Product Description

A controversial challenge to the works of Ron Chernow and David McCullough

With Fallen Founder , Nancy Isenberg plumbs rare and obscure sources to shed new light on everyone’s favorite founding villain. The Aaron Burr whom we meet through Isenberg’s eye-opening biography is a feminist, an Enlightenment figure on par with Jefferson, a patriot, and—most importantly—a man with powerful enemies in an age of vitriolic political fighting. Revealing the gritty reality of eighteenth-century America, Fallen Founder is the authoritative restoration of a figure who ran afoul of history and a much-needed antidote to the hagiography of the revolutionary era.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #378900 in Books
• Published on: 2008-04-29
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 560 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780143113713
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

From Publishers Weekly
Does Burr belong in the pantheon of founding fathers? Or is he, as historians have asserted ever since he fatally shot Alexander Hamilton in a duel, a faux founder who happened to be in the right place at the right time? Was he really the enigmatic villain, the political schemer who lacked any moral core, the sexual pervert, the cherubic-faced slanderer so beloved of popular imagination? This striking new biography by Isenberg (Sex and Citizenship in Antebellum America) argues that Burr was, indeed, the real thing, a founder "at the center of nation building" and a "capable leader in New York political circles." Interestingly, if controversially, Isenberg believes Burr was "the only founder to embrace feminism," the only one who "adhered to the ideal that reason should transcend party differences." Far from being an empty vessel, she says, Burr defended freedom of speech, wanted to expand suffrage and was a proponent of equal rights. Burr was not without his faults, she concludes, but then, none of the other founders was entirely angelic, either, and his actions must be viewed in the context of his political times. As this important book reminds us, America's founders behaved like ordinary human beings even when they were performing their extraordinary deeds. Illus. (May 14)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist
In this positive portrayal of the controversial Aaron Burr (1756-1836), Isenberg departs from all previous biographers, deploring their lack of basic research. Although she acknowledges that studying Burr is hampered by the loss of his papers in a shipwreck, Isenberg more than compensates by tapping negative publicity disseminated by Burr's political enemies. Comparing their scurrilous reports with private descriptions of Burr as cultured, well liked, and progressive for the times (Isenberg approves him as a "feminist"), the author argues that Burr's reputation was marred not by genuine defects of character but by political competition. And she details the three episodes on which opinion of Burr rises and falls: his tie with Jefferson for the presidency in the 1800 election, his 1804 duel with Hamilton, and his 1807 treason trial. Making a strong case for revising received wisdom about Burr, Isenberg significantly contributes to the history of the early republic. Gilbert Taylor
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Review
“ Isenberg’s meticulous biography reveals a gifted lawyer, politician and orator who championed civility in government and even feminist ideals, in a political climate that bears a marked resemblance to our own.”
—The Washington Post

“ Full of insight and new research. It is an important and engaging account.”
—The New York Times Book Review

“[A] sterling biography.”
—The Boston Globe

Customer Reviews

A fallen hero? Maybe not.
To say that Aaron Burr has been vilified by historians is a gross understatement. It seems that hardly a generation goes by without each new group of historians falling into lock step with their predecessors in a general hatred of this founding father. Most recently Ron Chernow in his book Alexander Hamilton, the bile reserved for Burr is obvious.

Then comes Nancy Isenberg and her book Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr. I must admit that I started to let this one go. When it arrived at our public library last week I flipped through it and then put in it on the cart to be processed. Then I picked it up again. And again. Eventually I spent the weekend with Isenberg and Burr. I have to admit that I have started the process of being won over. Nancy Isenberg has spent a lot of time researching Fallen Founder. She includes copious notes which are worth reading.

Burr, the killer of everyone's darling Alexander Hamilton was the son of Aaron Burr, Sr. the president of Princeton University. He was bright, hansom, and a charmer. Is it any wonder that he was destined for success?
Some how, however, history has chosen to mark Burr as a murderer and traitor. Isenberg does a masterful job at examining Burr relative to his time in history.

At 414 pages of text and 107 pages of notes, you'll find the examination of Burr a complete one.

You'll want to read this one slowly.

A Revision of the Myth of Aaron Burr
I have long found Aaron Burr one of the most fascinating characters in early American history and this is a superb new biography of this political genius and scalawag. "Fallen Founder" is the first of many biographies of Burr written by a professional historian. Nancy Isenberg is on the faculty of the University of Tulsa. That, in itself, does not necessary mean that this book rises above the many other popular accounts of the life of Aaron Burr, but it does help ensure that the more productive methodologies, themes, and documentary resources will be brought to the task. Isenberg has done an excellent job in reinterpreting this important figure in American history.

