Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic

Rate this book
A major reassessment of American political culture in the days of Jefferson, Hamilton, and Burr

"[A] landmark study of Hamilton and the founders."—Jeff Sharlet, Chronicle of Higher Education

"Demands the attention of everyone with a serious interest in the history of American politics."—Pauline Maier, Washington Post

In this extraordinary book, Joanne Freeman offers a major reassessment of political culture in the early years of the American republic. By exploring both the public actions and private papers of key figures such as Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, and Alexander Hamilton, Freeman reveals an alien and profoundly unstable political world grounded on the code of honor. In the absence of a party system and with few examples to guide America’s experiment in republican governance, the rituals and rhetoric of honor provided ground rules for political combat. Gossip, print warfare, and dueling were tools used to jostle for status and form alliances in an otherwise unstructured political realm. These political weapons were all deployed in the tumultuous presidential election of 1800—an event that nearly toppled the new republic.

By illuminating this culture of honor, Freeman offers new understandings of some of the most perplexing events of early American history, including the notorious duel between Burr and Hamilton. A major reconsideration of early American politics, Affairs of Honor offers a profoundly human look at the anxieties and political realities of leaders struggling to define themselves and their role in the new nation.

376 pages, Paperback

First published August 11, 2001

Loading interface...
Loading interface...

About the author

Joanne B. Freeman

9 books171 followers

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
192 (33%)
4 stars
244 (42%)
3 stars
119 (20%)
2 stars
17 (2%)
1 star
8 (1%)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
Profile Image for Billy.
90 reviews11 followers
April 30, 2008
In Affairs of Honor, Yale University historian Joanne B. Freeman argues that the 1790s not only brought the dawn of a new nation, but also an entirely new culture of national politics. To Freeman, politics did not become personal with the rights revolution of the 1960s, but instead had been apparent in political debates, gossip and dueling since the incipient days of the new republic. Her argument stands against the often accepted assumption that politics in the new republic were well defined and somehow naturally became structured around two parties: the Federalists and Republicans. To be sure, these parties came to have great influence on a democracy that remained decidedly bi-partisan, yet it was not ideology which led personalities to endorse political sides, but in fact the other way around. Put simply, men like Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson did not fall into any party line, but instead literally embodied what these political factions stood for. These men politically lived and, in the case of Hamilton, literally died by the complexities of 1790s political culture. According to Freeman, in the early days of the republic, honor was everything.
Freeman backs her arguments for the primacy of personal reputation not just convincingly, but also in an entertaining fashion. She walks this fine line between academic prose and captivating description by focusing on individuals of the era. Many of the before-mentioned founding fathers are here. Freeman also wisely includes lesser known politicians. By using less successful politicians (such as Senator William Maclay and the Federalist William Plummer), she constructs counterpoints with which to compare the politically savvy from the politically inept. Her methodology garners its own section in the back of the book, and in this section Freeman lucidly explains the importance of stepping away from the cultural norms of today to understand practices of the past that might seem foreign or even barbaric to the modern interpreter. Her prime example is dueling, a practice which had its own complex set of rules and guidelines, and for this reason they garner a central theme of her examination.
Freeman is convincing in illustrating how the personal became political in the 1790s. Using a multitude of examples (although none with greater effect than the American political pariah Aaron Burr) she shows how being perceived as an honorable gentleman rose above all other political considerations. For America’s incipient political leaders, personal reputation could make compromises and pass agendas. On the other hand, those unfortunate or short-sighted enough to affiliate with men who did not meet the haughty requirements of enlightenment-era high-social standing might risk their own reputations.
Affairs of Honor falls short in a number of its examinations, but not necessarily in a bad way. Freeman chose to focus on political cultural, and in this task she has done a remarkable job. Where her analysis falls short, it does so tantalizingly, leaving the reader to ponder other aspects of this era. For example, gossip comes to play a key role in her examination; the hushed whispers of our earliest political leaders kept accusations out of newspapers and pamphlets, a necessity that often sidestepped the risk of retribution via a duel. Yet, many readers may wonder if such behind the scenes machinations might be a left over remnant from the paradigm of the aristocracy; after all, one cannot bad mouth the King to his face. Because the founding fathers were still finding their way politically, perhaps they could only build upon the practices of royalty, and if so this irony of the first democratic system seems to obvious to be left unexamined.
Freeman’s brief inclusion of Abigail Adams having political pull, while fascinating, falls short. Modern readers will have little difficulty accepting how females of the new republic might better tease out gossip from their male guests than their political husbands. Yet, this examination only comes in passing—perhaps a page or two—and such a gendered analysis of politics begs a greater examination. These are minor deficiencies however, and admittedly they are probably out of the scope of this work. Overall, Affairs of Honor remains a success, if for no other reason than in perhaps tricking political historians into reading a well-written cultural history.
Profile Image for Allison.
222 reviews4 followers
August 30, 2014
I still need to organize my notes on this book, but, having just finished Affairs of Honor, I feel that, despite some occassional repetitiveness, this book was fascinating. It had never occurred to me to think of the early days of American politics as being fraught with the etiquette of honor, but reading this, it seems fairly natural. The different chapters in this book all discuss a different form of honor and focus on one figure. Rather than feeling disjointed because of this, however, Freeman creates a natural flow between the chapters by having a politician present in one chapter be the focal figure of the next. Jefferson's political disputes with Alexander Hamilton lead to his duel with Aaron Burr, which, in turn, leads to a discussion of Burr's handling of the 1800 electoral tie. It doesn't quite read like a novel, but because of this, it comes close. The narrative Freeman creates is always interesting and, at several points, entertaining. As far as reading for class goes, I feel fairly lucky to have been assigned this book.
Profile Image for Michael.
265 reviews14 followers
January 15, 2018
Joanne Freeman, "Dueling as Politics: Reinterpreting the Burr-Hamilton Duel" WMQ 53:2 (Apr. 1996), 289-318.

