fired first during the duel, and that Burr had no intention of engaging in treason. However, she could have discussed in more detail the evidence that leads other historians to those conclusions, and why exactly she disagrees.
  
  The narrative is fast-paced and entertaining. The book doesn’t have any footnotes, however. The book also rushes through Burr’s youth. James Boswell is called “Samuel,” twice. "John Taylor of Carolina" is mentioned. Samuel Smith is called Burr's "pal." She also makes strange references to more modern things, from PTSD to Clint Eastwood. There is a reference to Burr's "fan club."
  
  An lively, engaging and well-written work, but it definitely could have been more balanced.
• 
  Carl Rollyson

  "It is time to start over," contends Nancy Isenberg in her iconoclastic "Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr." Burr is, of course, infamous for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel. But historians have also branded Burr a Machiavellian villain who schemed to deny Thomas Jefferson the presidency and most likely committed treason, even though he escaped conviction.
  
  Ms. Isenberg faults historians and biographers for not examining Burr's papers — although many were lost, thus obscuring the man, she acknowledges. In popular fiction, as well, she notes, Burr has been portrayed as a Gothic villain, highly sexed and unscrupulous, a depiction that derives from the notion expressed, for example, in the "Federalist No. 6," that "sexual corruption (i.e., seductive women) could be equated with disunion." Yet, she adds: "It should be clear that Hamilton was not one degree less libidinous than Burr:"
  
  If one reads the newspapers, rather than simply relying on the papers of prominent founders (Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams), it soon becomes clear that sexual satire pervaded politics. The sexualization of Aaron Burr was a means for his opponents to increase their political capital, because the vocabulary to do so was already part of the political scene — not because of Burr's particular shortcomings.
  
  Gore Vidal made the same point in "Burr" (1973), which Ms. Isenberg briefly mentions, but she does not acknowledge that her book validates Mr. Vidal's view of a man abiding by important principles the shifty Thomas Jefferson never respected, and living by a code of honor that the scandalmongering Alexander Hamilton could not fathom. Surprisingly, Ms. Isenberg spares not a word for William Carlos Williams's essay on Burr in "In The American Grain" (1925), which portrays the fallen founder as the very feminist Ms. Isenberg lauds, a man who believed in equal rights for women and practiced his principles in regard to his wife and daughter.
  
  A man with an excellent war record as a staff officer under Washington, attorney general of New York, then a senator, Burr received 30 electoral votes for the presidency in 1796, and tied Jefferson in 1800. Indeed, many electors favored Burr over Jefferson because Burr was a man of both action and principle. He had an admirable reputation in New York —arguing for lower and fairer taxes and various public improvements — that aroused the envy of his rival, Hamilton.
  
  There is no evidence that Burr tried to undermine Jefferson's election — Burr was quite amenable to serving as Jefferson's vice president. But Burr did resent Hamilton's swinging his support to Jefferson in the 1800 election, and the tension between them increased when Hamilton bruited about charges that Burr was a "despicable" man and public servant. Burr demanded that Hamilton explain what he meant, and Hamilton waffled, giving his version of "it depends what you mean by sex."
  
  Hamilton accepted Burr's challenge to a duel in New Jersey (where such affairs of honor were legal), even though Hamilton claimed he opposed dueling. Hamilton left word that he would not aim to wound his opponent. Yet, as Ms. Isenberg notes, Hamilton carefully examined the dueling ground, took up various positions to check the sun's angle, and then put on his spectacles — not exactly the behavior of a man who did not intend to shoot straight. Afterward, Gouverneur Morris, a man who was an excellent "bullshit detector" (to use Hemingway's term) doubted the veracity of Hamilton's pre-duel pacifist declaration.
  
  While many condemned Burr — even alleging that he had somehow got the drop on Hamilton (it is not clear who shot first) — many believed he behaved like a gentleman, and his popularity soared in the South. Jefferson had no qualms about dining several times with Burr after the duel, and all charges against Burr were eventually dropped. He returned to Washington, D.C., and presided with dignity and acumen over the impeachment trial of Justice Salmon Chase, drawing praise even from his political enemies.
  
  But Burr's political career in New York was over. As many Americans did then and since, he went west, hoping to recoup his political power, and earned the admiration of men like Andrew Jackson. Burr's enemies said he was forming an army to occupy the West and overthrow Jefferson's administration. Jefferson himself, besotted with suspicion after reading Republican newspapers and relying on doubtful intelligence, rigged a treason prosecution. Already acquitted by three grand juries, Burr faced trial in Richmond, emerging triumphant both in the jury's verdict and in Chief Justice John Marshall's judgment. At worst, Burr was guilty of a misdemeanor, for organizing a "filibuster," a private army intent on liberating Mexico from the Spanish — although no proof was ever produced that such an army actually existed.
  
