Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and the Brawling Birth of American Politics

by H.W. Brands

From bestselling historian and Pulitzer Prize finalist H.W. Brands, a revelatory history of the shocking emergence of vicious political division at the birth of the United States.

To the framers of the Constitution, political parties were a fatal threat to republican virtues. They had suffered the consequences of partisan politics in Britain before the American Revolution, and they wanted nothing similar for America. Yet parties emerged even before the Constitution was ratified, and they took firmer root in the following decade. In Founding Partisans, master historian H. W. Brands has crafted a fresh and lively narrative of the early years of the republic as the Founding Fathers fought one another with competing visions of what our nation would be.

The first party, the Federalists, formed around Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and their efforts to overthrow the Articles of Confederation and make the federal government more robust. Their opponents organized as the Antifederalists, who feared the corruption and encroachments on liberty that a strong central government would surely bring. The Antifederalists lost but regrouped under the new Constitution as the Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, whose bruising contest against Federalist John Adams marked the climax of this turbulent chapter of American political history. 

The country’s first years unfolded in a contentious spiral of ugly elections and blatant violations of the Constitution. Still, peaceful transfers of power continued, and the nascent country made its way towards global dominance, against all odds. Founding Partisans is a powerful reminder that fierce partisanship is a problem as old as the republic.

Genres: History, American History, Nonfiction, Politics, American Revolution, Audiobook, Biography

452 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 7, 2023

About the author

H.W. Brands is an acclaimed American historian and author of over thirty books on U.S. history, including Pulitzer Prize finalists The First American and Traitor to His Class. He holds the Jack S. Blanton Sr. Chair in History at the University of Texas at Austin, where he earned his PhD. Originally trained in mathematics, Brands turned to history as a way to pursue his passion for writing. His biographical works on figures like Franklin, Jackson, Grant, and both Roosevelts have earned critical and popular praise for their readability and depth. Raised in Oregon and educated at Stanford, Reed College, and Portland State, he began his teaching career in high schools before entering academia. He later taught at Texas A&M and Vanderbilt before returning to UT Austin. Brands challenges conventional reverence for the Founding Fathers, advocating for a more progressive and evolving view of American democracy. In addition to academic works, his commentary has featured in major documentaries. His books, published internationally and translated into multiple languages, examine U.S. political, economic, and cultural development with compelling narrative force. Beyond academia, he is a public intellectual contributing to national conversations on history and governance.

Reviews

[Brendan (History Nerds United) · Rating 5 out of 5]

A particular pet peeve of my lately is when people say, "This country has never been more divided!" Do you have any idea how badly Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton hated each other? Hamilton ended up dead over politics! You still don't believe the political divisions were bad in the U.S. before? Then let me point you at H.W. Brands' Founding Partisans. Never has a title been so apt.

Let me just get to the point. This book is fantastic. H.W. Brands is the type of author who makes anything interesting. He is one of the few authors whose books are automatic buys for me regardless of the subject. This one, in particular, might be his best yet. Brands weaves in an extraordinary amount of primary quotes. The book reads like a novel of the Founding Fathers being jerks to each other. It makes the narrative accessible to any reader who wants to know who hated who in the early U.S. It will never not be funny to me how badly John Adams hated Benjamin Franklin. How could someone hate Benny? Come read and find out.

(This book was provided as an advance copy by Netgalley and Doubleday Books.)

[Graeme Newell · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was interesting at times, but I found it a bit of a slog to get through. Brands has a solid grip on American history, no doubt about that. He dishes out facts and stories from the founding era, showing us the real nitty-gritty of early American politics. But some of the the time, it feels like he's just showing off how much he knows.

One thing that really got to me was how Brands can sometimes lose the forest for the trees. He gets so bogged down in the specifics—like, do we really need to know every little back-and-forth letter between Hamilton and Jefferson? It's like, we get it, they didn't see eye to eye, but the constant barrage of detail can make your eyes glaze over.

And the narrative, well, it can be hit or miss. When Brands is on point, he paints this vivid picture of political drama, which is pretty cool. But then he slips into historian mode and starts throwing dates and names at you like there's going to be a test later. It can be a bit much, making the book feel like a marathon at times.

Now, on the upside, when Brands digs into how these early partisan conflicts shape what we see in American politics today, it's actually pretty interesting. He's got this way of connecting the past and present that makes you see things in a new light. But just when you're getting into it, he'll hit you with another wave of exhaustive detail, and the momentum is lost.

Another thing that bugged me was how the book sometimes feels disjointed. It's like Brands has all these pieces of the political puzzle, but he doesn't always fit them together in a way that makes sense. You end up with a lot of information, but the big picture can be fuzzy.

