What do you think?
Rate this book
Madison and Jefferson
“[A] monumental dual biography . . . a distinguished work, combining deep research, a pleasing narrative style and an abundance of fresh insights, a rare combination.” —The Dallas Morning News
The third and fourth presidents have long been considered proper gentlemen, with Thomas Jefferson’s genius overshadowing James Madison’s judgment and common sense. But in this revelatory book about their crucial partnership, both are seen as men of their times, hardboiled operatives in a gritty world of primal politics where they struggled for supremacy for more than fifty years. With a thrilling and unprecedented account of early America as its backdrop, Madison and Jefferson reveals these founding fathers as privileged young men in a land marked by tribal identities rather than a united national personality. Esteemed historians Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg capture Madison’s hidden role—he acted in effect as a campaign manager—in Jefferson’s career. In riveting detail, the authors chart the courses of two very different Jefferson’s driven by force of personality, Madison’s sustained by a militancy that history has been reluctant to ascribe to him.
Supported by a wealth of original sources—newspapers, letters, diaries, pamphlets— Madison and Jefferson is a watershed account of the most important political friendship in American history.
“Enough colorful characters for a miniseries, loaded with backstabbing (and frontstabbing too).”— Newsday
“An important, thoughtful, and gracefully written political history.”— Publishers Weekly (starred review)
The third and fourth presidents have long been considered proper gentlemen, with Thomas Jefferson’s genius overshadowing James Madison’s judgment and common sense. But in this revelatory book about their crucial partnership, both are seen as men of their times, hardboiled operatives in a gritty world of primal politics where they struggled for supremacy for more than fifty years. With a thrilling and unprecedented account of early America as its backdrop, Madison and Jefferson reveals these founding fathers as privileged young men in a land marked by tribal identities rather than a united national personality. Esteemed historians Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg capture Madison’s hidden role—he acted in effect as a campaign manager—in Jefferson’s career. In riveting detail, the authors chart the courses of two very different Jefferson’s driven by force of personality, Madison’s sustained by a militancy that history has been reluctant to ascribe to him.
Supported by a wealth of original sources—newspapers, letters, diaries, pamphlets— Madison and Jefferson is a watershed account of the most important political friendship in American history.
“Enough colorful characters for a miniseries, loaded with backstabbing (and frontstabbing too).”— Newsday
“An important, thoughtful, and gracefully written political history.”— Publishers Weekly (starred review)
848 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
347 people are currently reading
6462 people want to read
About the author
Andrew Burstein
20 books51 followersAndrew Burstein is the Charles P. Manship Professor of History at Louisiana State University, and the author of The Passions of Andrew Jackson, Jefferson’s Secrets, and Madison and Jefferson, among others. Burstein’s writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Nation, and Salon.com, and he advised Ken Burns’s production "Thomas Jefferson." He has been featured on C-SPAN's American Presidents Series and Booknotes, as well as numerous NPR programs, including Talk of the Nation and The Diane Rehm Show. He lives in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 73 reviews
August 16, 2025
The True Complexity Of The Past
Dedicated aptly to those who appreciate the "true complexity of the past" Andrew Burstein's and Nancy Isenberg's sprawling dual biography of over 650 pages of text and an additional 100 pages of notes and bibliography, "Madison and Jefferson" has the virtue of showing the difficult, multi-faceted character of historical study. The book resists the temptation of single-aspect historical explanation. The more one looks, the harder explanation becomes, to paraphrase the authors in their Preface. The book has two subjects and two authors. Burstein and Isenberg are the former coholders of the Mary Frances Barnard Chair in nineteenth-Century U.S. History at the University of Tulsa. They are now, respectively, Manship Professor of history and professor of history at Louisiana State University. Isenberg is the author of a well-received revisionist biography of Aaron Burr, "Fallen Founder" Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr while Burstein has written previously on Jefferson. Jefferson's Secrets: Death and Desire at Monticello, Andrew Jackson, and other subjects in early American history. There is a degree of repetition in this lengthy study probably resulting from the dual authorship.
The book examines the friendship and relationship between the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson (1743 -- 1826) and the fourth president, James Madison (1751 -- 1836) during the course of over 50 years. The book has a number of aims which, in addition to its length and the complexity of its subject give it a polemical, disjointed character in places. It is a serious historical work but also has some of the unfortunate characteristics of an attempted blockbuster.
In tracing the interrelated careers of Madison and Jefferson, the book tries to rescue Madison from his position of relative obscurity and subordination to his more flamboyant, better-known colleague. The book has the commendable aim of making Madison better known. It separates his accomplishments from those of Jefferson by showing how the two founders had different perspectives, characters, and aims, how the frequently disagreed, and how Madison's accomplishments over the years, and his political skill as a legislator and president were as important to the early United States as those of Jefferson. In focusing on Madison the politician, the book takes away to a degree from Madison's accomplishments at the Constitutional Convention (the author's deny that Madison is entitled to the title "Father of the Constitution"). The authors also tend to understate the importance of the "Federalist Papers" which Madison coauthored with his later political foe, Alexander Hamilton.