  As in Mr. Vidal's novel, Thomas Jefferson emerges in Ms. Isenberg's biography as a chief executive who never seems to have understood the crucial importance of an independent judiciary or of the rule of law. It was sufficient for him to believe the "will of the people" had turned against Burr and therefore he should be punished. Burr, for his part, submitted himself to the legal process again and again, trusting in the courts. He was a brilliant lawyer, of course, but his exoneration was no mere "technicality."
  
  I haven't done justice to Ms. Isenberg's scrupulous handling of evidence. Her work is profoundly original, and if American historians do not "start over again," they will be doing their own profession — not to mention the history of their country — an injustice.
• 
  David Eppenstein

  In the course of my readings of the early history of our country the name of Aaron Burr has popped up several times. I admit that prior to reading this book I didn't know much about this man other than what most others knew. I knew that he almost stole the presidency from Jefferson in 1800 and that he killed Hamilton in a duel. I believed, from my reading, that he had been something of a vain political opportunist and a scoundrel. I recently ran across his name again and decided that I had to know more about this man if I was going to continue reading the early history of the U.S. I found this book and have read it but I am now at a loss on just how to rate it. I give it 4 stars because it is richly informative and enlightening but I am torn because it is also disappointing. My disappointment has me thinking it deserves a lower rating but you should read it and decide for yourself. My disappointment comes from the tone of the author's presentation. While I expected an objective scholarly examination of the facts and an evidence based conclusion that wasn't what I read. Instead what I read was a partisan advocacy for the restoration of the character of Aaron Burr. Now as a trial lawyer I will not deny that the author's advocacy is something to be admired and it would appear that her facts compellingly support her premise. Unfortunately, she isn't an advocate she is a scholar. The author, nevertheless, has succeeded in intriguing me about the character and correctness of Burr's place in history. Those of you that are my friends or follow my reviews know of my fascination with Benedict Arnold, well I now believe we have another example of an American patriot that was wrongfully abused and dishonored by selfish interests. Isenberg could have settled the question of Burr's mistreatment by an objective treatment of the facts that allowed the reader to draw their own conclusions. Her choice to launch into intentional defense of the man causes me to be skeptical. I am bothered by the fact that she is the only one that has taken this position while everybody else seems to paint Burr in much darker hues. Why? I now must search for other biographies and see if Isenberg's facts are accurate and complete or has she cherry picked them to suit her argument. So I guess I am somewhat grateful that the author has presented me with a mystery but I wasn't really in the market for such a quest. Aside from this criticism the book was extremely informative which is always welcome to anyone interested in history. I was always of the opinion that Burr's failure to bow out of the 1800 tie vote with Jefferson clearly demonstrated his selfishness and opportunistic nature. I was completely wrong. The author establishes that Burr had clearly made it known before and after the election that he had no intention of competing with Jefferson for the presidency. Unfortunately, because of the way elections were decided in 1800 Burr had no choice but to remain in the race. The Federalists didn't care what Burr's wishes were. As long as there was a tie vote Jefferson couldn't become president and that is all that mattered to the Federalists. If Burr had dropped out then Adams, as number 3 in electoral votes, would move up to take his place and Burr would have been left out of a job. So there wasn't any attempt by Burr to steal the election. What is also made clear is how untrustworthy Jefferson and his henchmen were. In fact this book does much to reinforce my long held opinion that Jefferson was our first sleazy president and that Hamilton and he are responsible for laying the slimy foundation of our present system of party politics. What I never knew was that Jefferson and Burr had made the same sort of arrangement in the 1796 election that they had in 1800. However, in 1796 the Virginians knifed Burr in the back by only delivering 1 electoral vote for him and thus publicly humiliating him in his own state of New York. His N.Y. followers came away believing that Burr had no influence with the leader of their party, Jefferson. Why Burr trusted them again in 1800 is a puzzle however. Of course after 1800 Burr was a marked man by Jefferson. It wasn't that TJ had any reason to not trust or dislike Burr but Burr wasn't a part of TJ's Virginia family. As VP Burr was considered TJ's heir apparent and that wasn't what TJ wanted. TJ wanted Madison to succeed him so TJ had to remove Burr as a viable political successor or spoiler and therein was the basis of much of Burr's misery to come. Burr's life is certainly interesting and his treatment, if the author is to be believed, is both tragic and outrageous. His crime seems to have been to be a talented and successful outsider in a game reserved only for insiders, or so they believed.
• 
  Andrew Murch

  Aaron Burr is often seen as the villain of the founding generation. Most people don't realize that the man who killed fellow founder Alexander Hamilton in a duel was also the grandson of famed preacher Jonathan Edwards, as well as the 3rd Vice President of the United States. If things fell a little differently in the election of 1800, Burr's name would have forever been cemented among the legacy of the founding generation of Presidents.
  
  Isenberg seeks to rescue Burr's reputation, laying out a case that his image as a villain is the product of an overblown smear campaign straight out of the book of late 18th-century/early 19th-century politics. She recasts Burr's life from start to finish, clearly operating with the agenda of restoring (or at least re-examining in a more positive light) the legacy of this fallen founder.
  
