Scan barcode
tropic_anaaa's review against another edition
3.0
I definitely learned some new history, but nonfiction books are so dense.
jaci_the_reader's review against another edition
Started out well, but the writing got really dry after about 100 pages or so. I've been completely spoiled by Larson.
veuxmourir's review
2.0
Though I enjoyed reading about the duel between Hamilton and Burr, the title is somewhat misleading. In reality, the duel takes up about a chapter - maybe two. The rest of the book is more of an examination of every small political skirmish of the early 1800s that may or may not have involved Hamilton or Burr. While I can appreciate what the author is trying to do here, and it's interesting to learn about the political atmosphere of the time, reading about it was very tedious. It was hard to keep track of everyone and Fleming tended to jump around quite a bit; at times I was confused as to how some of the passages correlated to one another.
In theory, it could make sense to provide excruciating detail of all the politics that took place before the duel, but in this book it's hard to see the connection. When it got to the actual duel, Fleming basically said that Burr challenged Hamilton due to the depression he was in, and the fact that he wanted some kind of Bonaparte glory. This renders the 300 pages prior, and the politics they examined, insignificant and frivolous details.
I also had an issue with how Fleming was blatantly wrong about some of the things he stated as facts. For instance, he once stated that Jefferson was undeniably the start of the modern Democratic party - something that makes no sense. Jefferson was for a weak central government and states' rights. He was a slave owner that was for cutting taxes, legislative power, and a strict construction of the constitution. These are all very conservative ideals, and much closer to the modern Republican party than the Democratic one. Not only that, but Fleming also presents the idea of an affair between Angelica Schuyler-Church and Alexander Hamilton as an undeniable fact, when there is no evidence of it at all, only rumors.
My final complaint is of Fleming's criticism of Hamilton's religious beliefs. Fleming was repeatedly saying things like "this is not the Christian way" or "a genuine Christian would not have told anyone", going so far as to quote the Bible as proof that Hamilton wasn't truly a Christian. Honestly, to me, it felt gross and much like Fleming is a devout Christian attempting to defend his faith. Personally, I've never seen identifying yourself with a religion as something that you have to adhere to strict rules for. Maybe it's just me. But Fleming's criticism of Hamilton in that respect seemed unwarranted.
Overall, this book left me disappointed. While I did enjoy reading about the duel, that was not the main focus.
katieg4's review against another edition
3.0
This was a rather cumbersome read. The author seemed to go off on so many tangents that it was difficult to follow what was going on. If the entire book had been written in the same style as the Afterward it would have been easier to follow. Still, the book was well researched and presented details that we don't always hear about our founding fathers and the political climate of that era.
More...