What we seem to encounter in reading Duel by Thomas Fleming is a relationship of two men Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr was charged mainly by their political views and their personal angst against each other. The book begins with a comparison of the two men. They may have been enemies, but they had so many similarities. Fleming is going to speak on how these two shaped the United States, and show how I agree with Fleming’s argument on how our country is different because of this duel and how Burr is tarnished when he shouldn’t be.
They were two veterans in the Revolutionary War, very involved politically, and both were very indebted. Hamilton was currently leading the Federalist Party,…show more content… He was not going to have anything threaten his honor. This would eventually lead to the duel between him and Burr. Honor was so important Hamilton was willing to go against his own religious views and even lose his eldest son in order to protect it.
According to Fleming Burr was "something new and important in American life, a professional politician" who actively sought power (p. 121). He was a man who was not in line with the Federalist views on some of their plans for the country and wanted things of his own that he envisioned for the country. His ideas were going against many of the federalist and it was causing a lot of on going hate. This is what Fleming believes made Hamilton hate Burr. Hamilton thought that Burr would get in the way of achieving his goal and fulfilling his dream of being such a legendary…show more content… It shows how the political climate at the time was a harsh one. If you did not agree with someone’s views you could get other people rallying against you. Just like in anything else people bullied their way to the top and would slander others along the way. Due to them dueling this out we see that Burrs political career took a hit in a way, but also he accomplished somethings such as “banned the evil genie of 'constructive treason' -- the conspiracy without the overt act -- from American jurisprudence forever" (pp. 393-394). He strengthened the courts and also “ strengthened the conservative side of the American experiment” (p. 394) Fleming goes into to detail though later on how he believes that if both Hamilton and Burr were available (one not dead and the others legacy tarnished) he thinks they could save some of the countries policies that failed during their time under
