Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic

Joanne B. Freeman (Goodreads Author)

3.96 · Rating details · 413 ratings · 35 reviews

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 ab ...more

Get A Copy

Or buy for

Paperback, 400 pages

Published August 11th 2002 by Yale University Press (first published August 11th 2001)

More Details... edit details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Affairs of Honor, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about Affairs of Honor

Lists with This Book

The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn

The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 by Gordon S. Wood

The Radicalism of the American Revolution by Gordon S. Wood

American Slavery, American Freedom by Edmund S. Morgan

Historiography of the American Revolution, 1607-1800 (nonfiction)

104 books — 41 voters

Why Is This Happening? Podcast Reading List

39 books — 1 voter

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

3.96 ·

Rating details

· 413 ratings · 35 reviews

Filter

Sort order

Apr 30, 2008 Billy rated it liked it

Shelves: 19th-century-u-s

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 an 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.
...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Aug 30, 2014 Allison rated it really liked it

Shelves: fall-semester-2014, reading-for-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, Freema ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jan 26, 2019 Mr. Monahan rated it really liked it

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—a 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. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Aug 23, 2018 Michael Kleen rated it it was amazing

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 worki 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. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jan 14, 2018 Michael rated it it was amazing

Shelves: 1st-library-zotero, history-us

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 Ha ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 30, 2017 Jane rated it it was amazing

Shelves: history, non-fiction, own

Essential commentary on Federalist-period American politics, and discussion of the oft-misunderstood honor code that lay at its core. So, read it.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Aug 22, 2015 Chelsea rated it it was ok

Shelves: popsugar-2015, history, nonfiction

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 ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 17, 2013 Brent McCulley rated it liked it

Shelves: history

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 ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 15, 2013 Shelley rated it it was amazing

Shelves: american-history

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 ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 09, 2011 Craig rated it liked it

Shelves: 19th-century-american-history, early-american-history

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 electio ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 27, 2016 Ana rated it it was amazing

Shelves: non-fiction, favorites, wow

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.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 13, 2018 Barb rated it really liked it

Shelves: history, nonfiction

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 ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Feb 27, 2018 Christopher Saunders rated it liked it

Shelves: 2018-reads, alien-and-sedition-acts

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. ...more

flag Like · see review

Aug 14, 2018 Maura Cuneo rated it liked it

3.5

flag Like · see review

Aug 17, 2009 Jonathan rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: academic-reading-and-research, early-american-republic

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 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. ...more

flag Like · see review

Jan 11, 2011 Craig W. rated it really liked it

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 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? ...more

flag Like · see review

Jun 21, 2015 Fran Becker rated it really liked it

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 ...more

flag Like · see review

Nov 08, 2012 Rebecca rated it it was amazing

Shelves: american-history

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 ...more

flag Like · see review

Feb 14, 2008 Wm rated it really liked it

Shelves: history-biography-memoir, socio-poli-religio-cultural

A great example of why understanding culture and context (and not ignoring certain troves of documentary evidence) is important with history (and political history, especially). And yet it doesn't overreach. No annoying psychologizing. Most importantly Freeman resists the urge to over dramatize and sex up the Hamilton-Burr duel. Those looking for scandal and drama related to Hamilton-Burr should look elsewhere. Those looking to understand it -- to understand why it isn't just some weird, flaring ...more

flag Like · see review

Nov 05, 2008 Marie rated it it was ok

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 me ...more

flag Like · see review

Oct 26, 2008 Meghan rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

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 fic ...more

flag Like · see review

Dec 30, 2015 Robert Rich rated it really liked it

Shelves: nf-history

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 hu ...more

flag Like · see review

Oct 22, 2015 Rebecca rated it liked it

Shelves: history

Freeman's book is a great example of political/cultural history. While, Freeman never explictly mentions gender and masculinity, her analysis does seem to suggest that she sees them'as an useful category for historical analysis'. For historians it is also a great reminder that primary sources should be examined very critically for personal biases.

flag Like · see review

Mar 04, 2014 Jenn rated it it was amazing

Shelves: nonfiction

An excellent book detailing the code of conduct that politicians followed in the early days of the US republic. A stirring, lively account. Also sheds light on dueling practices and dispels some of the romanticized fluff surrounding duels that persists to this day.

flag Like · see review

Feb 05, 2015 Sherlindreah rated it did not like it

Shelves: non-fiction

too much of a bore because far too many repetitions
I don't know if it is really reassuring to see that at the very beginning of a republic, politicians were just as horrrible as they are now...I don't see much honor in all these pages

flag Like · see review

Jun 07, 2016 George Anderson rated it liked it

Explore the wonderful world of National politics in our formative years. Gossip, print warfare, and dueling supposedly substituted for a lack of a party system.
One can enjoy this book without taking the author's thesis too seriously. If she is offended, she can always drop the glove.

flag Like · see review