  For my money, I don't really buy it. Though Isenberg is a compelling writer, time and again it feels like her agenda to rescue Burr from himself falls short. Everything from Burr's legendary promiscuity, to his shifty financial deals, to his questionable political aspirations are glossed over and recast as simply a function of the times. The main argument is basically, "That's the way everyone operated." In the end, the image we get of Burr is that of a man who was completely misunderstood, and in Isenberg's view almost entirely above reproach. It comes off as more than a little flexible with the facts that have been passed down through the generations. In sum, I think 'Fallen Founder' is a classic revisionist text, obfuscating the traditional reading of Burr's life in order to prop up a man whose legacy as a nefarious character was certainly earned.
• 
  Stuart

  Yes, Aaron Burr was scheming a lot to invade Mexico and Florida, but the author makes the point that there was a lot of that going around. During Polk's presidency we did end up annexing Mexico. And Andrew Jackson went into Florida, creating the crisis that allowed us to buy it. Burr may have been just as interested in claiming Mexico or Florida for the US as setting up a new Republic. But there was no truth to the charge that he also was going to invade Washington and take over the US government.
  
  As to the aspersions that Burr had no values himself but was just a vicious schemer, the author shows that there are many quotes against Burr, but very little coming from him. He usually was very gracious to most people. And interestingly, he and his wife were big fans of Mary Wollstonecraft and raised their daughter in those progressive feminist beliefs which was very rare for the time.
  
  He seems to be a victim of the infighting between Federalists and Republicans as well as between Virginian Republicans and New York Republicans, and even between different factions of New York Republicans. It would be interesting to know how history would have been different if Hamilton had killed Burr instead.
  
• 
  Mary

  It has not been too often in the history of our country that the Vice President of the United States kills the former Secretary of the Treasury and gets away with it. But then, rancorous as our current political scene might be, it barely holds a candle to the extreme partyism of the era when political parties - in this case the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans - first appeared. The truth is that the toxic enmity between the Vice President (Aaron Burr) and the former Secretary of the Treasury (Alexander Hamilton) went WAY back and their infamous duel merely represented it's logical conclusion. It was mostly a question of who would kill whom, not if. And though they were men with very different temperaments (Hamilton - a hot head/ Burr - maddeningly cool), both were passionate about protecting their "honor," even though, by standards of subsequent generations, they didn't have much honor to protect. Both of their lives give a whole meaning to the notion of "founding fathers." Their affairs with women were widely known at the time; both were accused of having "too much interest" in the young men who surrounded them, and Burr was even suspected of incest with his daughter. Burr would eventually adopt at least three boys who supposedly were his so they would have" proper" last names. Not BAD for the grandson of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" evangelist Jonathan Edwards! But those juicy details are not the only thing that has made Burr a "fallen hero" in most of the histories, biographies and fictional accounts that have been written about him. Much more it was his Machiavellian approach to politics that got everyone's attention - his ability to test which way the wind was blowing and to go there. His greatest fault was his ambition. And most of the time those who have chronicled his life, like most of his critics then, felt he was a man without principle. In today's political world that would probably not garner a raised eyebrow, but historically we have liked our heroes to be firmly committed to the right causes for the right reasons at the right time , and Burr was anything but. Or so it has been said over and over and over again.
  
  In this rather exhaustive and carefully researched biography of Burr, Nancy Isenberg says otherwise. While she does not paint Burr as a total hero, neither does she immediately dismiss him as a complete villain. In some respects, he was a man ahead of his times. For one thing, unlike almost all of the Founding Fathers, he was a strong advocate for women's rights. He and his wife Theodosia, both ardent fans of Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women, attempted to have an "equal partnership" and, after Theodosia's untimely death, he worked very hard to make certain that their daughter, also named Theodosia, would have a solid academic education to prepare her for life in the real world he envisioned would come soon enough. For another, he was a pragmatist who was willing to compromise, to see the middle way in a political climate which pushed for ideological purity. He was a good organizer who managed to get things done. Unfortunately that did make him suspect to members of his own party and a bitter enemy in the eyes of his opponents who resented the fact that he managed to drive wedges between them. He made "deals" -- seeing them as temporary evils to accomplish the ultimate good. Others did the same thing in clandestine ways -- he did it in broad day light. And thus he earned the ire of such notables as George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson --- and, of course, Alexander Hamilton.
  
  Isenberg also portrays his shortcomings. For example, he had a penchant for managing to get himself into debt - seriously in debt - which lead to a number of schemes to get out of debt which were questionable at best. He didn't exactly swindle people -- but one can say he borrowed with no intention to pay back-- and it wasn't just money he borrowed, but good names, good will and good reputations. One of his schemes - to raise a private army in order to capture Mexico from the Spanish - ultimately got him tried for treason against the United States when President Jefferson was convinced that what he REALLY wanted to do was increase the size of the American west and then get it break away from the United States and form a separate country which he (Burr) would lead. Ultimately the only thing that saved Burr was that the one witness who had what was considered "material proof" of his conspiracy (a letter he had supposedly written) was unable to produce it. The whole thing makes for an amazing read.
  
