Fallen Founder: An Aaron Burr Lovefest

A four-hour flight delay gave me the opportunity to finish reading Nancy Isenberg’s Fallen Founder, The Life of Aaron Burr. Overall, it was a very interesting read, but Isenberg’s penchant to justify everything Burr did in his life becomes nauseating and takes away from what could have been a great book.

From the beginning, Isenberg laces positive and loving adjectives on Burr, while at the same time she constantly derides his political foes; especially arch enemy, Alexander Hamilton. After reading books on Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington and Hamilton himself, I’ve come to expect bias from authors. It’s understandable, the writers gain an appreciation of the subject matter they are covering, and I’m guessing it’s more preferable to write about someone who has the qualities of a hero, rather than a villain.

That doesn’t excuse an author for using his/her own bias to shape history the way they want it to have happened instead of the way it really did happen. If they’re going to do that, they might as well write elementary school history books.

We learn about Burr’s upbringing, and how he rose against the odds to become a successful politician. Much like Hamilton, his intelligence and determination helped him become a political power; rather than just being put there for being part of the new American aristocracy.

Burr did achieve great things, but he also did some questionable things. To Isenberg, though, his poor decisions and moral failures were all excusable and justifiable, as were the failings of anyone in his family.

For example, in the Revolutionary War, feeling that he was not being promoted quickly enough for his achievements and heroism, he decided to leave the military altogether. Rather than looking at this as cowardly or an act of selfishness because he was putting his own career above the success of the nation’s fight for independence, Isenberg continues to refer to him as an overlooked war hero, and justifies his leave. She never said something like, “If you’re not going to be general, why keep fighting?” But, that’s what the reader comes away thinking.

Then, Isenberg justifies philandering between Burr and his future wife Theodosia. The future Mrs. Burr was married to a man in the English military when Burr started seeing her. That’s okay, though, because basically everyone was cheating back then, according to Isenberg. Aaron and Theodosia were in love, so who cares about this other chump.

Then years after Theodosia died, Burr went on a sex romp through Europe, sleeping with a number of prostitutes – but again, he wasn’t doing anything immoral because most of our founding fathers did that. I guess today Isenberg would say we should all do drugs because a large number of the population does it. Just because a lot of people are doing something doesn’t make it right, but goggles of historical bias can do that to an author.

The justification that is inexcusable is when Isenberg talks about Burr’s attempts to overthrow the Mexican government to create his own empire. Burr had sought out support from England and other monarchs in Europe to support his efforts. Isenberg compared this to Benjamin Franklin’s efforts in the French court to gain their support for America’s fight for independence.

There’s one clear difference here – Franklin was representing the government of a young colony that was fighting for its independence, Burr was working on his own, trying to gain support to overthrow the Mexican government. I’m no fancy historical author – but I can see the difference here – why can’t Isenberg?

Finally, the most riveting part of the book is the trial of Burr. Not for shooting Hamilton during their famous duel, but for treason. After Burr killed Hamilton he was a pariah in American politics – a great politician without a party to call his own. So, he moved west and started his efforts to build an army, so that he can move south to overthrow the Mexican government. But, he ended up being accused of plotting to overthrow the US government and planning the assassination of Thomas Jefferson.

Isenberg systematically lays out why Burr was basically a victim of heresy and innuendo, and the ambition of General James Wilkinson. The General was working with Burr on his Mexico endeavor, but was playing the US government, the Mexican government and Burr against each other in an intrinsic web of deception, so that whichever side was victorious, Wilkinson would be rewarded handsomely.

From reading Isenberg’s retelling of this story, it is clear that Wilkinson was framing Burr. Unfortunately, with her bias to protect Burr at every turn, you wonder how much key information she left out, and whether Burr did actually try to overthrow the U.S. government.

Isenberg’s level of research on Burr to write this book is admirable, but she needed to tone down the love affair with Burr to make it great.

--Reviewed by Dan Green

Comments

[Philip Anast]

I enjoyed the book review and the critical thinking that you provide. It would be interesting to read about Nancy Isenberg's background as an author and her experiences. Perhaps she is living vicariously through Burr and expressing how life has treated her unfairly -- in her mind. Conversely, she may have just fallen in love with her subject, as you suggest.