The book attempts to do substantially more than explore the long-term relationship between Madison and Jefferson. The book is written with the aim of changing how Americans view these individuals and the rest of the founders. The tone is set in the first sentence of the book which describes Madison and Jefferson as "country gentlemen who practiced hardball politics in a time of intolerance." The authors attempt to remove Madison and Jefferson from what they perceive as their current status as iconic heroes and to see them as politicians in a harsh, challenging age. The book is skeptical and somewhat deflationary. Madison and Jefferson must be understood, first and foremost, according to the book, as the products of the plantations in the Tidewater area of Virginia in which they were raised and to which they always owed their first allegiance. Throughout their political careers, Madison and Jefferson did and wrote nothing without first asking the question, "How will it play in Virginia." Their actions and political philosophies were geared to maintaining the primacy of Virginia among the colonies and then among the states. They did so, the book maintains, by promoting Westward expansion of the new nation for the purposes of increasing agricultural settlement by free farmers, and by defending the southern institution of slavery. More broadly, the aim of the book is to strip the generation of the founders from the sentimentality which, in the view of the authors, it still enjoys among too many people. The Revolution, its rhetoric to one side, did not promote equality among all but simply substituted the American elite, including Madison and Jefferson in Virginia and the commercial elite further North, from the ruling class of Great Britain.
In three lengthy parts, subdivided into chapters and subsections, the authors discuss Madison and Jefferson in the broader context of the revolutionary era. The first part "A Time of Blood and Fortune" covers 1774 -- 1789 and considers the Declaration of Independence, early colonial Virginia, the Revolution, and the Constitution, concluding with the Bill of Rights and the early days of Washington's presidency.
The second part, "The Pathological Decade and Beyond" covers the years 1790 -- 1802, including most of Washington's presidency and that of John Adams. It deals with the early days of the Republic and the conflict between Hamilton and Madison, originally, and Hamilton and Jefferson when the latter became Secretary of State. The theme is the beginning of party politics which was, indeed, nasty and personal during the 1790s. The part ends with Jefferson's election to the presidency in 1800 and westward expansion with the Louisiana Purchase.
The third part "Signs of a Restless Future", covers 1803 -- 1836 and discusses the eventful latter part of Jefferson's presidency and his vindictiveness against Justice Samuel Chase and Aaron Burr. It proceeds to the events which led to the nearly disastrous War of 1812 during Madison's presidency. Madison distanced himself, eventually from his predecessor in rechartering the Bank of the United States, which both had earlier opposed, and in strengthening the Nation's defenses and expanding its budget in an un-Jefefrsonian way. The final sections of this chapter consider the retirement of the two ex-Presidents, their continued friendship and political activity and their efforts, especially those of Jefferson, to shape how the revolutionary generation would be viewed by posterity. The book concludes with a rambling epilogue "Thawing Out the Historical Imagination" in which the author's try, with limited success, to tie together the many threads of their narrative.
There is much to be learned from this study. Among the values of the book, it shows that history must be learned slowly, with caution, over time, and from many sources. It is all to easy to extrapolate from the present to the past, a course which does not allow the past to speak in its own difficult, different voice for the lessons it may have. The problem with this book is that the authors overestimate their own originality, resulting in an irreverent tone not only to the era they consider but to prior students of the era. The authors view their skeptical, political approach to the era as an antidote to the tendency to idealize. But their deflationary tone is more part of the current temper than a critique of it. It seems to me that Americans are less guilty of idealizing their history and the founding generation than of ignorance of and lack of interest in it. This book is unlikely to make much impact on those who are apathetic about American history because its appeal will be largely to those readers who have a background and interest in the subject. For these readers, the skepticism and polemics in the book is overdone and probably all too unnecessary. This book is still a valuable contribution to understanding Madison, Jefferson, and early American history.
Robin Friedman
Dedicated aptly to those who appreciate the "true complexity of the past" Andrew Burstein's and Nancy Isenberg's sprawling dual biography of over 650 pages of text and an additional 100 pages of notes and bibliography, "Madison and Jefferson" has the virtue of showing the difficult, multi-faceted character of historical study. The book resists the temptation of single-aspect historical explanation. The more one looks, the harder explanation becomes, to paraphrase the authors in their Preface. The book has two subjects and two authors. Burstein and Isenberg are the former coholders of the Mary Frances Barnard Chair in nineteenth-Century U.S. History at the University of Tulsa. They are now, respectively, Manship Professor of history and professor of history at Louisiana State University. Isenberg is the author of a well-received revisionist biography of Aaron Burr, "Fallen Founder" Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr while Burstein has written previously on Jefferson. Jefferson's Secrets: Death and Desire at Monticello, Andrew Jackson, and other subjects in early American history. There is a degree of repetition in this lengthy study probably resulting from the dual authorship.
