When Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr fought their infamous duel in 1804 it is quite possible that there were the two most arrogant politicians in the entire United States. I recently finished David McCullough's biography of John Adams, so I was not inclined to think highly of Hamilton and Veda Boyd Jones faces a problem in trying to tell young readers about her subject's less than stellar character. This juvenile biography provides Alexander Hamilton's resume, but without really getting into why he was so admired by George Washington and so reviled by many others, beyond the idea that he was ambitious and wanted to achieve success as a military leader. The tone is set early in the book when Hamilton's illegitimacy and the intense social stigma of the times is reduced to the declaration "This bothered Alexander because it was very unusual at that time." While later scandals in Hamilton's life are ignored completely, I do recognize that there is little value in getting into the salacious aspects with this particular age group.

Consequently, my stronger criticism is for the general way in which Hamilton's strengths are presented; they are essentially reduced to the fact he supported a strong central government. The political struggle between the Federalists and the Republicans that led to the fatal duel is also reduced to the vague point that Hamilton called Burr dangerous in the newspapers. So, on the one hand I recognize that Hamilton is a problematic figure for a juvenile biography, but on the other hand this volume misses giving young readers a solid understanding of why he was one of the most important political figures of his day despite the fact he was never elected to political office. We are told Hamilton was an excellent writer, but while there are references to the Federalist Papers and other important pamphlets, we never really get a taste of his public rhetoric. The book is illustrated with historic paintings and etchings, some of which show Hamilton. Other titles in the Revolutionary War Leaders series look at not only Jefferson and Washington, but also Benedict Arnold, Nathan Hale, Thomas Paine, and Betsy Ross.

Written in 1854 and published the next year,this book is fascinating in providing personal sketches of distinguished Americans Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson,Henry Clay and John Randolph with many references to other prominent men who were their contemporaries. The author's
analysis is interesting not only in the spirited description of the individuals profiled but in his comparison of each of them with their political antagonists. The unique perspective he brings a man whose life overlapped some of these figures is worth a read for history or politics buffs. His admiration and defense of some he buttresses with argument. His passion is clear.
His oratorical style is typical of the time yet conveys a vivid impression of his subjects, and reminds one of a time before soundbites and simple words geared to a mass audience.

This is a reprint of the original diary kept by Stephens while at the fort. It is the only book still in print that was written at Fort Warren. If you had a Confederate relative imprisoned at Fort Warren, this gives a terrific insight to the daily routine at the famous bastille.

An exploration of the various syntheses of Hamilton's political thought, and its meaning for our institutions. Complex, as was Hamilton's mind, it is a necessary work for understanding the contributions of Hamiltonian principles beyond the manufactured absurdity of the Jefferson-Hamilton pseudo-morality play.

This book really gives the reader a sense of what Hamilton and Jefferson were REALLY like. They had disputes and were mistrustful of eachother. There wasn't any school-boy stuff going on here. I recommend this book if you're interested in history and are in college. Good book!

As I struggled to finish this book, my only thought was to tell other people what a horrible book this was. It is very poorly written. The focus changes within a few paragraphs and the author goes back and forth in time in ways that is very confusing. Having read Joseph Ellis' Founding Brothers and David McCullough's John Adams in recent years, I was curious about Hamilton and how he antognized these two political opposites. But, as another reviewer pointed out, there is very little written about his last 10 years. There is a few paragraphs about Jefferson and Madison funding a Philadelphia newspaper to rival Hamilton's newspaper -- but there is never any mention of his starting or writing anything for that paper. His starting the New York Post rates only a sentence. I'm afraid I will need to seek out another biography of Hamilton to learn anything (besides his affairs) that occured after the Revolutionary War.

This is a well written book that will interest most people. Randall focuses primarily on Hamilton's childhood and his time in the Continental Army. It sheds very little light on Hamilton's political career. Randall almost forgets what Hamilton accomplished after the war in shaping america( which is remarkable). The book is 70% about Hamilton in the army, which is interesting. So if you are interested in reading a book about Hamilton in the army this will entertain you. If you are interested in Hamilton's political career after the war I would reccomend another book. But overall this is a well written book.

Willard Sterne Randall's biography of Alexander Hamilton joins the recent glut of books covering America's colonial period that have either focused on Hamilton or featured him prominently. Randall's highly readable account of Hamilton's life brings into sharp focus the man who was Thomas Jefferson's ideological counterpoint in the two competeing governing philosopys that emerged from the American Revolution. Ironically, while the aristocratic Jefferson became the champion of the "common man," it was the "commoner" Hamilton who came to favor a strong central government at the expense of individual (and state's) rights.