The style of the book is accessible, I'll give him that. Brands doesn't go overboard with academic jargon, which is a relief. But the thing is, a friendly writing style doesn't always make up for the times when the content drags. And let's be real, there are parts of this book that drag.

In summary, "Founding Partisans" is a bit of a mixed bag. While it's rich in detail and offers some intriguing insights into American partisanship's roots, it can also be a slog. For history buffs, it's got some gems, but for the casual reader, it might feel like homework.

[Mikey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hamilton's a bitch

[Casey · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very well researched and written book about the development of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and amendments during the early days of American history. The author makes great use of quotes from the main participants: James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Brands details the back forth on a number of issues: what type of governmental model, terms of office, a national bank and many more. He also presents the development of the party system which some of the early founding fathers hoped to avoid. Overall, a well done history that is well worth the time to read and understand how our nation came to be from a political sense.

I received a free Kindle copy of this book courtesy of Net Galley and the publisher with the understanding that I would post a review on Net Galley, Goodreads, Amazon and my nonfiction book review blog. I also posted it to my Facebook page.

[Julie Yates · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was nearly unreadable. Bland statements followed by lines (and lines) of direct quotes - so lots of direct materials but the author added no additional input. I was hoping for further insight into the warring personalities of Jefferson, Madison vs Hamilton and Adams but got nothing. Moreover, it sometimes seemed like the author was making statement simply so he could put a lengthy quote after it? If you took out the direct quotes this would be 100 pages long and read like a middle school social studies textbook.

An absolute slog with no added value.

[lew:) · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 stars

The funny thing about me reading this book is that I finished it the day before July 4. Lol.

This book is pitched as "Americans complain about partisan-ism in politics now, but we've been partisan since before we were even a country" and aims to show readers this via the story of 1776 and the early years of our nation. However, it didn't really follow through on this thesis??

This book sounded so interesting to me, especially with the current political climate, but it read as more of a history of early Revolutionary America and nothing else, which was disappointing. I still rated it really high because I think it was extremely well written and I don't regret reading it, I just wish it had been something different? Respectfully, I don't need to read about the Revolutionary War again, I've had twelve years in public school to learn about it lol. BUT! Like I mentioned, I will give this book major props on taking a topic I was already very familiar with and bringing interesting, new information to light (especially the John Adams shade, I'm so here for it) in an eloquent way. One thing I don't really like about history books is that some can have a tendency to rely on the over abundance of quotes to tell the story instead of the author's own words doing so- while H.W. Brands does include a tonnnnn of quotes in this book, it was done quite well, actually. They added to the legitimacy and professionalism of the recounting of events, instead of bogging readers down with excess, minute details.

Overall? Not what I expected, but an engaging read nonetheless. Pick it up if you're an American history buff or if you want alllllll the drama because honey, the girls (Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Adams AKA the divas) are fightttttttttinggggggg

[Danielle · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was slightly disappointed in this book, which probably has more to do with my expectations rather than the writing (although I do have some qualms with that too). One problem is that I just finished the biography on Alexander Hamilton by Chernow. That book gave me much more insight into the political infighting of the day than this book. It also gave me more of a picture of who Jefferson and Madison were and what they stood for, despite it being a biography of Hamilton. I read this book next because I wanted to know more. While I felt I did gain more perspective, I'm not sure I came away with a deeper understanding of the feud between these men.

I felt this book had a negative view of Hamilton, which is fine, it is good to get all sides of a story. But I usually expect the author to delve deeper into their own perspective and viewpoints and why they feel that way. I expected each man noted in the title, to get equal representation and depth in the book. I also wish the author would have reiterated the "brawling" and fighting parts of their story, and how that affected American politics. Mostly, it just felt like a summary of the time with a lot of direct quotes, and not always with a focus back on the main point, which was how and why these men didn't agree with each other.

Overall, it was very informative and gives a broad overview of the time and of these men. I think I might be better off reading more biographies though if I want to get really deep into who they were.

[Brandon Westlake · Rating 4 out of 5]

If there's one thing H.W. Brand can be counted on, it is a well-written narrative. Here, he succeeds again. He does a great job making history readable for a wider audience. More academics should follow in his steps; they are few and far between.
I appreciate how Brands brings Hamilton back down to earth after being inflated (and sung about) for the last few years. His interpretation is evenhanded, and he sticks to the context of the time. Important in all of this was the question of viability of the state following independence. This is not to say that Brands agrees with Hamilton, nor should he, but he gets what the popularity has left out.
While this time is often portrayed as a great, patriotic age, Brands makes it clear that it was much more tumultuous and fragile than we like to think it was. His book does a great job at examining all of these issues and how they played out, in a way that ensured the future success of the United States.
Founding Partisans isn't his longest work, but he manages to really portray the importance of the age, with a striking relevance to today's political polarization. The greatest contribution that Brands gives us is that there is a way out of the animosity

[Kirby Davis · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have enjoyed several of Brands' recent books and had looked forward to this one. But "Founding Partisans" didn't engage me as others had, delivering few new insights or revelations. Large sections of the book simply reprint extensive quotes by our founding fathers, often connected by a single transitional sentence from Brands. I was also surprised Brands didn't touch upon the Louisiana Purchase. That was one area where I would love to have read the founders' background thoughts on that historic turn, an ironic answer to Federalist concerns over a Jefferson presidency.