Early working out of ideas to be presented in the book.

Freeman begins the article by stating the problem -- why, in short, did Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr go to the dueling grounds in Weehawken, NJ on July 11, 1804? To answer that question, she needs to put the practice of dueling into cultural context. Fortunately, the duelists wrote a great deal about the practice. In the case of Hamilton and Burr, Hamilton's 4 page letter of justification to posterity, written on the night before the duel, was particularly revealing. He was highly conflicted over the coming duel, but felt compelled to defend his honor on the dueling field. Arguing in his letter that he exhausted all options to avoid the duel, and he had decided not to fire at Burr. Understanding why this was the case, why he made that decision, provides up a window into the values of the political leadership of the Early National Period.

"What men of the world denominate honor"

Honor was a value for which Hamilton was willing to risk sacrificing his life. Dueling to protect one's honor was a nationally significant political activity, as it provided the last check in the political system of checks and balances. In a system without political parties, where faction was decried as corrupt, every issue was a personal one. To be a leader, you needed to prove yourself honorable. The conduct of the honorable leader was governed by an intricate set of rules.

"If our Interview is conducted in the usual manner."

Freeman situates the language of dueling within the broader field of the language of political combat of the era. Recounting the stories of James Monroe's quarrel with John Adams, she notes that Monroe considered challenging Adams to a duel, but decided not to because Adams was "old and the President." The correspondence in which Monroe revealed this to Madison was part of the ritual correspondence surrounding an "affair of honor." When men felt their honor and personal reputation slighted, they began the process of brinksmanship that often (though not always) lead to the dueling grounds. The objective was not to kill your opponent, but rather to show yourself worthy of leadership.

"Political opposition, which ... has proceeded from pure and upright motives"

As Alan Taylor showed in "The Art of Hook and Snivey," the hierarchical political networks of the Early National Period were the means of exercising influence and affairs of honor were no different. Not only did the duelists have seconds, who aided and abetted the process, but the whole ritual of the affair of honor was facilitated by the "friends" of the principal parties. The cause of the affair was the individual around whom the lesser lights rallied. These bands of followers formed a fighting band not unlike the "interests" which Taylor describes. The affair of honor was often the result of a loosing politician trying to regain his honor after being defeated in an election. They were, in fact, ways in which political battles were fought. Appealing to public opinion, the objective of the affair was to show that your cause was upright and that of your opponent was corrupt. More than aristocrats fighting for a position at court, the American duelist was also a republican pursuing the public good!

"I shall hazard much, and can possibly gain nothing."