  So would I recommend this book? If you, like me, despair of our current political morass, this book is a great antidote! Things COULD be worse ---- and, in fact, they have been worse! Personally, I appreciated her careful research and her very balanced discussion. It was good to be able to see Aaron Burr in a more complete light and to appreciate in a new way the complexity of what it means to be a mere mortal in a world and culture that longs for its leaders to be without flaw or blemish. The insights she provides into the humanity of Aaron Burr in his time might be a helpful antidote for what currently ails us in our time, as well.
  
• 
  Kyla Harris

  Good read, a bit slow here and there but that was expected. Very fascinating learning about Aaron Burr, I would recommend it if someone were passionate about history and Hamilton!
• 
  Mark Desrosiers

  One of the most interesting -- and overlooked -- aspects of Aaron Burr's life is his deep and abiding friendship with philosopher Jeremy Bentham -- an intellectual kinship that led to Burr lodging in Bentham's London residence, the "Bird-Cage", after Burr's public disgrace and legal exoneration in 1807. Hell, Burr even crawled through Bentham's attic to retrieve and read some manuscripts, such was his interest in the utilitarian's work and thought.
  
  Burr's lodging with Bentham is a perfect window into the nature of a misunderstood "traitor", who we often see as a devious Macchiavellian schemer and rake. Well, the rake aspect has some truth to it, and Isenberg has a lot of fun recounting Burr's coded letters to his daughter depicting his sexual exploits well into his fifties. But as a schemer and traitor, I think Isenberg makes it clear that Burr was no different from his nemeses Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson, and indeed it was his sense of principle that stood him apart from them.
  
  A curious incident -- which is still included in sketches of Burr's life, often without rationalization or explanation -- was his farewell speech to the U.S. Senate as Vice President on March 2, 1805, which reduced grown men to real tears: "My colleague, General Smith, stout and manly as he is, wept as profusely as I did. He laid his head upon his table and did not recover from his emotion for a quarter of an hour or more." Isenberg not only unearths the nature of this speech, but gives is a picture of why it had its effect: he was able to rise above petty resentments to offer real truth and sincerity and a picture (soon to be forgotten) of the Senate as a citadel against corruption.
  
  One thing that I think is missing from this new biography is more of a connection between Burr's ideology -- his utilitarianism and his feminism -- and his actual political activities. In New York State, he is seen as being more of a democratizing force, but he also seems, even in Isenberg's account, to be doing this solely to increase the power of his Burrite faction. And unlike, say, Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, he doesn't seem to have been interested in writing political tracts or engaging in high-level constitutional debates. His ideology, curiously, seems disconnected from his political life.
  
  Another thing that Isenberg tries to underscore is just his appearance and demeanor. This was, in many ways, the source of his power and charisma, why people both loved and hated him -- at one point she compares him to Humphrey Bogart or Clint Eastwood, someone possessed of nonchalant "effortless effort". Hell, when he was on the run during the Burr Conspiracy wind-up, he was captured in Alabama heavily bearded with a slouching broad-brimmed hat, kerchief round his neck, and a tin cup and butchers knife on his belt -- but he was identified as Aaron Burr nonetheless: "The outfit did not fit the profile of the dapper Burr, known for his stylish dress and genteel manners. But something gave him away: 'His eyes,' attested Perkins. Burr had glanced at Perkins, then quickly withdrew his gaze; yet the land registrar was convinced he had identified the stranger... 'Mr. Burr's eyes mentioned as being remarkably keen, and this glance from him strengthened my suspicions.'"
  
  This is a great biography, and it underscores something we should all remember: the founding of our country was a wild chaotic ride filled with mistakes, charlatans, double-agents, and villains. Burr was one of the least villainous and most principled of the lot.
• 
  E.M.

  If Nancy Isenberg's research, premise and conclusions are all correct, then Arron Burr is the most maligned man in American History. He's also the grandson of Jonathan Edwards...what a crazy small country we used to have!
  
  
  Political history is written by political victors, and Aaron Burr had many successful political enemies, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. No wonder people think so badly of Burr today.
• 
  Christopher Saunders

  Nancy Isenberg's Fallen Founder offers a nakedly revisionist biography of Aaron Burr, best remembered as the damn fool who shot Alexander Hamilton, then ran off to the Mississippi Valley for a bizarre filibustering scheme whose details remain unclear. Rather than the conniving, unprincipled villain so often depicted, Isenberg sees Burr in flattering terms: not a heartless schemer but a pragmatist more interested in political success and functional government than high-flown ideologies; not a debauched rake but a devoted husband and father and early feminist; not unprincipled at all, but indeed a man devoted to progressive politics and good government, albeit visions of both at odds with his fellow Founders. What a swell guy. Isenberg's portrait is convincing in some areas, less convincing in others; as revisionists are wont to do, she'll often exaggerate a commendable, if commonplace trait of Burr's (for instance, his ambivalence towards slavery) into something truly heroic (just short an all-out abolitionist). That said, I did find her depiction of Burr's role in the Western Conspiracy (arguing that he was more willngly manipulated by others than actively heading the scheme) more convincing than I expected. It's hard to tell with a person like Burr, who's so easily forced into an ill-fitting mold, whether an extreme corrective's the only way to balance the ledger. Still, it's more palatable than most, and at least ensures that future historians take a more sympathetic look at a man reviled as a villain.
• 
  Mike

  My first thought after finishing this book is that it is good to know that there have been two perfect human beings in history - Jesus Christ and Aaron Burr.
  