Hamilton's rise from the illegitimate son of a West Indies merchant to the very heights of power at a time when such avenues were normally reserved for nobility make him America's first great self-made man. Most of the other founding fathers were from either the aristocrat or merchantile classes. Hamilton, whose family's entire modest estate was confiscated at the time of his mother's death when he was a boy, was possessed of the unique ambition of an insecure man who spent his life trying to overcome his humble origins. As Randall demonstrates, Hamilton's close relationship with George Washington, who recognized his junior's incredible organizational and intellectual gifts, was of key importance to the latter's success.

The text of the book is quite sympathetic its subject, perhaps overly so at times. Though Randall does not ignore the less noble aspects of Hamilton's character, he strives whenever possible to show him in the best possible light. Thus Aaron Burr, who actually made his own important contributions to the nation, comes off mostly as a despicable villian. Burr will always be infamous for firing the bullet that ended Hamilton's life, but Hamilton was equally at fault for the feud that ended so tragically.

Oveall, Randall's book is an enjoyable and enlightening work that will most appeal to history buffs.

This hardcover version of The Federalist (papers) comes is a nice package so to speak. The end of the book contains both the Declartion of Indepenence and the Constitution. Unlike most other Federalist papers books which are written as paperbacks using cheap newsprint paper, this uses a higher quality and brighter paper. The nice part about this book, unlike alotof others is that it contains the dates for each paper... alot of reproductions don't have this.

After reading the book however, I became quite concerned
because I noticed immediately that the author (intentionally or unintentionally) changed many of the words in the The Federalist!! This annoys me to no end. It's extremely bad practice for purposes of history, to change words in historical documents, because those "translated" words might accidentally get passed to future generations without aknowledgement that that wasn't what the founding fathers actualy wrote. I noticed at least a dozen changed words... there are probably thousands of errors for all I know.. This is bad, bad, bad.

Heres an example from Federalist Paper #1: (pg. 3)
This book writes: "After a full experience of the insufficiency of the existing federal government, you are invited to deliberate upon a new Constitution for the United States of America..."

Every other book in existence writes: "AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America...."

Notice the subtle, yet immensely importance difference in words.
Now what gives this dumb author the right as a scholarly academian to change the words of our founding fathers. In fact, I don't even know which version is truly correct?? (I assume the majority rules, so this book comes out the loser.)

And these errors continue right through Federalist paper #1, and several others that I noticed... Maybe even all of them!

Also, the author has a nasty habit of decapitalising words which should be capitalized in historical conext. Our founding fathers, as was customary grammar at the time, capitalized many words in the middle of the sentance. I don't fully understand the details of antiquated English, however, when I buy a book on historical figures, I expect, nay, I demand, that the reproduction be produced in exactly the manner in which it was presented by our founding fathers. It can be difficult to understand antiquated English, especially some of the stuff written by James Madison, however, I'd rather do the mental translation myself.

It's a nice book, but I cannot in good conscience give this
anything above 2 stars. In fact, I think it deserves no stars.

NOTE: After researching the matter a little bit, it occurs to me that there are actually two common distinct "translations" and this book presents just one of them.... so I take back blaming the editor. I'm not sure of the origin of these modern translations... but it does seem that this version is much less popular than what is presented in other Federalist Paper repros.
I still claim that this version is error.

This is a very nice edition of the Federalist's Papers. An idea which was inaugurated by James Hamilton to help abate the opposition which was expected toward the newly written constitution.

This Modern Library edition has several features which sets it apart from other editions. First, the editor's introduction (by Robert Scigliano of Boston College) is quite informative and helpful for those who are just getting started in their study and research of American history. And yet it is detailed enough to be informative for those who have a stronger background in American Revolutionary history. Second, the appendices include The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the U.S. along with the amendments. Third, the book has a short but nice bibliography, as well as a nice and very useful index. All these features helped to set this particular edition apart from other editions that I have owned or read.

Of course, the Federalist writings are some of the key writings in American Revolutionary history. Every American should be required to read them since they were written with the intent of promoting the ratification of the constitution. These writings contain the ideas and development of the American system of government, the separation of powers, how congress is to be organized, and the positions of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. This work provides its reader with the thoughts, inspirations, and brilliance behind the American Constitution and development of American government.
I highly recommend this edition of the Federalists.