The book examines the friendship and relationship between the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson (1743 -- 1826) and the fourth president, James Madison (1751 -- 1836) during the course of over 50 years. The book has a number of aims which, in addition to its length and the complexity of its subject give it a polemical, disjointed character in places. It is a serious historical work but also has some of the unfortunate characteristics of an attempted blockbuster.
In tracing the interrelated careers of Madison and Jefferson, the book tries to rescue Madison from his position of relative obscurity and subordination to his more flamboyant, better-known colleague. The book has the commendable aim of making Madison better known. It separates his accomplishments from those of Jefferson by showing how the two founders had different perspectives, characters, and aims, how the frequently disagreed, and how Madison's accomplishments over the years, and his political skill as a legislator and president were as important to the early United States as those of Jefferson. In focusing on Madison the politician, the book takes away to a degree from Madison's accomplishments at the Constitutional Convention (the author's deny that Madison is entitled to the title "Father of the Constitution"). The authors also tend to understate the importance of the "Federalist Papers" which Madison coauthored with his later political foe, Alexander Hamilton.
The book attempts to do substantially more than explore the long-term relationship between Madison and Jefferson. The book is written with the aim of changing how Americans view these individuals and the rest of the founders. The tone is set in the first sentence of the book which describes Madison and Jefferson as "country gentlemen who practiced hardball politics in a time of intolerance." The authors attempt to remove Madison and Jefferson from what they perceive as their current status as iconic heroes and to see them as politicians in a harsh, challenging age. The book is skeptical and somewhat deflationary. Madison and Jefferson must be understood, first and foremost, according to the book, as the products of the plantations in the Tidewater area of Virginia in which they were raised and to which they always owed their first allegiance. Throughout their political careers, Madison and Jefferson did and wrote nothing without first asking the question, "How will it play in Virginia." Their actions and political philosophies were geared to maintaining the primacy of Virginia among the colonies and then among the states. They did so, the book maintains, by promoting Westward expansion of the new nation for the purposes of increasing agricultural settlement by free farmers, and by defending the southern institution of slavery. More broadly, the aim of the book is to strip the generation of the founders from the sentimentality which, in the view of the authors, it still enjoys among too many people. The Revolution, its rhetoric to one side, did not promote equality among all but simply substituted the American elite, including Madison and Jefferson in Virginia and the commercial elite further North, from the ruling class of Great Britain.
In three lengthy parts, subdivided into chapters and subsections, the authors discuss Madison and Jefferson in the broader context of the revolutionary era. The first part "A Time of Blood and Fortune" covers 1774 -- 1789 and considers the Declaration of Independence, early colonial Virginia, the Revolution, and the Constitution, concluding with the Bill of Rights and the early days of Washington's presidency.
The second part, "The Pathological Decade and Beyond" covers the years 1790 -- 1802, including most of Washington's presidency and that of John Adams. It deals with the early days of the Republic and the conflict between Hamilton and Madison, originally, and Hamilton and Jefferson when the latter became Secretary of State. The theme is the beginning of party politics which was, indeed, nasty and personal during the 1790s. The part ends with Jefferson's election to the presidency in 1800 and westward expansion with the Louisiana Purchase.
The third part "Signs of a Restless Future", covers 1803 -- 1836 and discusses the eventful latter part of Jefferson's presidency and his vindictiveness against Justice Samuel Chase and Aaron Burr. It proceeds to the events which led to the nearly disastrous War of 1812 during Madison's presidency. Madison distanced himself, eventually from his predecessor in rechartering the Bank of the United States, which both had earlier opposed, and in strengthening the Nation's defenses and expanding its budget in an un-Jefefrsonian way. The final sections of this chapter consider the retirement of the two ex-Presidents, their continued friendship and political activity and their efforts, especially those of Jefferson, to shape how the revolutionary generation would be viewed by posterity. The book concludes with a rambling epilogue "Thawing Out the Historical Imagination" in which the author's try, with limited success, to tie together the many threads of their narrative.
There is much to be learned from this study. Among the values of the book, it shows that history must be learned slowly, with caution, over time, and from many sources. It is all to easy to extrapolate from the present to the past, a course which does not allow the past to speak in its own difficult, different voice for the lessons it may have. The problem with this book is that the authors overestimate their own originality, resulting in an irreverent tone not only to the era they consider but to prior students of the era. The authors view their skeptical, political approach to the era as an antidote to the tendency to idealize. But their deflationary tone is more part of the current temper than a critique of it. It seems to me that Americans are less guilty of idealizing their history and the founding generation than of ignorance of and lack of interest in it. This book is unlikely to make much impact on those who are apathetic about American history because its appeal will be largely to those readers who have a background and interest in the subject. For these readers, the skepticism and polemics in the book is overdone and probably all too unnecessary. This book is still a valuable contribution to understanding Madison, Jefferson, and early American history.
