Arnold A. Rogow. a Fatal Friendship: Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Arnold A. Rogow. A Fatal Friendship: Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. New York: Hill & Wang, 1998. 351 pp. $27.50, cloth, ISBN 978-0-8090-4753-6. Reviewed by Joanne B. Freeman Published on H-SHEAR (September, 2000) In A Fatal Friendship, Arnold Rogow offers a he was more at fault in bringing their relationship readable account of the conflicted and ultimately to a violent end" (p. xiv). fatal relationship between Alexander Hamilton As this last statement suggests, A Fatal Friend‐ and Aaron Burr, a dramatic story with a bang-up ship is a psycho-history, addressing the deep psy‐ ending. The book circles in on that fnal deadly chological drives that drove both men to the feld encounter, discussing the two men's youth, Revo‐ of honor. Given the conflicted and complex psy‐ lutionary War service, and families and friends, ches of both Burr and Hamilton, such a character then progressing through the 1780s and 1790s, study could yield some interesting insights, if taking us ever nearer to July 11, 1804. Final chap‐ grounded on reliable research --and Rogow does ters detail the duel and its aftereffects, and an epi‐ indeed suggest that he has sifted through histori‐ logue glances at the two men's treatment at the cal evidence in search of the truth. In fact, this is hands of history. As this rapid stride through two his literary persona in A Fatal Friendship -- the lifetimes might suggest, the book is more a char‐ clear-eyed outsider who will use documentary ev‐ acter study than a chronological history, focused idence to question "mythologies that sanctify Jef‐ on the development and emotional evolution of ferson, ennoble Hamilton, and demonize Burr" its two protagonists in relation to their fnal en‐ (page xiii). Rogow assumes this stance from the counter. As Rogow himself explains it, his book outset, explaining in his preface that "even the suggests that "the deeper causes of the duel are to most conscientious biographers are not always be found in the dark recesses of their relationship able to avoid bias in favor of their subjects," or to and in the personal histories that shaped both prevent modern political culture from coloring their characters and that relationship" (p. xi). In their depictions of the past. Rogow, however, will the fnal outcome, Hamilton garners much of the neither take sides nor drag the present into the responsibility for his duel with Burr. In Rogow's past, he tells us; he will simply "explore words, Hamilton's "character structure was more ...interactions of personality and politics," suc‐ impaired than Burr's, and that as a consequence H-Net Reviews ceeding in objectivity where historians and biog‐ haps revealing more about Hamilton than Ro‐ raphers have failed. A worthy objective that, un‐ gow's unsubstantiated suppositions. This is the fortunately, is not met. book's fatal flaw, writ small. A Fatal Friendship's main problem is its tone- Again and again, Rogow draws dubious con‐ deafness to the subtleties and realities of early na‐ clusions based on twentieth-century assumptions tional politics and life. Psychological theorizing -- conclusions that become particularly problem‐ requires a light touch when dealing with person‐ atic when discussing as alien a custom as dueling. alities from the distant past who saw their world He claims that apologies were possible when they through a cultural lens quite different from our were not, and that compromises could have been own. As eighteenth-century gentlemen and politi‐ made long past the point that they could. Nor does cians, Hamilton and Burr acted according to a dis‐ he understand the insults inherent in his protago‐ tinctive logic that must be acknowledged before nists' actions and language during their duel ne‐ their actions and character can be understood. It gotiations --the very insults that made it impossi‐ is impossible to understand what drove these ri‐ ble for the two men to turn back, spurring their vals to their fnal, fatal encounter without a clear conflict to its fatal conclusion. Rogow's fxation on grasp of the precise combination of political Hamilton's insult is likewise wrong-headed. To re‐ events and cultural conventions that guided their deem their reputations, failing politicians often decisions. Rogow, however, places character provoked opponents into uttering something wor‐ structures front and center, depicting the duel as thy of a challenge. In this context, the precise in‐ a clash of personalities. In essence, he has written sult that prompted Burr's challenge is beside the about America's most famous political duel with‐ point. Burr lost an election, seized on a suggestive out seriously considering politics or culture. comment, and initiated an affair of honor. There Not surprisingly, such political and cultural was a reason for Hamilton's repeated requests for tone-deafness results