Burr and Hamilton came to the dueling ground through the course of an affair of honor that could have taken many different turns. It began six weeks after Burr had lost the NY governor's race. Anxious to remain a viable leader, he seized upon a reported slight of his character reported by a third party. An exchange ensued in which Burr demanded a humiliating apology from Hamilton. After the duel, the seconds of Burr (van Ness) and Hamilton (Nathaniel Pendleton) jockeyed to control public opinion about the outcome of the affair of honor. Burr ended up leaving NY state in dishonor. Because he failed to control the fallout coming out of the duel, Burr actually lost the affair of honor.

"I hope the grounds of his proceeding have been such as ought to satisfy his own conscience."

Hamilton and Burr dueled because they could not do otherwise. Especially Hamilton felt this deeply, and his refusal to fire reflects this internal conflict. He wrote his last letter to justify to posterity why he was dueling and to vindicate his memory to posterity. He doesn't seem to have done that, but he did leave a tortured record of the political culture of the period.

Other Readings:

Isaac Kramnick, "The 'Great National Discussion': The Discourse of Politics in 1787," WMQ 3d ser., 45 (1989): 341-375.

Sections include:" I: Civic Humanism and Liberalism in the Constitution and Its Critics," "II: The Language of Virtuous Republicanism," "III: The Language of Power and the State," and "Conclusion"

Thomas P. Slaughter, The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution (New York, 1986).
Profile Image for Mr. Monahan.
32 reviews2 followers
January 26, 2019
Historian Joanne Freeman undertakes a very unique task in portraying the early republic through the complex lens of social reputation. Freeman familiarizes the reader with the founding generation through a social institution as strange and often unfamiliar to the modern American as slavery is: honor. Often ignored, mocked, or oversimplified by previous scholars, Freeman chooses to analyze the social rules that governed the founders themselves. The results are crucial, interesting, bizarre, and—at times—comical. Working from the famous and possibly exhausted Hamilton-Burr Duel, Freeman isolates and biographies not Alexander Hamilton or Aaron Burr, but the inner workings of the honor code that brought both men to this fateful encounter. In doing so, Freeman makes it perfectly clear to the reader that this notable duel was neither a chance encounter nor a fringe occurrence for the time period. The reader can make several large scale inferences about the early republic based on Freeman’s scholarship and many rich and colorful examples for honor in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. One of these conclusions is that a name was everything is 1800, and to sully the name or reputation of a public figure was akin to an assault of his life. Thus, it is only logical that such a complex web of protocols emerge to give redress to any man who’s name comes under attack. However further conclusion can be drawn about the workings and nature of early republican government. In Burr, Freeman gives the reader not a the treacherous murderer of Hamilton/Treasonous conspirator, but a man who both gave and received great offence as a public figure.

This Burr can be corroborated by Nancy Isenberg, the nation’s leading Burr scholar, who has spent the past decade or so in effort to recast Burr as guilty of a far worse crime than treason or murder: ambition. In Little Emperor (and later in Fallen Founder) Isenberg, like Freeman, presents the “black sheep” of the founding generation in a light that allows the reader to see up close and personal the dear price an overly ambitious political figure paid in era where decorum prohibited any figure from overtly seeking office.

Where Freeman focuses exclusively on the conduct of honorable and thus wealthy American males, Catherine Algor attempts to shed light on the significant role played by women in the early republic.
In an interesting twist however, Algor opens Parlor Politics with and analysis of social Washington City during the Jeffersonian presidency. It is Algor’s contention that as a widower who chose not to re-marry, Jefferson attempts to fulfill both the political and social duties of the Presidency with limited success and the occasional international public relations debacle. Algor’s Thomas Jefferson is androgynous out of necessity and uses (and abuses) the back-channels of social decorum to further conduct the functions of his office. Unlike his predecessor John Adams, the Jeffersonian presidency coincides with a marked decrease in the previously emerging role of women in federal politics. This role was of course masked in the social orders that were simultaneously emerging Washington, and provided a select cadre of American women the unique opportunity to influence public matters by means of their male counterparts. Overall, Algore’s works appears to be more of a study in the social etiquette and on-goings of the early Washington and less the sweeping account of powerful “behind the scenes” women that one hopes to find, and can in Founding Mothers.