  Ok, so that might be a bit of hyperbole. This book was basically written in a way that tells the reader that all of the Founding Fathers, and all historians since, are wrong about Aaron Burr and that he is actually the victim of a political conspiracy by people both in and against his political party. This attitude applies to all of the famous events of his life; including the duel with Hamilton and his conspiracy to take an army out west to conquer Mexico.
  
  I obviously had a very hard time with this book and feel the need to be critical even though it usually bothers me to write negative reviews. I imagine that if I were to write a biography on a historical figure, I would need to fall in love with that figure. How else could you spend years of your life researching and writing about someone unless you truly enjoy that person? I just think it would have helped the author if she had more easily recognized the flaws of Burr rather than defend him at every opportunity.
  
  Three more criticisms:
  
  1. The first 60% of this book spend half its words ripping on Alexander Hamilton. I get that these two were rivals, and I get that the author's position is pro-Burr, but it was way over the top.
  
  2. Something about the writing style bugged me. I tell my students that when writing essays about history, never use rhetorical questions. I always tell them to make their points clearly. Also, I tell them to never use exclamation points! It is the sign of a writer too anxious to make the reader believe they are correct. The author uses both of these techniques throughout the book and I just could not get past it.
  
  3. Most narrative biographies use the subject's own words throughout the story. I felt that Burr was almost missing throughout most of this book. He seems like an altruistic bystander during much of the story. The author points out that there are only two volumes of Burr's letters available for historians, but I would like to have seen more to get a better sense of Burr.
  
  In closing, I did learn a lot about the life of Burr that I did not know. His life usually ends with the Hamilton duel in most history books I read and I enjoyed learning about his travels and activities later in life. I would still recommend this to readers of the time period, but I would recommend it with reservations due to the obvious agenda of the author.
• 
  Lauren

  *Deep sigh.*
  
  I really don't know where to start with this one. I was debating between giving it a one star review or a two, because for all the book's faults it had some interesting information on regional politics in the 1790s and early 1800s, but ultimately, when you hover over the single star on Goodreads, what does it say? "I did not like it." And that's exactly what happened for me with this book. I didn't like it.
  
  One might accuse me of bias (a quick look at my favorites shelf shows my adoration for Chernow's Hamilton,) but however biased I am, Nancy Isenberg is waaaaaaaayyyyyy more.
  
  The biography reads like a love letter-slash-defense of Aaron Burr. She excuses every fault he makes and attributes all of his failings to his political opponents; she vilifies his political opponents while making him out to be a saint. Every politician in early American history was just a human (since, of course, we've been taken over by lizard people), and they all had flaws. Isenberg seems determined to be be blind to Burr's flaws, and to make the reader blind as well.
  
  Isenberg is so in love with Burr that she resorts to attacking his contemporary enemies, other biographers (directly naming Chernow, if I recall), and even, at times, the reader. I found it far too pertinacious in pushing the agenda of Burr as a perfect angel, god himself incarnate, to award the book any extra credit for the admittedly interesting historical tidbits relating to the regional politics of upstate New York or the fresh take on Burr's personal life post-Hamilton duel.
  
  Isenberg's other notable book, White Trash, looked promising. I doubt I will read it though, since this book sufficiently turned me off her writing. Not just the bias, but the syntax and the choppiness of the sentences, as well as the inundation of rhetorical questions and exclamation marks drew me out of the book in a bad way.
  
  I can't say I'd recommend this one.
• 
  Doug DePew

  "Fallen Founder" by Nancy Isenberg is probably the first time anyone since the 19th century has seen the real Aaron Burr. He has become a parody and most historians ignore his important, nearly unique voice in the founding of our country. He was good looking, intelligent, and passionate. The book is very meticulously researched with massive notes in the back. It is well written and covers Burr's professional, political, and private life as completely as will probably ever be done. It provides a rare glimpse inside the terribly cutthroat and dirty business of politics in the early days of the Republic. We tend to turn the popular founders into stone statues when they were really just men...men with flaws like all of us. Burr was no different. I got this book from a book club prior to its full release because I was excited to hear about this shadow character, and I was not disappointed.
  