[Geoff Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book covers well covered ground of the beginning of political factions or parties.

Chock full of familiar quotes, recitations from letters, speeches etc...

Nothing truly insightful, but a solid read for those new to the subject.

[Suze · Rating 3 out of 5]

Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and the Brawling Birth of American Politics

There are some people, regardless of political leanings, who place great reverence and importance upon the ‘Founding Fathers,’ their supposed ideals, and their actions & intentions as framers of the Constitution. There’s no doubt that these men did important work, but such deification tends to forget that they were exactly that: just men, fallible, opinionated, and prone to exactly the same kind of political and petty squabbling as we are today.

In “Founding Partisans,” author H.W. Brands largely uses the Founders’ own words to paint this more realistic, human portrait of the interactions and political arguments between these men. I think it really behooves us today, when arguing about constitutional rights or, more specifically, about how elements of the constitution were *intended*, to be reminded, as we are in this book, that the founders themselves strongly disagreed on many topics, that there was almost never consensus but negotiation, that in many cases nobody got exactly what they wanted.

The thing that I noted particularly about “Founding Partisans,” as I mentioned, is that a majority of the narrative is told by direct quotation of the founders’ writings and speeches, with little editorializing. That it is written with a largely neutral voice, allowing the subjects themselves to make their points and illustrate their differences and disagreements with one another, keeps the book from becoming overtly partisan itself. It also avoids the pitfall of so many popular historical biographies of being a bit too generous in characterizing its subjects; sometimes it’s more fun to read about the founders’ flaws and their snipping at one another than another loving ode.

Who is this book for? People who are really interested in the ‘deep lore’ of America’s founding and Constitution, who want to hear just as much about the things that *didn’t* happen due to disagreements as they want to hear about what *did,* and who don’t require any musical numbers or extensive speculating or editorializing to find those things interesting.

In the current day, anyone can look at the American government, with its parties and partisan fighting, and wonder how anything ever gets accomplished (if it does at all). What Brands shows us in ‘Founding Partisans’ is that, really, some things never change.

[Nancy · Rating 4 out of 5]

4+
I knew that the Founding Fathers, specifically Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Washington, had not agreed on important aspects of government, but until I listened to this book, I didn't understand just how deep and bitter their disputes had been. H. W. Brands relies heavily on exact quotations of these men and their followers to narrate the first years of America. For me this adds credibility to an important theme of his book. Of course, the author has chosen which quotes to include and provides important context to support his point that our nation's leaders have engaged in major policy disputes and been separated into political factions since the very beginning.

At times I admit to losing focus as the arguments persisted at length, but by the end I found some glimmer hope that our republic may survive the bitter division that haunts us daily in our own time. I don't know if things will improve as they did briefly two centuries ago. Until 2021, our elections, although sometimes contested in the press and the courts, had always resulted in a peaceful, if sometimes uneasy, transfer of power. The violence on January 6, 2021 profoundly shocked me, and the pardons given to the perpetrators frighten me still. I can only hope that the fever will abate as it eventually did in the early 19th century. Even Adams and Jefferson, who fought so fervently over the presidency and power of the national government, ended their long lives as friends. They both died on the same day, July 4th, 1826, the 50th anniversary of their nation's birth.

I'm glad that I discovered this book. Knowing more of the details of our nation's earliest years is helpful to understanding what is happening now.

[Mikayla · Rating 4 out of 5]

When thinking about different eras throughout American history I find myself able to define them in the broad-strokes manner I remember learning them by in High School. Even as someone who has always been very interested in early American history, I would not be able to do more than say I know the names of some of the events that took place through this book. Shay’s Rebellion, the Constitutional Convention, the Whiskey Rebellion, XYZ Affair, The election of 1800 are all events I recognize as extremely significant and important. However, this book was able to take these events and relate them in a clearly defined domino effect.

Additionally, I tend to view historical figures as static, and often haven’t considered how much they may have changed throughout their lifetime, or even how much their perspectives changed in the 20 years that make up the bulk of this book. But, Brands has done an incredible job of navigating the immense shifts in the personal and political dynamic between these four founding fathers and their often renamed political parties.