This group of readings create a small but detailed probe into the early republic’s body. The role of women in every time period is of particular interest and consequence, and in reading Algore’s work, I am left feeling the need for a better, more clear picture; but knowing that primary material is ultimately lacking. In reading about the social code that white, aristocratic males followed, I see Freeman’s work praiseworthy and compelling.
Profile Image for Michael Kleen.
55 reviews3 followers
August 23, 2018
Joanne B. Freeman’s book, Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic (2002), is straightforward and compelling. In it, she argues that the political culture of the United States’ first generation of congressmen under the constitution of 1788 was based on a strong sense of personal honor, governed by “a grammar of political combat.” Because there were no formal political parties, representatives had to try to best represent their constituents in an unfamiliar environment, while working with people from diverse regions whose loyalties or support could never be fully known or assured.

Joanne B. Freeman is a professor of History specializing in the politics and political culture of the revolutionary and early national periods of American History at Yale University. She earned her Ph.D. at the University of Virginia. Affairs of Honor won the Best Book award from the Society of Historians of the Early American Republic.

Freeman uses many primary sources to flesh out her argument, including the diary of William Maclay, a member of Pennsylvania’s first two-member delegation to the U.S. Senate. Maclay’s diary was a convincing way to illustrate his contemporary political culture because he seemed to be an observer more than a participant, and was therefore in a good position to critique it. Maclay was not without his biases, however. He was an outsider who was critical of the non-republican nature of congress, and that certainly led him to highlight certain aspects of the political culture that played into his own viewpoint.

Using other documents, such as the papers and notes of Thomas Jefferson, Freeman convincingly shows how political disputes and positions were frequently interpreted as personal slights and insults. Politics was played out in alliances and anonymous newspaper essays and pamphlets where gossip became crucial for determining political allies. Failing to return a personal visit was interpreted as a slight against the visitor’s political ideas.

In that environment, Freeman argued, the election of 1800 became an honor dispute between Republicans Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson. The men involved were preoccupied with the outcome of that election for decades after, each convinced they had been personally insulted by the decision, especially the loser, Aaron Burr, who was eager to save his reputation.

The importance of honor in politics collapsed, according to Freeman, because “men could rally under the banner of a party name rather than the reputation of a political chief.” It was the establishment of formal political parties that finally laid to rest the honor system. A reasonable conclusion, but it fails to take into account how the idea of personal honor in politics was carried on into the later nineteenth century, even though the formal duel had gone out of fashion. Freeman makes her case well, however, and opened up the possibility of examining the idea of honor in national political culture throughout American history.
Profile Image for Christopher Saunders.
961 reviews883 followers
February 28, 2018
Fitfully interesting look at the savage, often-violent early days of American politics. Freeman treats the quarrels of Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Burr and others less prestigious as resulting largely from personal clashes and strict, archaic "codes of honor" that required insults to receive responses. Thus their feuds became much more personal than modern political spats; no surprise, then, that many of the era's rivalries culminated in savage newspaper feuds, public brawls or formalized duels. (No surprise that Lin-Manuel Miranda cited this book as a key source for Hamilton, along with Ron Chernow's biography.) The subject's engaging, but Freeman's style is dry, academic and occasionally rambling, preventing the reader from really sinking their teeth into it.
Profile Image for Jane.
50 reviews1 follower
March 31, 2017
Essential commentary on Federalist-period American politics, and discussion of the oft-misunderstood honor code that lay at its core. So, read it.
Profile Image for Chelsea.
1,517 reviews44 followers
May 24, 2016
More reviews available at my blog, Beauty and the Bookworm.

My pick for the 2015 Popsugar Reading Challenge's category "A book you should have read in school but didn't" was pretty much the only book that I could remember not reading for a class, Affairs of Honor. This is a book about the Founding Fathers' generation politicking and how politics was tied up with personal honor, all of it building up to the election of 1800. While the concept is interesting, and it did reveal a few things I didn't know about American history, I wasn't thrilled with it overall and can remember why I started but decided not to finish it for my class. The thing is, it's boring. This is not a popular history book. It's decidedly academic, which means that it beats you over the head with its message--that honor played into politics--until you're pretty much ready to scream that yes, you get it, and you're ready to move on. The moving on, however, never happens. Blargh. 2 stars, because I learned a few things, but I was bored out of my mind while I did it.
Profile Image for Brent McCulley.
581 reviews46 followers
December 6, 2013
What Freeman offers in "Affairs of Honor" is a comprehensive study of the personal culture of America's earliest years as a nation. This text is unlike anything we've ever seen before, largely digging into personal diaries from American colonial times, showing a new perspective that goes beyond the 'show' and the 'facade.'