in some questionable con‐ his offending words. Burr cited none. Rogow's fo‐ clusions. Focused on the individual psychology of cus on Hamilton's fawed "character structure" his two protagonists, Rogow limits his historical blinds him to such facts, occasionally leading him field of vision, warping or overlooking evidence to make bizarre claims. For example, how precise‐ that would have revealed much. In Rogow's eyes, ly did Hamilton "allow himself to be fatally shot"? little guides his two protagonists other than their (p. 267). fatally predetermined character structures. For Rogow's predetermined argument leads to example, discussing Hamilton's ill-advised pam‐ poor choices about primary and secondary phlet attacking John Adams in the fall of 1800, Ro‐ sources as well. For example, in his frst chapter's gow states that "character defects and thwarted first paragraph, Rogow quotes Thomas Jefferson ambitions" might explain Hamilton's animosity, saying the following about Alexander Hamilton: but they can't explain the pamphlet, leading to "It's monstrous that this country should be ruled one logical conclusion: Hamilton must have been by a foreign bastard!" (p. 4) -- an exclamation that mentally ill (p. 206). Where character and person‐ sent me scurrying to the footnotes. Rogow's ality alone cannot explain events, Rogow blames source? Alexander Hamilton: First American personality malfunctioned -- mental illness -- with Business Man by Robert Warshow (Garden City, nary a thought about political motives or conven‐ NJ: Garden City Publishing, 1931), written in the tions of print culture. Hamilton's pamphlet was era of many a creative "Founder" biography, few recklessly self-serving -- even foolish -- but it had of them footnoted. Rogow makes ample use of a definite logic that deserves to be explored, per‐ such questionable early (and late) twentieth-cen‐ 2 H-Net Reviews tury works, a logical choice given that they were explains it, "One does not have to be a Freudian to often more interested in the personalities of the suspect that the slip may have owed something to "Founders" than in historical fact. Hamilton's wish that the year 1789 with its These same problematic works become con‐ lengthy visit from Angelica could be relived" (p. venient targets at other points in A Fatal Friend‐ 73). One does not have to be a historian to fnd a ship, enabling Rogow to seem unbiased in com‐ more logical reason for Hamilton's error: with the parison. Sometimes, the historians under attack new year only a week old, Hamilton misdated his remain unidentified, without a footnote of expla‐ letter by habit, a common mistake then as now. nation. Other times, footnotes reveal that Rogow Within a paragraph, Rogow presumes the exis‐ has leveled his weapons at long-outdated works tence of an illicit relationship between Hamilton that are hardly significant enough to engage in and Angelica based on little else but such guesses. battle. For example, protesting against Hamilton's Similarly questionable logic distorts Rogow's dis‐ inflated reputation in the historical record, Rogow cussion of Burr's famous farewell to the Senate. refutes the claim that "Hamilton may also be Burr's mention of morality "may have" been in‐ called the author of the Constitution" (p. 114). tended to "evoke in his listeners a memory of Who is his target? James Parton, whose Life and Hamilton. But if that was his intention, he Times of Aaron Burr frst appeared in 1857. In an‐ failed" (p. 226). He certainly did fail. Which sug‐ other instance, hoping to redeem Burr, he refutes gests that Burr may not have been thinking about the "view of some historians and biographers" re‐ Hamilton -- something that the book's oddly fo‐ garding Burr's intentions for the Manhattan Com‐ cused universe makes it difficult to fathom. In A pany, a water company created to facilitate the Fatal Friendship, Burr and Hamilton think of little founding of a bank. Biased historians have else but each other; not even politics gets in the charged that Burr never intended to supply water, way of their (or rather, Hamilton's) obsession. Rogow charges (p. 187). Rogow's target? "Geology Let me be clear: I am not refuting Rogow's Professor Julian Kane, in a letter to The New York charges, nor am I denigrating the effort to gain Times" (p. 318 n28). Framed as an objective histor‐ psychological insights into character and action. ical study, complete with footnotes and com‐ Hamilton had a curious relationship with his sis‐ mendatory blurbs from historians on the back ter-in-law (how curious, we do not know); his cover, A Fatal Friendship appears to be part of a troubled mental state deserves ample study; and scholarly conversation with which it does not en‐ who knows what was in the mind of Aaron Burr? gage. Musing on such matters makes perfect sense. My Rogow's single-minded vision also leads to criticism is of Rogow's method of musing; he is some creative manipulation of evidence.