From connecting popular events in America’s formative years to the evolving philosophies of some of our founding fathers, as well as connecting them to major political events in Europe, this book provides an incredibly detailed look at each of these founding fathers personal stakes in the development of our national government.

Seeing the complexity and intensity of American partisanship in its infancy, it’s no surprise how we got to where we are today.

[Ray Tillman · Rating 3 out of 5]

In examining "Founding Partisans," I observed the book grappling with the emergence of intense political divisions in the early American republic. It explores the ideological clashes between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, with Federalists advocating for a strong central government and Anti-Federalists championing states' rights and individual liberty. The book delves into the origins of American political parties, offering insights into their lasting impact on the nation's political landscape.

Despite its comprehensive exploration of how Federalists and Republicans emerged and clashed during George Washington's eight years in office, I found that the book did not present any new information for me. It thoroughly covers the development of the Party system through the writings, especially letters, of Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and others from that era. Readers interested in understanding how these figures felt about their oppositions and even members of their own parties may appreciate Brands' approach to the subject.

While reading, one recurring thought was the lost art of letter writing. Future Historians who look back at our present time may struggle to discern how politicians truly felt about their colleagues or opponents, given the absence of personal letters. I assign this book a three-star rating primarily because it didn't offer new insights beyond what has already been extensively documente

[Sal Siciliano · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well I was in the middle of writing a lengthy review and accidentally pushed the back button. Cool. I have a lot to say about this book. Good and bad. For one pro, the founding father’s representation I found in this book was equally proportional, which is great. However I dislike the excessive use of direct quotes (with the exception of Jefferson’s inaugural address, written from the perspective of Margaret smith, that was great.) I just feel that was a bit lazy on Brands part but oh well what do i know. I loved the emphasis on the federalist papers and Hamilton going under “Publius”. I also love that we are getting to the know the founding fathers on both a political and personal level, and this makes this book absolutely incredible. Though it is difficult to read at times, you will get a lot from it. 4.3/5. Here are some random notes I took at various parts of the book.

-Jay treaty declare neutral when British naval units are seizing American export ships

-Jefferson’s freedom of religion resulted in worry from the federalists. Would this country become atheist?

-Hamilton writes letters to federalists stating he’d rather have Jefferson take the fall for the Republican Party than Burr.

-Jefferson’s inaugural speech was incredible. Word for word and described by Margaret Smith in such a way that it allows you to travel back to 1801 as if you were in the room with him. Amazing!

[David Shaffer · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a good book on the early days of the American Republic where Alexander Hamilton and James Madison showed the foresight to realize that the weak Articles of Confederation needed to be replaced with a stronger government that took some of the authority previously held by the states and delegated them to a Federal government with three distinct branches composed of a bicameral legislative branche, a strengthened executive in the firm of a president and a judiciary with built in checks and balances. The ratification was aided by the arguments of the Federalist Papers.

The first presidential election was uncontested, with George Washington becoming the first chief executive with John Adams as the first vice-president for the first two terms. The third election was the first contested election between Federalist John Adams and Republican Thomas Jefferson, with John Adams elected to the presidency with Republican Jefferson as his VP. The election had the Republicans turning out the Federalist from leadership for the first time, aided by the disloyalty of Alexander Hamilton to the Federalist party.

It is a good book that has weaknesses in the structure of the footnotes and the lack of a bibliography.

[Mark Mears · Rating 5 out of 5]

Founding Partisans

H.W. Brands

I have come to find the author reliable and relatable. I would have enjoyed if he had narrated the audiobook, because his enthusiasm for history comes out in his delivery.

There have been many books about the relationships between the founding fathers. What makes this book unique is that a great deal of quotations from the subject’s correspondence are used. Not without explanation, so it is useful.

The use of these quotations forces the listener/reader to slow down and almost interpret their words into modern vernacular.

An example is Hamilton’s public apology for his sex scandal. He very eloquently goes to great length to explain that he thought with the wrong head and was taken in by the badger game. He explains about his suffering wife and how he did not use public funds to pay the blackmail money.

Initially this verbosity makes one think, could you just tell me what happened in plain English?

However… you quickly realize if you slow down and analyze, you’re actually taking a breath and enjoying taking a little time, growing to know the founders better.

[Jacob Hudgins · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love Dr Brands and still fondly remember his History of American Foreign Policy class 20+ years later. And this book was consistently interesting, detailing the various controversies of the ratification of the Constitution and the first three presidencies.

What was odd was the format: it is nearly entirely quotes from the principals. There is no analysis, no clear theme (the title and focus on partisanship feels like an add-on after the book was written), and not even a clear introduction to the topic.