Seeking to reprise his earlier success with The Last of the Mohicans, James Fenimore Cooper went on to write several other tales built around his heroic character Natty Bumppo (called "Hawkeye" in Mohicans and "Pathfinder" in the book of THAT name). In this one our hero is known as "Deerslayer" for his facility on the hunt and is shown as the younger incarnation of that paragon of frontier virtue we got to know in the earlier books. In this one, too, we see how he got his most famous appellation: "Hawkeye". But, this time out, our hero comes across as woefully tiresome (perhaps it's because we see too much of him in this book, where he's almost a side character in Mohicans). Yet some of Cooper's writing skills seem sharper here (he no longer avers that Natty is the taciturn type, for instance, while having the fellow forever running off at the mouth). But, while there are some good moments & excitement, this tale really doesn't go all that far...and its rife with cliches already overworked from the earlier books. The worst part is the verbose, simple-minded self-righteousness of our hero, himself, taken to the point of absolute unbelievability. He spurns the love of a beautiful young woman (though he obviously admires her) for the forester's life (as though he couldn't really have both), yet we're expected to believe he's a full-blooded young American male. And he's insufferably "moral", a veritable goody two-shoes of the woodlands. At the same time, the Indians huff & puff a lot on the shore of the lake where Deerslayer finds himself in this tale (in alliance with a settler, his two daughters, a boorish fellow woodsman, and Deerslayer's own erstwhile but loyal Indian companion Chingachgook -- "The Big Sarpent," as Natty translates his name). But the native Americans seem ultimately unable to overwhelm the less numerous settlers who have taken refuge from them in the middle of Lake Glimmerglass (inside a frontier house built of logs and set in the lake bed on stilts). There is much racing around the lake as Deerslayer and the others strive to keep the few canoes in the vicinity from falling into the hands of the tribe of marauding Hurons who have stopped in the nearby woods on their way back up to Canada (fleeing the American colonists and the British at the outbreak of English-French hostilities -- since these Hurons are allied with the French). And there are lots of dramatic encounters, with some deaths, but the Indians seem to take it all with relative equanimity, while trying to find a way to get at the whites who are precariously ensconced out on the lake. (It seems to take them the better part of two days, for instance, to figure out they can build rafts to make up for their lack of canoes -- and why couldn't they just build their own canoes, in any case -- and how is it they don't have any along with them since it's obvious they'll have to cross a number of waterways to successfully make it back to the homeland in Canada?) The settler and the boorish woodsman, for their part, do their stupid best to attack the Indians unnecessarily, getting captured then ransomed in the process, while Deerslayer and Chingachgook contrive to get the loyal Indian's betrothed free from the Hurons (it seems she has been kidnapped by them -- the reason Deerslayer and Chingachgook are in the vicinity in the first place). In the meantime the simple-minded younger daughter of the settler (Cooper seems to like this motif since he used a strong daughter and a simpler sister in Mohicans, as well) wanders in and out of the Indian's encampment without sustaining any hurt on the grounds that the noble red men recognize the "special" nature of this poor afflicted young woman (Cooper used this motif in Mohicans, too). In the end there's lots of sturm und drang but not much of a tale -- at least not one which rings true or touches the right chords for the modern reader. Cooper tried to give us more of Hawkeye in keeping with what he thought his readers wanted but, in this case, more is definately too much. --- Stuart W. Mirsk

Had "Deerslayer" been James Fenimore Cooper's first "Leatherstocking" tale -- who knows? Maybe it would have been his last! But his mythic hero, Nathaniel Bumppo (a.k.a. Natty, Deerslayer, The Long Carrabine, Hawkeye, et. al.)had such a mid-19th Century following that Cooper was practically guaranteed an eager, receptive audience for his tales.

I won't say straight out that "Deerslayer" is a terrible book. If nothing else, Donald Pease's introductory essay informs us of several plot complexities that are intertwined with Cooper's personal life, such as the re-invention of Natty Bumppo to buttress and justiry Cooper's real-life legal property claims. But, if "Deerslayer" is not a terrible book, it is for hundreds of pages something less than scintillating. Why? I think it comes down to this. Patient readers can endure quite a lot of moralizing, or wide swaths of verbosity. But put the two together and it's hard to endure.