Robin Friedman
September 12, 2014
If you've read David McCullough's excellent John Adams, you're aware of the interesting friendship Adams had with Thomas Jefferson, both men dying within hours of each other on July 4, exactly fifty years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. But even that relationship pales in comparison to the one between Jefferson and James Madison, the 4th president. And in this excellent dual political biography, Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg have turned the order of the presidents around in their title in an effort to reassert the forgotten contributions of Madison. (Well, that and maybe the fact that Jefferson and Madison as a title had already been used.) Madison wasn't simply Jefferson's "junior," but more like the driving force behind Jefferson's reentry into politics in 1796.
As I've read and studied about the founding of our nation, in my mind George Washington perhaps stands closest to the ideal of a truly noble hero. John Adams is likewise admirable, although hampered by his vanity and having the misfortune to follow in Washington's very long shadow. By the time I get to Thomas Jefferson, though, things get ugly. The nastiness of party politics becomes intractable - and Jefferson was a natural at hardball politics.
Both Jefferson and Madison were Virginians first, which heavily influenced their politics. Jefferson, the idealist and philosopher, is quite frequently seen as a walking contradiction. His lofty ideals and eloquent way with words had a way of swaying opinion. His fear of monarchial tendencies in government drove his policies, and he sought to maintain states rights and limit the power of the federal government (even while, as president, he greatly enlarged federal power). Madison, credited as the "Father of the Constitution" for his monumental efforts in 1787, is seen wrongly as a continuation of the Jefferson presidency, and many assumed Jefferson was still pulling the strings. In spite of their close friendship, they frequently differed in opinions and the courses of action they took. And while Jefferson appears as cordial and pleasant, Madison is portrayed unfairly as cold and unemotional. And Burstein and Isenberg do a good job of highlighting the important role played by Madison in the history both had such a huge role in.
This is a lengthy book with the narrative being almost 650 pages long, with dense writing that requires careful attention. As such, it's probably directed at serious readers of history rather than casual ones. The focus is mostly on politics, although there's enough information on their personal lives to give it a good balance. With two authors it sometimes feels a little uneven, although the book doesn't suffer for it. The ending, however, seemed almost disconnected and I vaguely suspected the authors of inserting some of their own personal present-day politics into the story. But even this doesn't take away from the terrific work they've compiled, and in spite of the length and depth it kept my interest throughout.
As I've read and studied about the founding of our nation, in my mind George Washington perhaps stands closest to the ideal of a truly noble hero. John Adams is likewise admirable, although hampered by his vanity and having the misfortune to follow in Washington's very long shadow. By the time I get to Thomas Jefferson, though, things get ugly. The nastiness of party politics becomes intractable - and Jefferson was a natural at hardball politics.
Both Jefferson and Madison were Virginians first, which heavily influenced their politics. Jefferson, the idealist and philosopher, is quite frequently seen as a walking contradiction. His lofty ideals and eloquent way with words had a way of swaying opinion. His fear of monarchial tendencies in government drove his policies, and he sought to maintain states rights and limit the power of the federal government (even while, as president, he greatly enlarged federal power). Madison, credited as the "Father of the Constitution" for his monumental efforts in 1787, is seen wrongly as a continuation of the Jefferson presidency, and many assumed Jefferson was still pulling the strings. In spite of their close friendship, they frequently differed in opinions and the courses of action they took. And while Jefferson appears as cordial and pleasant, Madison is portrayed unfairly as cold and unemotional. And Burstein and Isenberg do a good job of highlighting the important role played by Madison in the history both had such a huge role in.
This is a lengthy book with the narrative being almost 650 pages long, with dense writing that requires careful attention. As such, it's probably directed at serious readers of history rather than casual ones. The focus is mostly on politics, although there's enough information on their personal lives to give it a good balance. With two authors it sometimes feels a little uneven, although the book doesn't suffer for it. The ending, however, seemed almost disconnected and I vaguely suspected the authors of inserting some of their own personal present-day politics into the story. But even this doesn't take away from the terrific work they've compiled, and in spite of the length and depth it kept my interest throughout.
July 19, 2020
Reads like a modern history book. That is not a complement.
Fifty years ago I read history uncritically, assuming the authors knew and were relating me the truth about their topic. I know better now.