[Debra · Rating 3 out of 5]

Don't get me wrong, I love a nerdy book about American history. This was just real dry with a LOT of quotes from actual letters. So on the one hand I enjoyed reading Hamilton's and Madison's actual words but they were often tedious to decipher. Listening to them via audiobook improved this book.

This is a DEEP dive into Washington and Adam's presidencies if that's your jam.

[Jarred Goodall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Brands produces another masterpiece...the man continues his standing as an incomparable storyteller...

[Santana ❀ Rico · Rating 3 out of 5]

a thorough detailing of the founding characters and the incredible tale of how the united states was born! 🇺🇸🩵

[Damon Glassmoyer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book should be read and digested by all Americans, on each side of any conceivable division. The Founders tend to be lumped into one homogeneous group too often, and this book shows how (1) that is not the case and (2) how they managed to navigate the crises of our country's early years despite their divisions.

[Joseph Adelizzi, Jr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I appreciate the way H. W. Brands shares excerpt after excerpt of the letters of so many "founding partisans," all the while staying neutral, fabricating no Manichean heroes and villains. The story stems from the partisans, so Brands allows them to tell the story. Their epistolographic skills do not disappoint, and the reader is left free to choose sides (if they choose to do so given the many warnings about party politics).

[Chad Manske · Rating 4 out of 5]

H. W. Brands shatters the myth of harmonious Founding Fathers. Instead, we're thrust into the raucous brawls of America's infancy, where titans like Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison clashed over the nation's very soul. Brands skillfully weaves their personal ambitions with ideological battles, portraying not aloof demigods, but passionate, flawed men wrestling with the future of a fledgling republic. The book shines in its vivid imagery. You'll practically smell the printer's ink as pamphlets rain down, feel the tension in hushed Congressional backrooms, and hear the jeers of partisan crowds. Brands' prose is engaging, his wit dry and apt, keeping even the densest political debates palatable. Some may find the lack of new historical revelations a tad underwhelming. But Brands' strength lies in his masterful synthesis, crafting a compelling narrative that exposes the roots of today's partisan gridlock. We see how deeply ingrained our divisions are, born not from recent upheavals, but from the very DNA of American politics. If you crave a nuanced, humanized account of American history, particularly its messy beginnings, "Founding Partisans" delivers. It's a stark reminder that while our political battles may change form, the spirit of contention has been alive and kicking since the first ink splotched on the Constitution. Prepare to be both entertained and sobered by the brawling birth of American democracy.

[TJ West · Rating 5 out of 5]

H.W. Brands is one of those popular historians who has a true gift for narrative history and for letting the people of the past speak for themselves. In his newest book, Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and the Brawling Birth of American Politics, he brings these skills to bear on one of the most pivotal and influential periods of American history. In this book we get a close-up look at the many debates that convulsed the early days of the republic, when individuals like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and many others engaged in rancorous disagreements as they tried to direct the course of the fledgling nation.

Discussions about the rancor and corrosive influence of partisanship are everywhere these days, and it’s easy to see why. Ours is a very divided country, one in which every issue, no matter how large or small, is seemingly filtered through the lens of one’s partisan affiliations. Yet, as Brands repeatedly demonstrates in his book, ‘twas always so, as far back as the days of the Revolution itself. For all that men like Washington and Madison deplored the rise of political parties and saw it as a sign of political decadence–something more suited to the dissolute monarchies and failed republics of Europe than the new country they sought to bring into being.

Of course, many of the great debates of the age centered on various domestic policies, particularly focused on just what the new nation would look like. As soon as it became clear that the Articles of Confederation just weren’t going to work, a whole new set of debates took shape as the Founders grappled with what a new Constitution should look like. It’s really quite fascinating to see how so many of the elements of our government that we take for granted now–up to and including the Bill of Rights itself–were subjects of fierce debate and disagreement among the Framers.

It wasn’t long before parties were taking shape around two of the leading intellectual lights of the age. On the Federalist side there was Alexander Hamilton, a man who never encountered a battle or a conflict that he didn’t feel the need to participate in. On the other there was Thomas Jefferson, who was very wary of federal overreach, which led him to be particularly skeptical (and often downright hostile) to such institutions as the national bank, which was a particular pet project of Hamilton’s. For a time George Washington was able to keep the excesses of the two groups in check, due in large part to the esteem in which he was held by both his cabinet and the country as a whole. When he declined to run for a third time and John Adams was elected, however, things continued to get ever stickier.