  If you would like to learn about the founders from a new perspective, I recommend this book highly. It is well done and provides a picture of Burr the man, not Burr the cartoon. Nancy Isenberg has done a fine job on this biography.
• 
  Chris Yorgason

  I learned a lot about Aaron Burr, which was why I bought the book. But I only give the book two stars because I felt the author tried way too hard to justify Burr's decisions. I felt like I was reading something written by his daughter or granddaughter and found it tiresome. I would have been happy just reading about Burr, the life he led, the decisions he made, etc., without the constant attacks on Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton and other Founding Fathers. Further, the constant references to progressive feminism were a bit much for me and detracted from what could have been an otherwise enjoyable read.
• 
  Alexander Hamilton

  I am unsure of how to even begin with this book. Isenburg paints Burr as a true hero of America and consistently rails against historians for their "unfair" portrayal and misrepresentation of Burr and just accepting historical myth as fact; however, in the same breath, she accepts certain other propaganda as fact without ever questioning it.
  
  It seems like it's never Burr's fault, it's everyone else's and anyone who opposes Burr is vainglorious, bumptious, arrogant, and, in almost all cases, out to get Burr and ruin his reputation.
  
  The only reason I gave it 3-stars is because at least it's an entertaining read and had me constantly huffing and puffing at it.
• 
  Walker Starr

  The preface discloses the revisionist direction of the book. “Revisionism” is usually a pejorative term – especially with regard to professional historical works – but the author should be commended for her transparency on this note. The thesis proposes to unravel the common vilification of Burr, which, if merited, is obviously a noble cause and worth revising. I just wanted to read a biography of the guy, but it’s cool.
  
  The first four chapters are torture. It reads more like partisan punditry than scholarship, and many of the author’s conclusions are difficult to accept. This is probably where most of the 1-star people decided on their ratings. It seems as though the author expects us to take her word for it on many of her most fervent points as they have minimal support or analysis, especially in light of her labeling this a professional history in the preface. Chapter 5 gets better quickly though. Here, the author seems to become distracted from her authoritative air, cheerleading, and awkward chronology, and the book suddenly becomes quite instructive and enjoyable through the fruits of legitimate research and analysis.
  
  I think the idea that Burr was a feminist in the modern sense of the word, as the author contends, is a stretch. Either that, or the author is accustomed to hanging with much more flexible feminists than I. Or she’s desperate to paint a picture of a man she wishes Burr was. While she persuasively points to Burr’s uncommon public support of women’s suffrage and his attraction to intelligent women, one can still only imagine a modern equivalent; some knuckle-dragger explaining his own feminist philosophy: Yeah baby, of course you should get to vote and learn stuff – I like banging smart chicks.
  
  One example where I think she misses on this point goes as follows:
  
  “He observes a company of ‘Bucks & Bell[e]s’ drinking cherry rum at the local tavern. Eyeing the women, he concludes that they ‘looked too immensely good-natured to say no to anything.’ For dramatic effect he adds: ‘And I doubt not the effects of this frolic will be very visible a few months hence.’ Burr seems to be saying: sex is natural. We all feel desire and shame-it is part of the human condition.” (Page 57.)
  
  Uh, no Nancy. He’s saying: Them b*****s look DTF. If this makes him a feminist, then I’m Susan B. Anthony. Burr as an early feminist: sure, and well-enough supported by the author. Burr as a modern feminist: I think her case falls short.
  
  The book also resolves to remove the mystery from Burr’s character that his political opponents worked so hard to exaggerate. For the most part, any competent biography will shed light on the subject previously unknown to the reader, and this was successful enough here (particularly for me). But even the author points to evidence of the man’s mystique and manly, sexual presence, so it is hard to say that she completely succeeded in disproving some of the caricature stereotypes with which Burr’s enemies painted him. In fact, she kind of reinforces some of them.
  
  Despite the criticism I’m giving here, it must be noted that the author scores points. Ron Chernow’s biography of Hamilton (which I admit I like) had me thinking that the Manhattan Project was a pretty blatant and evil Burr conspiracy for personal gain. Isenberg makes a very convincing case against this. Whether she is correct or not, I don’t pretend to know, but she is certainly thorough in giving the other side.
  
  On a personal note, I was also relieved to finally learn about the circumstances of the treason allegations against Burr. After having read histories and biographies of several others in the founding era, I had only heard mention of Burr’s treason charges, and not much more (possibly to the heart of her case of the almost unconscious vilification of the man by modern scholars). Curiously, Isenberg seems to change her defensive tone and is careful to qualify this section as being a more complete version of the events than other historians have given, rather than a suspiciously partisan apology for Burr’s more questionable actions. She does a great job of showing the fine line Burr seemed to be walking prior to the charges, and of presenting all the relevant details all the way down to the hearings before the grand jury. Probably the most thorough and informative part of the book, it certainly showed the true colors of the people who wished to vilify Burr, and so came off as the greatest support for the author’s thesis as well.
  
  Above all, the influence Burr had on the founding era is well-illustrated. He was not a signor of the Constitution (and so whether he can be deemed a per se “founder” might be debatable), nor was he ever President. His face is on no currency, and the average person only knows him as the guy who shot Hamilton – if they even know that much about him. But this book shows that he rocked the boat and undeniably helped shape American politics from what it was at first to what it is now. While this is clear enough in most biographies of Hamilton, Jefferson, or Adams, Isenberg’s more complete biography of Burr shows that he wasn’t just some opportunistic usurper, but a legitimate contender for power with his own base of well-earned support in the young republic.
  