The story takes place on Cooper's real-life ancestral home, Lake Otsego in mid-upstate New York (my friends tell me the pronunciation is "Otsaga" with a short "a") where we first encounter a youthful Natty Bumppo and his unlikely fellow traveler, Harry "Hurry" March, an indestructible, Paul Bunyonesque figure whose credo can be summarized as "might makes right." Natty (given the sobriquet, Deerslayer, by his adopted Delaware tribe) has arrived at the lake to join his companion, Chingachgook, (the "Serpant"), in his quest to liberate his future bride, Wah-ta-Wah, who was kidnapped by a band of Huron Indians. Harry March has come to the lake to capture the heart of Judith Hutter, who along with her father, Thomas, and simple-minded sister, Hetty, live on the lake, occupying either a floating ark or a fortress-like structure built upon the lake.

Eventually, the Hutters are surrounded by dozens of fierce Huron warriors, who are on the warpath during the opening days of the mid-18th Century French & Indian Wars. Seemingly, it was all there for Cooper to capitalize on: just a handful of isolated white settlers, whose only protection from scalp-seeking, torture-minded skulking Hurons is a crank sailing craft or a lake home on stilts. But Cooper rejects his own dramatic setting to stage a morality play, and a heavy-handed one at that.

A word about the Hutter sisters. Diametrically opposed siblings are at least as old as the Bible, and Cooper employed them in several novels, including "The Last of the Mohicans" and "The Spy" (far superior works than "Deerslayer".) Hetty is Cooper's example of purity and innocence, but we can leave her to the Hurons, who display an admirable level of respect and reverence for the frail-minded girl. I suspect she would have fared much better in the hands of so-called savages than in the typical 18th Century colonial settlement. It is her vain, beautiful and high-tempered older sister, Judith, whose character is of more interest, and requires in my opinion a little rehabilitation.

It is never made explicit by Cooper (no doubt it would have scandalized his audience) but I think it's fair to say that Judith Hutter -- much to her regret later on -- granted her last favors to at least one colonial British officer (maybe several.) And, if this is a mis-reading of the text, she most certainly did "something" to set the colonial tongues a wagging. Whatever her "failings", they would not be recognized as such by modern day readers (perhaps her vanity and self-centeredness would go unnoticed as well.) There was, however, little tolerance for a Judith Hutter in the 18th Century, and Cooper would have never permitted Natty Bumppo -- young, virginal and selfless -- to fall in love with this high-spirited young woman. (Besides, it would not have chronologically tied in with his future exploits.)

But I'm not entirely convinced. Judith Hutter possesses several admirable traits, not the least of which is intelligence, bravery and a certain loving devotion to her frail sister. She also recognizes Natty Bumppo's virtues, as well as her own faults, and is more than willing to embrace the former and cast off the latter. Her love for Natty is obvious for hundreds of pages, but somehow he doesn't quite get it! In the end, the girl must swallow her pride and make explicit what even modern day women would find nearly unthinkable -- she makes an outright marriage proposal. Alas, Natty Bumppo is simply "too good" for her.

To use a modern day expression, Cooper is over the top with the virtuous Natty Bumppo. At some point, self-abnegation is just another form of narcissism -- only more complex than the garden variety of narcissism possessed by Judith Hutter (and other mere mortals.) In his introductory essay, Donald Pease points out that the rejection of Judith Hutter balances the brutal rejection Natty Bumppo receives at the hands of Mabel Dunham in an earlier Leatherstocking tale, "The Pathfinder". Maybe. But consider this. To honor his parole from the Hurons, Natty Bumppo chooses torture over Judith Hutter. And, ultimately, he chooses a famous rifle over her -- a gift she lovingly gives to him in recognition of how much he would appreciate such a weapon. It comes down to this: torture and guns over Judith Hutter! Hmmm.... I'll leave that one for modern day psychologists.

I've given "Deerslayer" three stars because Cooper is, after all, one of our nation's early literary masters, and "Deerslayer" is not without its moments. There's a wonderful give-and-take scene between Natty Bumppo and the Huron Chief, Rivenoak, as they negotiate the release of Thomas Hutter and Harry March. (My advice to modern day corporations: don't bother with negotiation consultants -- save your money and read Chapter 14.) And for those who still believe in the right of every American to bear arms, take it from the author who created our nation's first true literary sharpshooter. There's a haunting, prescient admonishment about leaving loaded guns lying about the house (pages 219-220.)