Brands rightly points out that this was also an era in which the parties used newspapers as proxies in their battles with one another. Unsurprisingly, the more unscrupulous members of the press were quite willing to use personal scandal to tar their enemies, as the unfortunate incident between Alexander Hamilton and the Reynolds make clear. Jefferson wasn’t exempt from this either, as his dalliance with Sally Hemmings was alluded to, though it failed to become as much of a sensation as Hamilton’s affair (largely because he, wisely, knew when to keep silent).

Nor were the parties’ differences limited to domestic policies, and perhaps no foreign issue excited both sides as much as the French Revolution. For the Federalists, the excesses of the Jacobins were the perfect exemplar of their fears of the people. How could people be trusted to rule themselves, men like Hamilton argued, when this was the result? For Republicans like Jefferson, however, the shedding of innocent blood, while obviously regrettable and to be avoided at all costs, was sometimes necessary in the pursuit of a more perfect republic.

As he has with many of his other works, Brands lets the men of the age do most of the talking, and he includes long passages from individuals like Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and others. In letters and speeches, we hear their words as they spoke (or wrote) them, and this gives us unique insight into their motivations and how they conceived of both themselves and their identities as political actors. Whether it’s the sometimes acidic self-pity of Adams or the overwrought rhetoric of Hamilton or the high-flown (and possibly feigned) idealism of Jefferson, these are words which echo through into our own era.

Overall, I very much enjoyed Founding Partisans. Brands is one of those popular historians who never sacrifices rigor for accessibility, and though there are times when it can be a bit tough wading through the sometimes strangled prose of 18th century politicians. However, the advantage of including so many quotes from actual sources is that it gives us in the present a real sense of the flavor of the rhetoric of the past. Language and rhetoric are windows into the soul of an age, and Brands deserves a great deal of credit for leaning so heavily on his sources.

More importantly, this book gives us a deep history of the phenomenon of political parties. For better and worse, they have been a part of American political life since the beginning of our republic. And, while it is tempting to see partisan rancor in the present as new, Founding Partisans reminds us that this, too, has deep antecedents. America was forged in tumult and trial and difficulty, and somehow it always managed to emerge the better for it. Thus, while it can be easy to give in to despair and apathy, to think that there is no way out of our morass, it’s helpful to look back at the past for at least some measure of guidance. While the friendship between Adams and Jefferson wasn’t perfect, it nevertheless demonstrates the extent to which it remains possible for even the most inveterate of political foes to one day find a way back to fondness.

Let us hope that what was true for two men of the past may yet be true, to some extent at least, for those of us in the present.

[Gerry Connolly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Historian H.W.Brands latest: Founding Partisans retells the early factionalism of the American Republic and its evolution to political parties. The dichotomies between Federalists and Antifederalists , subsequently Democrats and Whigs, were fierce and bare-knuckled. Personal assaults, raw power plays, scandals and conspiracy theories dominated the era from the Revolutionary War through Madison’s presidency. Few left the arena happy men. Ambition rarely does. Hamilton is bested by the Republicans tide, Adams leaves office defeated and dyspeptic. Washington is left licking personal wounds and Jefferson and Madison retire to their books and plantations. They remade the world but often felt pessimistic about their legacies. Their political travails remind us that today’s conflicts evoke theirs.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

To the Founders, factions were natural but fleeting—groups of individuals with shared interests that emerged and dissolved over time. Political parties, on the other hand, were seen as chronic, dangerous, and an existential threat to the republic. They viewed the rigid party structures of Britain as one of its greatest dysfunctions and feared their emergence in America. Yet, as early as 1792, James Madison recognized that parties in the new nation were inevitable. In Founding Partisans, historian H.W. Brands explores how, from the very beginning, political rivals framed their opposition as a dire threat to liberty, freedom, and the survival of the country itself.

Brands begins by highlighting the weaknesses of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, illustrating how early policy disagreements led to violent confrontations—such as Shays’s Rebellion and the 1783 veterans’ march on Philadelphia. He draws heavily from Alexander Hamilton’s letters and essays, demonstrating how Hamilton saw a strong central government as necessary to prevent such instability. Even before the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton recognized the need for a coordinated propaganda campaign in support of any new Constitution, which later became known as The Federalist Papers.

The book’s strongest section covers the Constitutional Convention, where the Founders designed a government meant to allow for principled debate while tempering the passions of populist movements. Unlike the later French Revolution, where public galleries influenced legislative discussions, the American convention agreed early on to private, deliberative debate. In France, speakers competed for applause from the crowd, encouraging increasingly radical rhetoric. The U.S. system, by contrast, insulated decision-making from public fervor, leading to a government that incorporated checks and balances to protect rights and ultimately created a more durable government.