When we study history, it's easy to fall into that very mindset, wherein we forget that the people we are studying were real human beings, with families, friends, and children. Because of the lack of personal primary sources of such time periods, this area of history is often overlooked; but nevertheless, Freeman offers a remarkable well-researched book that is a must-read for any historian of early American-history. This book will open your eyes to the love, hate, and betrayal that went on in American politics behind the scenes during her greatest years.

Brent M McCulley (10/17/13)
Profile Image for QOH.
483 reviews21 followers
October 26, 2013
This is a fascinating look at the early republic from almost a purely emotional point of view--specifically, the culture of honor that was intrinsic to gentlemen at the time (but which is pretty damned foreign to most people now). I now know the nuances involved in caning, spitting, and dueling, although I have little cause to use them in my daily life.

I stumbled onto this while researching something else, but I'm glad I did. For one, it's engaging, and although I'm over the Revolution of 1800 (see further: Election of 2000), Professor Freeman puts a new spin on it.

Minor quibbles: the organization is a bit on the odd side (this may be a result of the topic itself, which is not particularly linear) and it does drag toward the end, but if you're interested in American history and politics (or American historical politics), I recommend it.
Profile Image for Craig.
360 reviews6 followers
June 12, 2011
Interesting narrative of the culture of politics from Adams & Jefferson to Burr & Hamilton. Different chapters on such political main issues as honor, gossip, the art of writing, and ultimately duels show how American politics was handled in the late 18th century and early 19th century. Using some of the writings of lesser-known figures of the time period (William MacLay and William Plumer) as well as the better-known events such as the Aaron Burr-Alexander Hamilton duel and 1800 election, the book presents a different look at the actions and goals of the early politicians. I'm not sure if I fully bought into the thesis of the book so that's what kept it from being a four-star book review in this case.
14 reviews
October 30, 2023
The scholarship of the book is among its most striking features and clearly delineates its professional pedigree. Prof. Freeman weaves a narrative so heavily permeated by the subject's own voices that the effect on the reader is an effective submersion back to the time and place. It is a work of history, but more important than detailing time and place, is the animating culture and mode of being of those enwrapped, brought to life as only their own words could. The procurement and documentation of what must have been thousands of documents to this end is a tremendous feat of scholarship.

Yet, it's more than this. By her own admission, she felt this was an atypical work of history. It that emphasizes the subjects' "human emotion". Though of course she is not so foolhardy as to try to describe a subjects "individual emotion[al]" state, but rather, she aims to depict the emotional "patterns" that would have persisted. I find this to be a somewhat modest description of her undertaking because it would seem that this is merely a neat trick, peculiar and confined to this one example, her example. However, what the work aims to describe is the *culture* of a period and in particular, the long forgotten culture of honor. Culture and its normative properties can be thought of as a software suite that we as emotional beings execute to produce consistent behaviors operating within a set of behavior norms. Her attempt to distill the "patterns" of this particular subset of culture, serves only as an example of how this might be done more universally and to direct any historical attempts to paint a portrait of a peoples.

Beyond the scholarship, she succeeds with her own narrative framing in making the recounting compelling. Her narration flows seamlessly with her voluminous use of quotations, a catalogue that runs so deep that she is never left wanting for the appropriate quote nor does she stretch in the placing of one. The result is a tremendously successful description of the hidden layer governing the behavior of these impassioned men. She demonstrates that restraining these men was a culture of honor. A culture which provided the grammar for what could be perceived to be honorable. However, It begs the question why such a cultural element existed, and it seems to have no modern analogue which is why it went unnoticed.

For example, by outlining the grammar of honor, we can understand why the most prominent men could not justify shirking the responsibility of dueling. Even when morally opposed to the duel (as in the case of Hamilton), these men still felt it necessary to abide by them as a final judge. What is more odd is that the final judgement was left to chance. The positions and principles waged in the court of honor held immense consequence to those involved, but the judgement could give no clarity on centrally important matter. Thus, even one's own most prized principles came second to the culture of honor for early politicians. Again, except more emphatically, this begs the question: why is such a culture necessary, especially to the early political elite? Herein, we see the success of Prof. Freeman's approach. Good history, like good science, brings to light previously unseen lines of inquiry.

One interesting possibility is that absent political institutions that ordinarily enshrine the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of politicians, early politicians had to procure their own trust by making more direct appeals to the citizenry. Or stated differently, a politicians trustworthiness had to be publicly auditable. This is in contrast with modern politics where politicians work hidden within their political institutions and amongst themselves to jockey for clout and influence. They then act as the conduits between the amalgamated aims of the institution and the those it purports to represent.

