All In The Name Of Honor Essay

Yale subscriber Joanne freewoman (2001), in her appropriate, The Affairs of find, dissects the unexampled country through heathenish microscopic lenses by focusing on the Founders personal honor and reputation as the underlying factor for all semi govern manpowertal action in the Statess inchoate democracy. The auhor streng therefores her thesis as she explores with compel narratives how the nations Founders be created and acted, all in the name of personal honor, to an extent of wise violence in order to lay claim their rightful positions in the annals of history.The well-nigh stunning account in the book is the renowned duel between then vice-president Col. Aaron Burr and Gen. Alexander Hamilton, former auxiliary to George Washington, stemming from a criticism allegedly film by Hamilton against Burr, saying the latter is, whizz who ought not to be trusted with the reins of disposal (freewoman, 2001, p. 6). By publishing expressions on the American Citizen that were deemed insulting to his honor and reputation, Burr last made the bold duel boldness to Hamilton, who accepted, and lost his life in the end.In saying , as a presenti ment to the reader, that we must concede that there was a larger logic underlying the duel, a belief so strong that it compelled men to hazard their lives (Freeman, 2001, p. 65), and proving later on that twain men were compelled to risk their lives because of their own vanities, Freeman is actually telling the reader that both men, although great in their own respects, were overly obsessed with personal honor to do anything of governmental significance. Freeman presents the Founders as alpha males out to satiate their personal egos and risking counterbalance their lives to prove so.Freeman plays too frequently stress on looking at decisions at face value and ignoring to pry the governmental significance or rationale behind them. For instance, when she says at various points in their semipolitical careers, even men of apparently ironclad principles equivalent Jefferson and Hamilton were rumored to have habituated their supporters to join with former foes (Freeman, 2001, p. 269), she is misleading and below the belt painting a picture of treachery and backstabbing in the Founders as if to do so would be unforgivable betrayal to the American people.To Freeman, affairs of honor were a substance out for great personalities of the New Republic to cope with the seemingly unstable political life, along with gossip networks, media, and duel as the last resort. As there were no established political parties that, governing was personal, alliances were occasional and in short, you could trust no wiz during this period. Therefore, the code of honour did more than channelise and monitor political conflict it organize the very infrastructure of national politics, providing a governing logic and weapons of war (Freeman, 2001, p.146). Dueling, deal she says, was a bring down. A caref ul reading of literature mentioned by David Waldstreicher (2002) in his article Founders Chic as Culture struggle appears to indicate a growing trend and acceptance in a cultural (re)writing of American history, from the traditional bottom-up salute to the top-bottom perspective, characterized by what I think, is an unfortunate emphasis on personalizing the progress and gains of the American revolution. charm themselves admittedly more appealing than the traditional textbook-styled accounts of history, the accounts by Joseph Ellis, David McCullough and Joanne Freeman being reviewed by Waldstreicher have the effect of de-emphasizing the complex political process during those times to mere political squabbles and affairs of honour instead of an interplay of the yet fluid political divisions (governors) and the people (governed) and how these two groups came to terms in order to cite the democracy that America champions.Judging by the look Waldstreicher presents his views on the t hree, it is apparent that he agrees with some of the authors, not particularly on Freeman, on how various(prenominal)ly, the Founders struggled with their own personal demons, precisely the former carefully points out Ellis, in still adulating them, saying , Things fell apart, provided charactergreatnessheld (Waldstreicher, 2002, p. 187).A culturalist also, he is careful to create a strain line between the views espoused by Freeman and his own, suggesting that Freeman is in a way reviving the Washington beltway vision of how politics operates, telling it from the perspective of the leader or the general, and throwing aside ideologies, partisanship, policy and instutional development. Freemans return to the dead white men perspective and exaggerated emphasis to modify Founders in her book undubietyedly makes for a compelling story one that would make for a good history read.However, the natural focus on the personal traits of the Founders in her book undermines historiography i n general. I do not believe that men alike(p) Adams or Jefferson, could be that dense, especially eyepatch basking at the still-idealistic mood out of the gains of the revolution, would have thought that only their personal honor was at stake. There is without a doubt several failings in character among the Founders, like all other human beings, but, like Waldstreicher, an appreciation of them should be based on the political significance of their actions, not on anything else.I possess no tabu reverence for the Founders in excess of how I appreciate their individual contributions in design with the actions of a vigilant people who, collectively, mold America to what she is today, faults and all. By singling out the Founders and presenting recount on how they backstabbed, deceived or shifted allegiances is to ignore that the uniform culture pervades in modern America and elsewhere as a political maneuver allowed in a democracy.By representing history solely on individual acti on and characters of the Founders is to brandish a coverage of events that generally undermines American heritage. References Freeman, J. B. (2001). Affairs of follow National Politics in the New Republic. New Haven, CT Yale University Press. Waldstreicher, D. (2002). Founders Chic as Culture War. Radical History Review, 84, pp. 184-94.