"The Deerslayer" is, chronologically, the first of Cooper's Leatherstocking Tales, although the last to be written. It takes place in the early 1740s on the Lake Glimmerglass. Natty Bumppo, called Deerslayer, and his friend Hurry Harry March go to Tom Hutter's "Castle," which is a house built on stilts on a shoal in the middle of the lake, and it is practically impregnable. March intends to get Tom's daughter Judith to marry him. More love is in the air, for Deerslayer plans to meet Chingachgook at a point on the lake in a few days in order to help him rescue his bride-to-be, Wah-ta-Wah, who is a prisoner of the Hurons.

War breaks out, Tom and Harry are captured by Hurons, and the untested Deerslayer must go on his first warpath to rescue them. That sets up the plot, and there follows many twists and turns, ending with a very haunting conclusion. Although the book drags in parts, it's still pretty good.

I would caution you not to expect realism in this book. "It is a myth," D. H. Lawrence writes, "not a realistic tale. Read it as a lovely myth." Yes, Deerslayer is fond of talking, but take his soliloquies the same way as you take Shakespeare's: characters in both men's works meditate and reflect on what they are going through. So toss out your modern preconceptions aside and just enjoy the myth!

This book is a fascinating treatment of these three contemporaries, Burr, Hamilton & Jefferson, and their times. The author, I believe, successfully resurrects Burr from the usual dustbin historians like to put him in, while at the same time, showing many of the warts on the sometimes sterling-looking characters of Hamilton & Jefferson. With respect to these latter, the author does not bring out alot of new information ... the book is not too strong on Jefferson & a bit more on Hamilton. For the interested reader, there are numerous books on these two, so you needn't be too disappointed by the short shrift they get here. There is not alot of extant writing on Burr, however, so this book is a welcome addition to the literature. I disagree with some of the other reviewers about the treatment of Burr here -- the author shows that he was a man of his times, not that he was any saint. The author shows that his western expedition can be put into a context of expansionism, and that his 3 treason trials can be put in the context of both political rivalry (with Jefferson) and early political debate about slavery (Burr was a powerful anti-slavery advocate). The reason I gave the book only 3 stars was not because the book lacks originality or original information or interesting interpretations of already known facts. It has all that. I just felt it could have been written better ... with a less peculiar style that made it more readable. The book seems to have needed a better editor. Or perhaps Kennedy was "experimenting" with a different stylistic approach that didn't touch my fancy.

Roger Kennedy freely acknowledges at the beginning of this study that he has a point of view: Aaron Burr had a greater character and value to our nation than his reputation provides, while Hamilton and Jefferson had lesser character and value to our nation than their reputations. This book is a clear and concise defense of Aaron Burr, amply annotated, easily read, and quite entertaining. On a larger scale, the study gives reason to contemplate the formulation of reputation, especially historically. Had not Burr's daughter perished at sea with all his notes and letters, we might have a much greater opinion of Burr. Any fair reader of this book will come to a much deeper appreciation for Burr, the man, and the failures and shortcomings of Hamilton and Jefferson. I highly commend this book to your attention.

This is an enormously satisfying book, one that goes farther to rescue Aaron Burr from an undeserved historical contempt than any book since Gore Vidal's elegant fiction BURR. It is still a reflex to dismiss Thomas Jefferson1s first Vice-President as a sly scheming traitor who murdered the well-beloved Hamilton in a one-sided duel where Hamilton deliberately and romantically threw away his shot.. It is all thoughtless and unscrutinized balderdash, and Kennedy has a wonderful time proving it. There are surprising and provocative ideas on every page, and fascinating portraits of the brilliant neurotic Hamilton, and the almost perfect hypocrisy and subtle genius of Thomas Jefferson. Most of all, however, is the picture Kennedy draws of the witty, graceful gentleman who was Aaron Burr. Kennedy calls him America's first professional politician, but he was far more than that. To say that he was an abolitionist or a feminist does not really do him justice; he practiced what he preached, as Kennedy amply describes, fifty, even a hundred, even two hundred years ahead of his time. His generosity was outsized, his intellect without cant or self-delusion. A scion of one of the colonies first and oldest familes, he was an honest to God Revolutionary War hero not once but many times, (unlike The Sage of Monticello, to say the least). Like Jane Austen's Gentleman, Burr never apologized and never explained. This last was a grievous mistake, because his silence, to his contemporaries and to posterity, though elegant, ceded much ground to his enemies. There was much to admire in both Hamilton and Burr, and their contemporaries did so. But Hamilton carried molten envy of Burr for many years, years during which Burr apparently had not a clue that his friend-rival-ally-competitor was viciously and continuously slandering him, sharing opinions about Burr that went beyond the norm of political rivalry, making certain that Burr would not succeed in politics even if it meant that Jefferson whom he despised, would. But Kennedy suggests that Burr was more than Hamilton's opponent; he was the man who, in almost every respect, from military heroism to family background to manners to wit to success with the ladies, Hamilton yearned to be. And everything Hamilton hated in himself, argues Kennedy, he projected on to Burr. And then there is Jefferson. It has become open season on Jefferson these last few years, and high time too. Jefferson's undoubted brilliance as a literary stylist and his extraordinary ability as a practical and cunning politician have kept him at the top of the heap for decade after decade, but perhaps there is less here than meets the eye. Kennedy is wonderful in discerning plausible motives to Jefferson's unquenchable need to destroy Burr, a man who might very well have moved up abolition1s cause by 50 years. The various accounts of back room snakiness by The Sage, and the similarity between Jefferson1s Western machinations both before and after Burr's trial for treason for the same activities(which Jefferson pushed with a Shakespearean malignity) are priceless. There are greater tragedies in American's past, I suppose, than the consignment of Aaron Burr to the Most Reviled Villain Category, but it feels terribly unjust. And the easy unscrutinized way many of our teachers and historians wave airy hands of dismissal does rankle, to say nothing of the ongoing worship of The Sage, also airy, also unscrutinized. Roger Kennedy has created a thoughtful, witty, outraged response to all that.