  At the end, Burr still seems to be a difficult subject to defend, and upon reading the epilogue it becomes clear that the author is one scholar competing against not only many other modern scholars, but hundreds of years of vilification of Aaron Burr. Chernow’s celebrated work on Hamilton is not surprisingly targeted here, but she also faults Joseph Ellis for his equivocal condemnation of the man. These are big names in the field of biography and professional history, so as a mere reader, I’d be terrified to cross swords with her on this subject. She’s not just kicking a hornet’s nest. She’s quite sincere.
  
  The author has taken on a difficult task and has fallen short in many respects, but she also makes headway, and is admirably and confidently aggressive in doing so, but she seems too biased to be completely trusted, and exacerbates things when she seems to change the message at the very end. While in the preface, I was led to believe she would exonerate her subject from all the lies, incautious scholarship, etc., the epilogue contends that Burr was not so much innocent as he was a man of his time, no different from or more deserving of criticism for his imperfections than any of his contemporaries… which is an excellent point and well-defended throughout her work here. It just seems to clash with the original thesis which is not so well defended.
  
  Tip: Because her angle throughout the book is to correct other scholars on their conclusions on Burr, I would suggest reading at least one biography of Hamilton or Jefferson before reading this, so you get an idea of where her defense is coming from.
• 
  CJ Jones

  Isenberg starts out by assuring me that the scurrilous lies about Burr, the Nearly Stolen Election, the Western Treason charges, his reputation as a depraved sexual libertine, are totally trumped up charges and everybody else was doing it too.
  
  I threw up my hands and said "Relax, book, I don't know ya boy Burr, except for that 'Got Milk' commercial. But I've met some Richard III apologists and so I can understand where you're coming from." And knowing how books like Chernow's Alexander Hamilton played him as their bete noir, the nemesis that great heroes need, I could believe that he'd gotten a bad rap.
  
  But the problem with apologists is they often seem to spin too far in the opposite direction. I found it hard to believe in or appreciate the gleaming alabaster monument that strode through New York streets, star pupil at Princeton and leading feminist figure. Unfortunately, most of his personal papers were lost when his daughter's boat disappeared at sea, which leaves us with much less source material than we have for the rest of the Founding Fathers crew.
  
  It also means that we hear a lot about other people, and a lot about how other people reacted to Burr. And because the goal here is to show Burr as a man of his time and deny the excesses attributed to him, we see a lot of 'how everybody else was also shady'. Nearly every one of the founding fathers seems to have died penniless from incompetent land speculation, for instance, an area Burr could point to in his favor, having died only mostly penniless.
  
  The author paints Burr as something of a judgemental prig, which I suspect would not have been an easy image to maintain while working in law at the time. And something happened around 1800 when he became Vice President to make the entire political world turn on him and actively plot his downfall. The Virginians hated him because he was a Northerner, New Yorkers hated him because he was the wrong faction of Republican, and other people just felt threatened by his manliness or something. In any case, everybody ganged up to make his plans to invade Mexico with a private army (Which *everybody* was doing, and was totally normal, says our author) look like a sinister attempt to take over the country. Of course, the time when they said he was marching on Texas, he was actually in court in Kentucky attempting to fight off another legal snarl. So while I doubt his hands were quite as clean as they are presented, there does seem to have been a faction willing to do some skullduggery to bring him down.
  
  I don't recall much talk about Burr in the Jefferson book I read, but there was a lot of Jefferson in this book. I'm not certain if it's because Burr wasn't really the political threat Isenberg paints him as, or if Meacham's book glosses over Jefferson's dealings with Burr, deeming them as painting his hero as too petty.
  
  All in all, I understand that historical biographies are constrained by the facts, which makes it difficult to give your hero a character arc or at least a story to follow through, but I never got much of a feel for Burr inside and the outer events felt very much like "He did this. Then he did this other thing, which everybody did then. And then he did this." With very little in the way of connective tissue, it felt too much like a series of unconnected events. And when one of the popular myths you're trying to disprove is that Aaron Burr didn't have a coherent political philosophy, it's not enough to just point at Hamilton and say "He was a political opportunist too!"
• 
  David