Brands also provides fascinating details about the various proposals debated at the convention. While the Founders quickly agreed on a bicameral legislature and separate executive and judicial branches, Hamilton argued for a lifelong tenure for the president and Senate, believing it would free them from the need to cater to the baser instincts of voters. There were intense debates over representation—larger states favored proportional representation in Congress, while smaller states wanted each state to have equal influence. The deadlock was broken by Roger Sherman’s Connecticut Compromise, which established the proportional House and the equal-representation Senate. Brands also delves into the origins of the Three-Fifths Compromise, explaining the rationale behind the specific fraction—a detail often glossed over in other histories.

Following the ratification of the Constitution, Brands traces the early years of partisan conflict, concluding with Jefferson’s inauguration. While the book’s subtitle, The Brawling Birth of American Politics, suggests a focus on inter-party battles, much of the content instead highlights intra-party divisions—Federalists disagreeing with other Federalists and Republicans privately lamenting Federalist policies. Still, Brands effectively illustrates how both sides saw their opponents as existential threats: Republicans feared Federalists would impose monarchy, while Federalists believed Republican policies would lead to anarchy.

One of the book’s most striking themes is the repetition of political arguments throughout American history. Reading about the early days of the republic, one is reminded how easily modern political discourse mirrors the past. The 2025 debates over tariffs, for example, echo Hamilton’s mercantilist vision. Unlike free-market thinkers like Adam Smith and David Hume, Hamilton believed that a nation’s economic policy should always prioritize its own advantage. He favored high tariffs, arguing that import taxes primarily affected the wealthy, who could afford foreign goods.

As always, Brands lets the Founders speak for themselves. Among my favorite quotations are:

Hamilton: “Men of little character acquiring great power become easily the tools of intermeddling neighbors.”

Adams: “If public offices are to be made punishments, will a people be well served? Not long, I believe.”

Adams to his daughter:

“The world, my dear child, is running wild, and quitting the substance to seize on the shadow. It is endeavoring to shake itself loose from every divine and moral tie, every restraint of law and government, every salutary basis of genuine discipline and virtuous education. If they succeed, they would either wholly depopulate the earth or at least restore the reign of savage and brutal barbarity.”

By examining America’s founding, Brands reminds us that fierce political disagreements and dire predictions of national collapse have been constants in our history. Every generation has believed that losing political power would mean the end of the republic—yet the nation has endured for nearly 250 years. Founding Partisans is a compelling, insightful look at the origins of American political divisions, reinforcing the idea that partisanship is not a modern anomaly, but a foundational feature of our democracy.

[Grouchy Historian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding. Our founders could play politics like nobody’s business.

[Bryson Handy · Rating 5 out of 5]

"We are all Republicans. We are all Federalists." Thomas Jefferson uttered these words at his inaugural address in 1801. The preceding election, which Jefferson referred to as the "Revolution of 1800," had seen the first transfer of power across partisan lines in American history. Many Federalists (most notably Alexander Hamilton) believed the nation would crumble under the rule of its first Democratic-Republican president. But, verifiably, the nation did not crumble, but continued a long trajectory towards global dominance.

People often invoke the Founding Fathers as if they were a monolithic group. H. W. Brands thoroughly dispels this myth. He begins with the Articles of Confederation, focusing first on James Madison and his efforts-alongside Alexander Hamilton-to centralize federal power. While Hamilton and Madison work together to craft the Constitution, they eventually fall out as the first party system forms. Madison becomes Speaker of the House and rails against the policies of the Washington Administration, while Hamilton, as Treasury Secretary, seeks to increase national power. With the election of John Adams, partisan rivalries only grow. The Federalist and Republican (or Democrat, or Democratic Republican) parties grow even more cemented in American political life, with Madison admitting that political parties are a natural development in republics, while George Washington warns against them in his farewell address. During the Adams Administration, politics became nasty. Leading Republicans slandered Hamilton as an embezzler, leading him to out an affair he had to clear his name. The free press, a concept which no nation up until this point has been fully familiar with, turns many newspapers into propaganda machines spitting partisan vitriol. President Adams sought to crack down on expression in the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, ultimately sinking his re-election campaign and leading to the Revolution of 1800.

