Counterfactual history, when conjoined with"Great Man" history, is heady stuff indeed, and Thomas Fleming is one of its boldest (read: most reckless) practitioners. Counterfactual history on this scale is not an argument, really: past a certain point -- and Fleming goes well past that point -- it becomes an exercise in plausible fiction, without all that troublesome dialogue. This week he's drawing on his new book about the Hamilton-Burr Duel to suggest that Burr's victory was, on the whole, a loss for us. Others more familiar with US history can comment on some of the specific twists and turnings of the story, but I want to point out one basic component to the argument which troubles me: linearity.

Fleming assumes that Hamilton's star will rise, and continue rising. He also assumes that Hamilton will consistently apply all the ideas which he held in the past, rather than moderating to suit circumstances or even changing his mind on his own accord. Finally, he assumes that all of the initiatives and policies will succeed.

Most glaringly obvious as potential failures are the (incredibly rapid) professionalization of the military prior to 1812 (without which most of the rest of the story falls flat), the early abolition of slavery (the slave states were, if memory serves, quite dominant politically at the time) and the education-industry revolution (French and Prussian development suggest a more evolutionary process).

In other words, he takes a turning point, and turns it into a straight line. But straight lines are rare things in history, as we well know.

It is an entertaining and vivid way to portray the ways in which Hamilton was different from the other Founders. And it also illustrates the importance of the ocassional illogical (not random, but not part of a process, either) event. But I can't help thinking that the story goes much too far to make those points, and in the process ignores the importance of process and the reality of non-linear development.