  Okay, so two stars. "It was okay" in goodreadsspeak.
  With the seeming apex of the renewal and revival of all things Hamilton (thanks to Lin-Manuel Miranda's musical "Hamilton" (based on the 2004 Chernow biography of the same name), it seemed an investigation into "the villain in your history books" was necessary and proper.
  I will still make this assertion. I would, however, advise a careful and intrepid reader to avoid Nancy Isenberg's account of Burr's life.
  At (very few) times engaging, and at (some)times interesting, but (almost) always frustrating, this bio lacks what you want bios to have: a reasonably unbiased view of the subject--and here I want you to make sure you saw the word "reasonably" earlier in the sentence.
  Every biographer has a "soft spot" of sorts for their subject. They will attempt to downplay negatives and accentuate positives. We know this going in; the very fact that the author wrote about who they wrote about testifies to the fact that theyare in some way sympathetic to the person whose illustration adorns the cover.
  I don't want to overstate this, but I can only characterize Isenberg's treatment of Burr and his life by using a quote from Jim Carrey's character Fletcher Reed in "Liar Liar:" [she] is so far up Burr's a55 I don't know where he ends and she begins!"
  I get it Ms. Isenberg, I really do. Her assertion that Burr got short shrift among the founders (in her title she even tacitly admits his decline by using the word "fallen") is probably true. His reputation and character have been repeatedly impugned and his conduct questioned and criticized in ways the Founders' never were. His characterization as the cad and political schemer in Miranda's "Hamilton" was maybe embellished. I wish I knew after reading this biography.
  Unfortunately, Isenberg became for me an unreliable narrator fairly early in the book. The pendulum has recently swung so far in favor of Hamilton (the gravity of that star named Hamilton is so great that even my review of a book about Burr includes a lot of Hamilton...) that Isenberg seems to be doing double-duty to strongarm that pendulum back the other way. The result, in my view, is an uneven and extremely unbalanced view of Burr's life.
  A strong positive point I can make is that I want to know more about his wife and daughter, both named Theodosia. I was much more intrigued by his wife's life and experiences (she was married to a British officer but managed to straddle the worlds of the Loyalists and the Revolutionaries without penalty or harm), and for that I am grateful to Isenberg.
  So, if you find yourself in love with Hamilton because of LMM, but decide that "hey, maybe Burr wasn't such a bad guy. I wonder if I can read a biography about him." The answer is, "Of course you can."
  just don't read this one.
• 
  Mary

  When I read about Aaron Burr and his trial for treason, including the claim that he wanted the Western states - west of the Appalachians - to secede from the fledgling United States, I wanted to know more. I chose this book at the recommendation of a very helpful history professor.
  Nancy Isenberg, author, goes to considerable length to demonstrate that Burr was largely the victim of his detractors and political enemies. The risk with such an approach is that of protesting too much; I found myself able to believe that he was not guilty of the charges, as the jury found. But I found it hard to believe that he was the hero and victim that Isenberg tries to present. (The book reminds me a lot of Robert Rayback's biography of Millard Fillmore.)
  A couple of interesting points: Isenberg suggests that Burr was just trying to "filibuster" in the military sense (Wikipedia: the attempt to take over countries at peace with the United States via privately financed military expeditions). She also argues that he was an ahead-of-his-time feminist, dedicated to the ideas of Mary Wollstonecraft. And she argues that his sleeping around was what everybody did at the time, although that argument doesn't extend to his practice of sharing his sexual exploits with his daughter via letter.
  It's been a long time, and I don't believe in judging people of one era by the standards of another. I was left thinking that Burr was just a little off - politically washed up after killing Hamilton, he took to filibustering, if I understand Isenberg right. It strikes me as the kind of behavior you'd expect from a young man sowing his oats, not a seasoned office holder in his 50s. After his treason trial, he spent some time apparently sponging off his friends in Europe before returning to the United States where he managed to avoid being jailed for bankruptcy. (Another interesting point: a lot of the founders, Jefferson included, died not just broke but deeply in debt, thanks in part to speculating in the western land and the ups and downs of the bubble produced by speculation--grotesque oversimplification.)
  Anyway, a lot of information and a bit of a feel for that early days of America when its glory days were far in the future. My biggest problem with the book is that it seemed to me to be a bit more a slog than it needed to be. For my next historical read, I'm going to create a list of characters as I go along; it would help when someone last seen early in the book reappears again long after I've lost track of who he is. And perhaps this rather defensive biography would make more sense to me if I'd read more of the attacks.
• 
  Autumn Beck

  DNF
  
  I chose this book because the narrator is a favorite of mine but this is a terrible book. I look forward to discovering a good book on Aaron Burr to read in the future.
• 
  Mike Shoop

  An attempt to rehabilitate Aaron Burr's disreputable reputation. I give the author kudos for sifting through evidently voluminous records, diaries, letters, newspapers, etc., for her research, but besides the fact that she goes into exhaustive detail about literally everything Burr was involved in, she does it with a totally overwhelming bias for Burr and tries to make a saint out of him, a man who could do no wrong and who was completely wronged by everyone--Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Wilkinson, Gallatin, and of course, Hamilton--instead of showing him for the intelligent, gregarious, talented, multifaceted, flawed human being he was. And Isenberg's writing style was slow, dull, dry, not at all a good readable narrative. It was viewing HAMILTON that made me want to read a biography of Burr and learn more about him; unfortunately, this was not a good choice. Yes, I learned a few things, but honestly, I ended up skimming about the last 100 pages, I was just exhausted by the time I was done with it.