Another interesting dynamic we don't grapple with is the contingency of American institutions and the bitterly divided views over the nature of the early republic. The idea that elected representatives of the people could govern a nation was not at all accepted in the modern day. While Rome, numerous Greek and Italian city states, and the Netherlands had existed in a more or less Republican form, the idea that a country as large and diverse as America could survive without a king-like executive was anathema to many. The Federalist Party was partly founded on the belief that the people were unfit to govern, and that an American elite should guide the nation. In fact, many leading Federalists even proposed lifetime terms for the President and for Senators, with Alexander Hamilton constantly musing on his belief that the Constitutional system would eventually morph into the English system. Opposing them, the Democratic-Republicans broadly believed in the freedoms of the Bill of Rights, and wanted a more open and horizontal (albeit still incredibly unequal, as a full chunk of the nation were women, slaves, or soon-to-be-conquered Native Americans) power structure. They advocated expanding more popular suffrage, and opposed a National Bank, tariffs, or longer term limits as 'Toryism.' In fact, at the same time as the early republic was getting its footing, France was undergoing revolution. The divides between Monarchists and Jacobins largely modeled debates between Federalists and Republicans, with the former proposing a republican aristocracy to lead the nation while the latter preferred to seek popular support. I think while many of the Federalists' policies were certainly superior (e.g. the assumption of state debts, a national bank, infrastructural investments), the Democratic-Republicans' civic virtue and ostensible egalitarianism are certainly the right ethics to pursue as ends of good government. In the end, good politics mixes both technical practicality with republican concern, as Jefferson said: "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists."

Many who want to change America would do well learning a little something about its past. From its inception, the United States has been a divided nation, a motley crew of states that bicker and fight and threaten to (or actually) leave the Union. It has also been a nation of compromise, balancing the different interests of its different entities. But alongside these threads of bitter discord and uncomfortable compromise, there is a thread of unity. A unity in pursuit of the ideals that founded the United States, ideals found in the Declaration of Independence, the speeches of Patrick Henry, or the writings of Thomas Paine. It is a unity which declares that all are created free and equal, endowed with certain rights, and that government ought to protect and proliferate the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all its citizens. This is the task, these are the ideals, that every American generation must maintain for the sake of the last best hope of humanity.

4.75 stars

[Brian Willis · Rating 3 out of 5]

This history of the American Republic between 1781-1800 centers on the emergence of the Republic from the predominance of the Federalist party towards the Republican Party, which roughly means gestating from a centralized government through the Administrations of Washington and Adams towards a more rural and decentralized state based governmental model.

To put it more succinctly though perhaps too simplistically: the Federalists would perhaps identify with today's Democrats more often and the Republicans with today's, er, Republicans. However, stay with me, before that could happen, but after the scope of this book, the Federalists went extinct and the Republicans eventually became the Democratic party (in the sense that they changed their name though not their emphasis on states' rights first). Then around the time of FDR, he revolutionized the Democratic party into a federally empowered political consortium to empower the economy during the Great Depression, essentially the New Federalists though they never called themselves that, but the Civil Rights element of the party eventually alienated southern voters who all switched over to the Republican party that we know today - a combination of conservative social values and limited central government that focuses on regional control of civic structures. So, Democrats today are more like the old Federalists, who believe that the central federal government intervenes to steady the economy and rights of all citizens over regional rights when necessary. Today's Republicans are Jeffersonian, tending to empower rural and agrarian forces and localities, while distrustful of Washington D.C. - EXCEPT when it concerns the military.

Phew. It's way more complicated than that, but back to Brands here.

During the first quarter century of the US, this power struggle was just emerging and Brands places his spotlight there. We begin at the Constitutional Convention and the primary players who shaped that document and the nascent federal government. This is especially true of the Bill of Rights, appended to the main body of the Constitution in Amendments, as the original framers felt elucidation of "what the federal government could and could not do" was further needed after a basic understanding of the structure of that federal government was established. This is why expression is covered in Amendment 1 and firearms - before the existence of a standing military - was covered in Amendment 2, and concluding with Amendment 10 - "Everything else" goes to the states.

The heart of this book - the brawling birth of Hamilton (as the musical rightly asserts - the brain behind the Federalist side with the ascension of Washington and Adams) versus Jefferson and his acolytes primarily in Madison.

So why the three stars? So many primary sources so extensively quoted - and let's face it, they saved their best writing for the documents themselves and not their personal correspondence, where the arguments behind the scenes are primarily captured. The vast majority of the book is full of extensive quotation and it is not the most thrilling read. However, this area is a critical moment in American political history that still resonates today, where today's Democrats more or less argue that a vigorous centralized government can deploy its powers to level the economic playing field and open pathways to prosperity for those who have the willpower to pursue it, and the Republicans who feel that less is more and that taxation and regulation stagnates the motors that help Americans rise the ladders of economic success through legal obstacles and economic barriers.

Where you fall in that debate tends to identify how you often vote or what party you belong to. This book details how those distinctions first implicated themselves in the Republic from the very beginning and impacted the structures that still determine how we vote today. Regardless of how you feel about this book, it is the time period that represents the crucible of what birthed American politics just as the title promises. What do we fight over? This book also answers those questions (from both sides). It just takes a bit of a deep dive into 18th century prose in order to get there.