The lives & loves & political rivalries of the founding fathers are a fertile land for many recent books. Perhaps the most scandalous event in AM HIST survey books that involved these people was the Burr/Hamilton duel. Rogow's book brings the details behind their rivalry to the reader's attention. The book's weakness is that it is too heavy on historiography -- with Rogow trotting out all the the evidence & commenting on whether it is robust or not, the narrator's biases and so forth. Another weakness, I felt, was the heavy-handed & sometimes questionable use of psychobiography, especially in the early part of the book. A final weakness that affected readability was the fact that neither person, Burr or Hamilton, seems very likeable to our "liberated" 20th century eyes. That cannot, of course, be laid at Rogow's feet.

Despite the 3-star rating, I do recommend the book. So long as the reader can be patient enough to slough through the historiography -- or if you like that style of writing.

Americans like their history neat and simple. Thus, in the famous conflict between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, Hamilton is seen as the virtuous statesman and Burr the dastardly villian. Rogow's excellent book reminds us that the truth was much more complex. While he does not exactly rehabilitate Burr, Rogow argues that Hamilton's obsessive hatred for the man and long-running attempts to ruin his political career eventually left Burr with no other choice but to challenge Hamilton to an "interview" at Weehawken. The fact is both of these men were brilliant--though flawed--and their careers put them on a collision course. Don't believe what The New York Times says about this book. It is not poorly written; Rogow tells the story with gusto. True, the book does not "read like a novel," but good history shouldn't do that anyway. If you want to read a novel about the duel, pick up Gore Vidal's "Burr."

Arnold Rogow's "A Fatal Friendship" does not set out to villify Aaron Burr, nor does it exhalt Alexander Hamilton unduly.
Instead, it accurately gauges parallel events of their unique relationship, as befits a historian. Readers should remember Rogow is a psychologist, first and foremost, and thus he is permitted to speculate as to Burr and Hamilton's motivations. Rogow consistently qualifies any statements he makes, without overstatements or hyperbole. Therefore, any reader who wants a simple parable of good and evil will be greatly disappointed.

While a history undergrad, I purchased this book simultaneously with Thomas Fleming's own interpretation, "Duel." I was pleased with both books, but I must say Rogow's writing satisfied more because of his more objective stance. Fleming seems to always nurture a slight, though forgivable, bias against Aaron Burr. It is refreshing to see a just assessment of that unprincipled, infuriating, but somehow likeable rogue. As for Hamilton, Rogow ably commends his great political contributions, but also reminds us of our "flawed giant"'s scandalous affair with Maria Reynolds and scurrilous smear campaigns against Federalist president John Adams. Finally, Rogow portrays Hamilton as the true instigator of the vendetta leading to Burr's final challenge and the duel of 1804.

Aaron Burr was no saint, but neither was Hamilton an angelic martyr for the Republic. Two complex historical figures with a tangled common thread. Rogow's study has helped us unravel a Gordian knot of American history. A pity "A Fatal Friendship" is now out of print.