Absent such institutions, for early politicians to garner the trust and support of the citizenry, they had to excel at demonstrating auditable trust, particularly by those similarly engaged in the pursuit of publicly auditable trust. Those engaged in politics had to leverage their own honor in order to audit another. It incentivized that regardless of one's influence, one couldn't make it in politics without respect for honor. A debauched politician had no means of accumulating the honor necessary to launch an effective political career, and neither would he be able defend his honor against the attacks of others with their honor staked.

The logic behind the culture of honor is intriguing: as no high court could settle matters of honor, settlement by duel served the primary purpose of keeping men auditable. A man could only be expected to survive so many duels or assaults to his honor. It was only by honestly engaging in the same struggle for honor as others that one could hope to persist. This seemed to be a distinctly anti-Machiavellian arrangement, and is nicely summarized by the following excerpt quoting Lord Chesterfield:

> "There are but two alternatives for a gentlemen, extreme politeness or the sword. " -p174

This may serve to highlight the unique political environment in which the US was founded, though of course it did not persist with this culture for too long. However, it is only by the unique approach taken by Prof. Freeman and by her labors to fully realize it that I have gleaned the truly fascinating circumstances that molded the early republic. I am grateful to have stumbled across this book and I would wish this good fortune on anyone.
Profile Image for Ana Maria.
84 reviews
December 26, 2017
Affairs of Honor is an interesting and exciting commentary on the influence of the culture of honor in early American politics. It lends new insights into the motivations and thoughts of politicians that are often not easily understandable today.
Profile Image for Barb.
489 reviews3 followers
October 15, 2018
Probably more of a 3.5, but bumped up because of Freeman calling Alexander Hamilton "an arrogant, irritating asshole" on the Hamildoc. Kudos, doctor.

Affairs of Honor is a fascinating look at the politics in early American history. Politics today clearly has little, if anything, to do with honor; in the late 18th century, it was entirely about honor. Politicians were gentlemen, and their word was their bond. Appearances were everything. When there were arguments, there were many ways to has them out--letters, pamphlets, newspaper articles, and, of course, duels.

Freeman examines the ways politicians dealt with each other from the first Congress through the Hamilton/Burr duel of 1804, while examining how the effects of these conflicts lingered through decades. Freeman digs into the archives and focuses on some figures I hadn't run across before. She does a great job making the politics of the period more personal and understandable to modern readers and historians.

I particularly appreciate that Freeman clearly isn't a Jeffersonian or a Hamiltonian or any other -ian. She clearly sees these historical figures as very flawed figures, which they all were. (Though she particularly doesn't seem overly fond of Burr.) It's a refreshing contrast to a lot of histories that tend to run partisan.

The book can be a bit dense at times; it's based on Freeman's dissertation, and it shows. It's a bit less accessible than a lot of popular nonfiction, but definitely worth a read for anyone who wants to see the undercurrent of how politics worked in this critical time period.
Profile Image for Will.
316 reviews16 followers
September 30, 2021
I hesitate before reading political histories, especially histories of political elites: and there are few past politicians so "elite" as the Founding Fathers.

Nonetheless, I found Freeman's classic convincing and to the point. Honour, reputation and character clearly delineated the actions of the political elite during the 1790s, proving a rock to cling to in the chaos of creating a new nation.

The most interesting takeaway for me is the Founding Fathers' obsession with their legacy, and how they were worried that the dubious actions they had taken in the service of their "noble" causes could come back to bite them in the historical record.
24 reviews1 follower
May 9, 2020
Really fascinating look at dueling and early politics, and how the culture of dueling which prevailed in the South was used as a tactic against Northern abolitionists. Insights into modern politics and unilateral disarmament as a tactic as well.
Profile Image for Tom Buske.
364 reviews
November 24, 2022
A bit more academic than I expected but that's cool. The book was very well researched and the notes took forever to go through but I learned some things from it. Stylistically, it's probably of interest mostly to people with extensive historical predilections.
42 reviews1 follower
November 5, 2020
This book provides insight into the politics of the brand new republic, before there were parties, when politicians were measured on their reputations and their honor was everything.
Profile Image for Jonathan.
222 reviews
August 18, 2009
An excellent (and highly readable) study of political culture in the Early Republic. Freeman argues that eighteenth-America gentlemen lived in a social world defined by personal honor. The political behavior of the elite reflected this fact; politicians were keenly sensitive at all times to threats to their own reputations or to those of others, and they obeyed an elaborate unwritten code in their relations with each other. In the new republic, public life offered a chance for many gentlemen to obtain greater honor through national service. However, it also presented dangers that they only partly understood. The elite watched almost helplessly as their court of reputation grew beyond the limits of their communities, states, or councils; thanks to the new national government and the expansion of newsprint, reputations were now being judged "out of doors" by people from alien regions of the country. Freeman unabashedly studies the white male elite, therefore, but hints at the instability and preciousness of their political world.