"Fallen Founder" rescues Burr from the popular conception of him merely as a schemer, philanderer, dualist, and seditionist. He was, according to the author, truly one of the nation's founders. He had a significant impact on the implementation of the national government and served well in a variety of capacities. He also championed women's rights, the only founder to do so, and made important contributions to political discourse in that arena. His killing of Alexander Hamilton in a duel proved his political undoing, for it finally gave brutal political opponents the ammunition they needed to discredit him. Moreover, the author convincingly makes the case that Burr's western adventure for which he was charged with treason was essentially a filibuster into Mexico used by his enemies to completely and finally destroy him.

In the end, Isenberg corrects the popular historical perception of Burr in "Fallen Founder. She notes that many of Burr's alleged political and personal "sins" were exaggerated and misrepresented by his opponents and enemies. The man was certainly fallible, but Isenberg demonstrates that Burr deserves better and was indeed an important founder. Her book will be a starting point for all future studies of the life of Burr and will aid greatly in understanding the visceral politics of the early republic.

A Not So Convincing Biography of Aaron Burr
This biography of Aaron Burr unsuccessfully tries to resurrect his sullied reputation. While as a biography it provides an excellent account of his life, its interpretation of his role and character in the founding era is utterly unconvincing. To give an idea of just how biased the biography is, its title "Fallen Founder" astounds me. While Burr was an officer during the Revolutionary War, seeing most of his action in Canada, he had no hand in the drafting of the Constitution. His primary role during the founding era was as a prominent New York politician. He was very state centric in his political dealings. In fact, it is unclear what his role was during the debate over ratification of the Constitution in New York, although he was against it. To put him in the pantheon of a founding father is not only a stretch, but frankly a little ridiculous.

There is a positive aspect of this biography in that it is it is very well researched and provides a good account of Burr's life. The best part for this reader was to provide a detailed account of Burr's actions after his Vice-Presidency where he as accused of treason for plotting to separate southwestern states from the United States and create his own country. I do believe that the author has proven, to the extent possible, how his political enemies used his actions to lead a filibuster into Mexico, to create an incredible and unbelievable set of charges against him.

That said, for the most part this biography fails to convince that Burr wasn't just a power hungry opportunist. The author clearly demonstrates what a nasty, mean spirited political world it really was back then. Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and his political enemies in New York are shown to be vicious politicians who were untrustworthy and used personal attacks, often attacks that were not true or so exaggerated as to be the same as untrue, to undermine their opponents. Jefferson, of course, being the sly fellow he was, used others to do his dirty work while staying out of the fray to protect his reputation. Hamilton was willing to throw his name out there with is attacks, which eventually lead in a more roundabout way to the duel where Burr killed Hamilton. Isenberg tries to paint Burr has having a higher level of honor and code of ethics in his political dealings than his opponents. While he didn't necessarily use the personal attacks, his machinations in New York politics, during the debate over the tie for the Vice-Presidency with Jefferson, and his questionable, if not treasonable actions in trying to lead a filibuster into Mexico belie this. Isenberg spends a lot of time talking about sexual ethics of the founders, particularly Hamilton, as they were all philanderers and had what some would consider questionable ethics in their private lives, which they often used to attack each other. She points out that Burr is no better or worse than his contemporaries in sexual morals. This is undeniably true. But this reader also believes that Burr was no better or worse than his opponents in his hunger for power and political position. It is clear that he was unfairly and viciously attacked by his opponents, but the bottom line for this reader is he is not as bad a man as his opponents made him out to be, but I doubt his political ethics are as pristine as this biography suggests.

Finally, you can't write a biography of Burr without talking about his duel with Hamilton. Historically the key question is the intent of both parties and who fired first. Neither of these can be answered with any certainty. Some claim Hamilton intended to waste his shot hoping for a peaceful, non-lethal resolution of his dispute with Burr. Burr obviously killed Hamilton. The historical record here is very muddy and the author does of good job of discussing it without drawing conclusions where none can be found. Given the accounts of the seconds at the duel I have no idea what Hamilton's intent was, despite some proof exists he did indeed intend to waste his shot, at least he told this to others. But I do believe, as Isenberg's account and others have conveyed, that the actions of Hamilton and his stray shot over Burr's head would have appeared to any reasonable person to be an attempt to kill Burr. And given the descriptions of the duel, I lean toward believing Hamilton fired first or they fired at nearly the same time. Either way, given the gravity of the situation and the enmity between the two men, it's hard to blame Burr for his actions during the duel given culture of the time period.

In conclusion, I find the thesis of this biography unbelievable. His opponents, including Hamilton, did unfairly and viciously attack him and he was probably a better man than history has painted him. Burr was no better or worse than any of the other political players of this era. But the author goes too far in trying to make a claim that, in fact, his political ethics were more honorable than those of his opponents.