While Madison and Jefferson does not stoop to inventing sources or misquoting others (ala Ward Churchill), it does jiggle the facts enough that the reader is suspicious he isn't getting the straight scoop. For example, Burstein and Isenberg paint Patrick Henry as their villain during the Revolutionary years, conveniently ignoring several times when Henry and Madison agreed on major issues. A sharper contrast could not be drawn than Henry's folksy, rough-hewn demagoguery and Madison's quiet, scholarly writings, but neither the authors' case nor the reader's edification is served by misrepresenting what really happened.
The authors betrayed a modern agenda which they don't attempt to hide, which is at least honest. I suspect that no author can discuss what may have happened two hundred years ago without injected himself to some extent.
The prose is heavy reading with many editorial comments by the authors. They crowded 400 pages of material into 700 pages of text.
Given the price, it may see little circulation beyond the poor collegians required to buy it for some course.
Why does it get two stars, not one? There's a lot of really good material here.
Fifty years ago I read history uncritically, assuming the authors knew and were relating me the truth about their topic. I know better now.
While Madison and Jefferson does not stoop to inventing sources or misquoting others (ala Ward Churchill), it does jiggle the facts enough that the reader is suspicious he isn't getting the straight scoop. For example, Burstein and Isenberg paint Patrick Henry as their villain during the Revolutionary years, conveniently ignoring several times when Henry and Madison agreed on major issues. A sharper contrast could not be drawn than Henry's folksy, rough-hewn demagoguery and Madison's quiet, scholarly writings, but neither the authors' case nor the reader's edification is served by misrepresenting what really happened.
The authors betrayed a modern agenda which they don't attempt to hide, which is at least honest. I suspect that no author can discuss what may have happened two hundred years ago without injected himself to some extent.
The prose is heavy reading with many editorial comments by the authors. They crowded 400 pages of material into 700 pages of text.
Given the price, it may see little circulation beyond the poor collegians required to buy it for some course.
Why does it get two stars, not one? There's a lot of really good material here.
January 28, 2015
It's probably a good idea to be acquainted with at least the broad strokes of early US history before reading this. It assumes some familiarity with the more well-known accounts of the Revolutionary generation. "Madison and Jefferson" is noteworthy for its wealth of information on the lesser-known incidents and players in the lives of the third and fourth presidents. Plenty of ink has been devoted to Jefferson's tumultuous relationship with John Adams, or his feud with Alexander Hamilton. Less has been written about Albert Gallatin, or Edmund Pendleton, both of whom interacted with both men in crucial ways. Similarly,Jefferson's war with the Barbary pirates and the run-up to the War of 1812, often glossed over, receive considerable space here.
The authors' aim is to refute the customary portrayal of Madison as being in Jefferson's shadow. While Madison was less physically imposing, and generally thought of as less charismatic, Madison most certainly had a mind of his own and distinct opinions. The two often disagreed but, as fellow Virginians, presumed a commonality of interest. Both agreed generally that the institution of slavery was irreconciliable with Republican (as opposed to monarchist or Federalist) principles. As Southerners their abhorrence for slavery was tempered by a very real anxiety over the South's dependence on that institution for economic competitiveness vis-à-vis the North. Madison was the more enlightened of the two on race relations, albeit in an age where rather unenlightened theories on the matter were the norm. Madison and Jefferson's correspondence shows that they were often at least somewhat aware of the hypocrisy of some of their positions. They were "men of their time," which serves only to explain and not to excuse their more reprehensible behavior. That said, it's hard to come away from this book without a more nuanced view not only of the two principals but of their heady and contentious time period. Nostalgia and reverence for "great men" often cloud our perception of our history and therefore our self-conception. Jefferson and Madison were flawed, irascible human beings participating in a fractious and experimental political process. Those who know only the typical schoolbook histories of the early US, as well as those with a deeper readership of the period, will find much to be surprised by.
The authors' aim is to refute the customary portrayal of Madison as being in Jefferson's shadow. While Madison was less physically imposing, and generally thought of as less charismatic, Madison most certainly had a mind of his own and distinct opinions. The two often disagreed but, as fellow Virginians, presumed a commonality of interest. Both agreed generally that the institution of slavery was irreconciliable with Republican (as opposed to monarchist or Federalist) principles. As Southerners their abhorrence for slavery was tempered by a very real anxiety over the South's dependence on that institution for economic competitiveness vis-à-vis the North. Madison was the more enlightened of the two on race relations, albeit in an age where rather unenlightened theories on the matter were the norm. Madison and Jefferson's correspondence shows that they were often at least somewhat aware of the hypocrisy of some of their positions. They were "men of their time," which serves only to explain and not to excuse their more reprehensible behavior. That said, it's hard to come away from this book without a more nuanced view not only of the two principals but of their heady and contentious time period. Nostalgia and reverence for "great men" often cloud our perception of our history and therefore our self-conception. Jefferson and Madison were flawed, irascible human beings participating in a fractious and experimental political process. Those who know only the typical schoolbook histories of the early US, as well as those with a deeper readership of the period, will find much to be surprised by.