Freeman divides her study into five chapters. In each, she focuses on one political figure whose life and career illuminate a particular theater of honor. First, she examines Pennsylvania senator William Maclay's experiences in the first two years of the new federal government's existence. Maclay found himself in a disorienting new social setting (in the temporary capital in New York), where officials from different states had difficulty knowing what to think of each other. Senators were anxious to put themselves in a good light -- and quick to criticize anything in each other's habits that suggested a lack of good republican character. It was in this uneasy setting that the first party struggles began between members of factions who sensed untrustworthiness in each other. Second, Freeman studies the fine art of political gossip honed by Thomas Jefferson, both in office and in retirement. In a capital city full of sly mutual observation, Jefferson knew how to circulate information informally for a public end -- passing around private letters cautiously, cultivating an image of magnanimity, seeking out reliable personal witnesses to attest to the truth of rumors, and learning to defend his own reputation in letters or in small pamphlet printings for a select audience. Third, Freeman observes the tenacity with which John Adams defended his reputation in the newspapers, as well as the face he lost by overreaching in this effort. Adams responded to a small printing of a pamphlet circulated by Alexander Hamilton in 1800 (the "Letter Concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams") with a series of articles in the Boston Patriot in 1809 -- dramatically violating the norms of such affairs by attacking Hamilton posthumously and publicly.

In her fourth chapter, Freeman arrives at the ultimate end of "affairs of honor" if allowed to fester: the duel. To us, she points out, the famous duel in which Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in July 1804 is difficult to understand. Hamilton's immediate slur against Burr is now obscure; Hamilton's decision to accept Burr's challenge seems absurd and, indeed, a violation of his own moral principles. But at the time, Freeman argues, the duel was an entirely comprehensible (though unnecessary) political act: ultimately, neither of these public men could afford to be seen a cad or a coward. And indeed, she writes, Hamilton succeeded in his purpose: Burr's reputation never recovered. As Freeman shows in the last chapter, Burr spent his final years, in the 1830s, arranging the publication (with the help of Matthew Livingston Davis) of a memoir to vindicate himself as a gentleman. What he may never have understood was that the grounds of honor had shifted under his feet. He had lived as a free and congenial gentleman, quite faithful to his own notions of personal integrity, in a country in which this mode of life was no longer sufficient to secure a good reputation. The source of Burr's corruption, in the eyes of his contemporaries and their descendants, was a lack of political principle. He held to no party and no political creed. No private code of honor was sufficient any longer to redeem his good reputation in the United States.
Profile Image for Craig W..
Author 1 book2 followers
April 2, 2011
The centerpiece of this book is the Hamilton-Burr Duel of 1804, but the thesis is this duel was only a dramatic manifestation of a political culture based on personal reputation and honor in early America. Freeman states that the culture of honor “is a key that unlocks countless mysteries of the period, rationalizing the seemingly irrational, justifying the seemingly petty and perverse, and recasting our understanding of America’s founding.”

In the period immediately after the ratification of the constitution the final look and feel of the United States was far from certain. Key leaders and their friends were the nuclei of political parties that were forming around rapidly evolving political philosophies and each new crisis provided opportunity for success or failure on a national scale.

The founders had enormous personal influence, but they needed to make sure of their backing from friends and constituents; they needed to understand the positions and strategies of their potential opponents. They genuinely sought the good of the nation, yet they could not have the position and power necessary to achieve their goals without advancing their personal interests. Honorable men did not advance themselves through personal political action, so they worked through friends, letters, pamphlets and as a last resort, newspapers. There was a strong element of what we would call hypocrisy in this, but Freeman does not use that term. Instead she tries to show that this behavior was consistent with the culture of the day and understood by their peers and the public.