February 19, 2013
I really, really wanted to like this book.
One of the hardest nuts to crack in any examination of the founding generation is the extent to which politics, as we understand the practice today, played into the decisions they made. Too often, historians examine the writings of these men regarding the major philosophical principles to which they adhered, and present their actions through that lens exclusively. Further, most studies look at individual biographies, or else take a broad, sweeping approach to the entire period. Madison and Jefferson takes a different and quite revealing approach, by examining the two eponymous founders through the scope of their political relationship, and the extent to which their careers, successes, failures and decisions were influenced and reinforced by one another. Significantly, Madison is listed first, and it becomes quite clear that he is the primary driver of the politics, and to no small degree the philosophy, of the "Jeffersonian" Republican party. Unfortunately, the focus on political machinations tended to leave little nuance in the depictions of the major actors of the time, where every action was seen in terms of either personal power or provincial loyalty. This ultimately led to serious weaknesses in the description of the times.
The book is organized along chronological lines, with each chapter representing a distinct era of the lives of these two men. Since it is essentially a dual biography, the earliest years flip back and forth between the two men, who were 8 years apart in age, and paints a very interesting background of life for a gentleman planter in colonial Virginia; there were many touch points and connections between Madison and Jefferson, in terms of patrons, acquaintances, allies and enemies, before the two ever met one another. In this section, the primary antagonist held by the two men was Patrick Henry, who is depicted, unreservedly, as a self-seeking and self-aggrandizing populist blowhard who tries to consolidate power and prestige without much deep thought. I will confess that i know little of Patrick Henry specifically, so as I read the depiction I was not prepared to challenge the authors' view. However, as i later discovered, it is worth taking their descriptions of M&J's adversaries witha grain of salt.
The Revolutionary period covered the careers of Madison and Jefferson separately, and then in a kind of intellectual friendship, but it was the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that really got the ball rolling with respect to the politicking. Jefferson, at the time was representing the nascent USA in France, where he would get an eyeful of the start of the French Revolution (and would repeatedly underestimate its destructive power). Madison was there from the get-go, having been one of the prime movers behind setting the convention up in the first place, and he kept Jefferson informed throughout the convention and ratification debates that followed. Madison was relentlessly practical, having had to accept many provisions in the document of which he did not approve, which was true of pretty much all of the delegates there. He worked collaboratively with Alexander Hamilton to defend the new constitution in both the Virginia and New York ratification debates, while Jefferson expressed some misgivings about the lack of a Bill of Rights. Upon the adoption of the new Constitution, he defeated his future friend James Monroe for election to Congress, and became one of President Washington's closest advisors, at least for a time. Meanwhile, Jefferson returned from France to become Washington's Secretary of State, and the 1790's kicked off.
It was here that I felt the book really went off the rails. I admit to a soft spot for Hamilton, and I've read quite a bit about him over the years. However, there s no question that he was an arrogant pain in the ass quite a bit, and wrong on a number of issues in his time. However, the depiction of Hamilton as a power-mad, unprincipled, corrupt lucifer, pulling the strings of an aging Washington (who only gets credit for independent thought when he sides with Jefferson)was almost laughably reminiscent of the partisan press of the time. As Madison and Jefferson squared off against Hamilton, it became clear that the authors, who were quick to point out the degree to which the former men made decisions that aligned with Virginia's interests, could only see one side of every issue, and portrayed every action on Hamilton's part as a naked power grab,for no particular end other than power itself. Had they bothered to document an argument for this view, it would have made an interesting read, but here they slipped into assertion rather than demonstration- over and over and over again.
The book suffers from this treatment many times. The aforementioned tendency to cite provincial, Virginia-first loyalties as the basis of the views of M&J often speculates as to the ways in which this can be construed, but fails to present convincing evidence that it was the primary driver of their decisions...especially since these issues were almost never black and white. The authors' depictions of France throughout the 1790's, as the country passed through terror, into consolidated oligarchy on its way to autocracy under Napoleon in just about 12 years, is almost ludicrously naive, given the perspective we now have on what was happening there. They suggest on many occasions that the French had good cause to expect more deference from Americans given their assistance in our War for Independence, notwithstanding the fact that said assistance was given by the monarchical government for the sole purpose of weakening their rival across the Channel. The discussions of slavery are boringly moralistic, as though we don't all feel superior to the benighted souls who were not enlightened enough to be born 200 years later, when we were. The editorializing is relentless, and is woven into the text in various ways, sometimes with a subtlety that infuriates the reader who knows better.