Freeman focuses on Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton and Burr, but also discusses the diaries of William Maclay, a chronicler of the first congress and the writings of William Plumer who collected many documents from the founding decades during the early 19th century. Freeman shows through the private and public writings of leaders and their circles that reputation established the integrity, credibility and success of a leader. The founders self-consciously adhered to this culture of honor, were jealous of their reputations and worked assiduously to ensure that their reputations survived them. During their lifetimes they used, gossip, social situations, letters, and public writings to establish the image they felt would put them at an advantage and advance their goals for the nation. They carefully kept notes and diaries that might provide evidence years later or even after their deaths that they had acted in the national interest according to the accepted codes of honorable gentlemen.

Readers of this book will be challenged to think differently not just about the founders but also about modern political leaders. How well do they balance personal and national aspirations and how does this influence their effectiveness?
Profile Image for Fran Becker.
46 reviews
August 13, 2015
The best thing about this book, which reads like a gifted student's dissertation, revamped for publication, is the comfort it gives while explaining the role of honor in the earliest years of the founding of the United States. Why did I find it so comforting? Because there is really nothing new under the sun. The rancorous arguments between representatives from the left and the right, the maneuvering and jockeying for positions in Washington, the maneuvering to sway votes, and the undermining of one political party by another, has been going on since the foundation of the republic. I find that strangely comforting. It proves that we are not at the end of days, as Washington is stymied by an unyielding group of people unwilling to work together. It has all happened before, and we will get through these trying times now, as we did 230 years ago. The tied election of 2000 is matched by the tied election of 1800, and in both cases, it took weeks to sort out who the president was going to be.

I learned a lot about the characters of the men involved, and how the cult of honor was used as a substitute for what in Britain was considered class rankings. A person's honor was carefully defended, in a way that we have difficulty perceiving now.

I picked up this book hoping that it would give me some insight into the culture of dueling, and shed some light on its demise. Personally, I think I'd enjoy seeing Senator Reid call Congressman Boehner out to the Field of Honor to resolve their differences. Freeman didn't really answer my question, but her work is a fascinating look at how honor was used in the formation of the United States.
Profile Image for Rebecca.
265 reviews4 followers
August 3, 2016
The author examines the political sphere in the early republic, mostly in the 1790s and early 1800s, through the lens of the culture of honor. By looking at the actions of men like Burr, Jefferson, Hamilton and Adams through the code of honor, their actions become more logical than if seen through a modern perspective. The central point of the book seems to emphasize the importance of seeing these men in their historical context to make sense of their actions. The author looks specifically at a few events, like the Burr-Hamilton duel and the election of 1800. It's a very interesting read, not at all dry or dull. It gives the reader a much better understanding of the culture and political climate of the early republic.
78 reviews2 followers
November 5, 2008
This book will appeal only to people interested in the political history of the early republic. The author argues that politics in the nation's early years reflected personal alliances that could be frayed easily. Individual reputation, or honor, was the most important attribute for a successful politician, which meant that opponents focused on the personal attack (through publications, gossip, and violence) as a way of defeating a rival. Politicians who were under attack resorted to the same means to defend themselves. Although an interesting argument and the concept of honor among gentlemen useful, the author doesn't succeed in convincing me that issues weren't important.
Profile Image for Meghan.
40 reviews13 followers
October 26, 2008
I read this for my junior seminar, and I must say this is one of the best non-fiction history books I have read. My professor said that this is one of the most perfect books he has used in the classroom. Yes, it's about politics, but the politics and the circumstances of the new Republic are fascinating--as are the interactions of the founding fathers. It is their relationships to each other and to their political views that drive the narrative. The writing is wonderful, it reads almost like fiction. If you want a fun look at our founders, read this book!
Profile Image for Robert Rich.
365 reviews3 followers
June 14, 2017
A unique take on the revolutionary era told through a different lens than most. By analyzing key moments in early America (the election of 1800, the Burr/Hamilton duel, among others) in the context of the honor code and the critical need to protect one's reputation, familiar stories take on a new meaning. The book is a bit dense and could have used a little more narrative flourish as opposed to the clinical research paper styling Freeman uses, but the content is so interesting that it doesn't hurt the end product terribly.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews

Can't find what you're looking for?

Get help and learn more about the design.