Amusingly, the end of book takes a look back at the preceding history and evinces a desire to view all of these issues and figures in a balanced and non-moralistic way. At this, the authors failed utterly, and that is a shame, because they did bring a great number of interesting points to light about the collaboration of two men who are often joined in historical accounts, but with the names reversed. Jefferson, the more emotional and philosophical of the two, was presented, convincingly, as less hard-nosed, political and scheming, while Madison often took the lead in undercutting enemies. Unfortunately, in the areas where they do not present much evidence for a conclusion, one has to simply take the authors' word for it, and I learned by the end that i could not do so. This study could have been a very enjoyable, as well as enlightening, had the authors not stepped all over their subjects in the attempt to get their own views across. Perhaps, though, the value in this book will inspire someone else to take another look at this relationship, hopefully someone with less of an ideological axe to grind.
One of the hardest nuts to crack in any examination of the founding generation is the extent to which politics, as we understand the practice today, played into the decisions they made. Too often, historians examine the writings of these men regarding the major philosophical principles to which they adhered, and present their actions through that lens exclusively. Further, most studies look at individual biographies, or else take a broad, sweeping approach to the entire period. Madison and Jefferson takes a different and quite revealing approach, by examining the two eponymous founders through the scope of their political relationship, and the extent to which their careers, successes, failures and decisions were influenced and reinforced by one another. Significantly, Madison is listed first, and it becomes quite clear that he is the primary driver of the politics, and to no small degree the philosophy, of the "Jeffersonian" Republican party. Unfortunately, the focus on political machinations tended to leave little nuance in the depictions of the major actors of the time, where every action was seen in terms of either personal power or provincial loyalty. This ultimately led to serious weaknesses in the description of the times.
The book is organized along chronological lines, with each chapter representing a distinct era of the lives of these two men. Since it is essentially a dual biography, the earliest years flip back and forth between the two men, who were 8 years apart in age, and paints a very interesting background of life for a gentleman planter in colonial Virginia; there were many touch points and connections between Madison and Jefferson, in terms of patrons, acquaintances, allies and enemies, before the two ever met one another. In this section, the primary antagonist held by the two men was Patrick Henry, who is depicted, unreservedly, as a self-seeking and self-aggrandizing populist blowhard who tries to consolidate power and prestige without much deep thought. I will confess that i know little of Patrick Henry specifically, so as I read the depiction I was not prepared to challenge the authors' view. However, as i later discovered, it is worth taking their descriptions of M&J's adversaries witha grain of salt.
The Revolutionary period covered the careers of Madison and Jefferson separately, and then in a kind of intellectual friendship, but it was the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that really got the ball rolling with respect to the politicking. Jefferson, at the time was representing the nascent USA in France, where he would get an eyeful of the start of the French Revolution (and would repeatedly underestimate its destructive power). Madison was there from the get-go, having been one of the prime movers behind setting the convention up in the first place, and he kept Jefferson informed throughout the convention and ratification debates that followed. Madison was relentlessly practical, having had to accept many provisions in the document of which he did not approve, which was true of pretty much all of the delegates there. He worked collaboratively with Alexander Hamilton to defend the new constitution in both the Virginia and New York ratification debates, while Jefferson expressed some misgivings about the lack of a Bill of Rights. Upon the adoption of the new Constitution, he defeated his future friend James Monroe for election to Congress, and became one of President Washington's closest advisors, at least for a time. Meanwhile, Jefferson returned from France to become Washington's Secretary of State, and the 1790's kicked off.
It was here that I felt the book really went off the rails. I admit to a soft spot for Hamilton, and I've read quite a bit about him over the years. However, there s no question that he was an arrogant pain in the ass quite a bit, and wrong on a number of issues in his time. However, the depiction of Hamilton as a power-mad, unprincipled, corrupt lucifer, pulling the strings of an aging Washington (who only gets credit for independent thought when he sides with Jefferson)was almost laughably reminiscent of the partisan press of the time. As Madison and Jefferson squared off against Hamilton, it became clear that the authors, who were quick to point out the degree to which the former men made decisions that aligned with Virginia's interests, could only see one side of every issue, and portrayed every action on Hamilton's part as a naked power grab,for no particular end other than power itself. Had they bothered to document an argument for this view, it would have made an interesting read, but here they slipped into assertion rather than demonstration- over and over and over again.
The book suffers from this treatment many times. The aforementioned tendency to cite provincial, Virginia-first loyalties as the basis of the views of M&J often speculates as to the ways in which this can be construed, but fails to present convincing evidence that it was the primary driver of their decisions...especially since these issues were almost never black and white. The authors' depictions of France throughout the 1790's, as the country passed through terror, into consolidated oligarchy on its way to autocracy under Napoleon in just about 12 years, is almost ludicrously naive, given the perspective we now have on what was happening there. They suggest on many occasions that the French had good cause to expect more deference from Americans given their assistance in our War for Independence, notwithstanding the fact that said assistance was given by the monarchical government for the sole purpose of weakening their rival across the Channel. The discussions of slavery are boringly moralistic, as though we don't all feel superior to the benighted souls who were not enlightened enough to be born 200 years later, when we were. The editorializing is relentless, and is woven into the text in various ways, sometimes with a subtlety that infuriates the reader who knows better.
Amusingly, the end of book takes a look back at the preceding history and evinces a desire to view all of these issues and figures in a balanced and non-moralistic way. At this, the authors failed utterly, and that is a shame, because they did bring a great number of interesting points to light about the collaboration of two men who are often joined in historical accounts, but with the names reversed. Jefferson, the more emotional and philosophical of the two, was presented, convincingly, as less hard-nosed, political and scheming, while Madison often took the lead in undercutting enemies. Unfortunately, in the areas where they do not present much evidence for a conclusion, one has to simply take the authors' word for it, and I learned by the end that i could not do so. This study could have been a very enjoyable, as well as enlightening, had the authors not stepped all over their subjects in the attempt to get their own views across. Perhaps, though, the value in this book will inspire someone else to take another look at this relationship, hopefully someone with less of an ideological axe to grind.
August 19, 2012
There is an upper echelon of non-fiction writers which must be both revered and despised by every nonfiction writer outside this category. Of writers I've read this would include David McCullough, Barbara Tuchman, Edmund Morris and Daniel Yergin. They are revered because they take real life -- which is complex, convoluted, chaotic, and at times outright boring -- and turn it into a narrative every bit as gripping as a fiction thriller. They tell real-life stories that leave you in awe of real life.
They must be despised by pedestrian nonfiction writers because once you have the experience of such a nonfiction book, those that fail to bring you back to it seem plodding, wonky, dry, directionless, or perhaps a combination of these. I am routinely fascinated by real life events I read about; I often times find myself far from fascinated and even frustrated by the actual book describing it.
Though this is not an all-out indictment of Madison and Jefferson, such is the case with this book.
My droves of loyal readers are familiar with my soft spot for the revolutionary era. It is at once both the most radical era in the history of North America, and amazingly similar to today. What amazes me the most is that the actors on this stage actually DID the things they dreamt -- compare them to today's Occupy or tea party movements. People who claim to have had it up to here with the current state of affairs but do little more than scribble protest signs and camp out in parks. Once upon a time, these people actually revolted -- physically, dangerously, violently revolted -- then emerged into a completely uncharted new state of affairs and had to make everything up as they went along. All while wearing three layers of heavy clothing in blistering heat, without air conditioning, amidst sickness and disease for which they had little to no cure.
So how is it that Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenburg crafted 644 pages about two of the most fascinating central characters of this era without once making me think "Good lord, that is amazing?"
They fell victim to that endless series of facts and figures, a literary bog of listing nouns in temporal succession which rarely conveys any higher ideas other than the encyclopedic ones they so diligently notate.
Maybe this isn't entirely fair -- the authors did have themes, and stuck to them, and supported them with some anecdotes. I'm just saying David McCullough would've done it way better.
It's titled "Madison and Jefferson," we're told, and not the other way around, because too often the fourth president is considered a mere subordinate to the third and instead deserves his own limelight. Or, perhaps "Jefferson and Madison" was already taken. It was.
It's a bold premise to carry as a banner. Madison, though brilliant, was by nature a careful and guarded man. He did not lead courageously like Washington, nor rhapsodize eloquently like Jefferson. So while the devoted historian can unearth secondary sources proving Madison had a devilish sense of humor and enjoyed somewhat taboo entertainment (imagine today a leaked recording of President Obama describing the lewd Tosh.0 or Family Guy episode he found hysterical), it is difficult to relay that to us because Madison never recorded such evidence himself. It also doesn't help that, despite the authors' protest, Madison often seemed destined to follow Jefferson, both in succession as President and when it came to seeking political and policy guidance.
It's a premise almost destined for failure. I can't fault the authors for this failure, nor can I even fault them for undertaking this effort to begin with -- everyone I know who is interested in history agrees with me that we're lacking a pantheon-level Madison biography. Yet his friendship and professional partnership with Jefferson unquestionably and irreversibly linked their two legacies. You just can't write a Madison biography without keeping Jefferson prominently involved for the formative decades of Madison's life, and by that point you have no choice but to make it a book about both of them.
Last random note, the War of 1812 has to be one of the most underrated American events. I mean -- when we fought Britain for the second time in less than 40 years, they remained militarily superior and the one man considered indispensable to victory in 1783 had been laying at rest at Mount Vernon for 13 years. Consider random facts: we fought three main northern campaigns: Detroit, Quebec, and Montreal. Guess which one we won? What could have happened if we had taken two of three, or a clean sweep? There was a legitimate -- though never close to successful -- effort by New England Federalists to secede from the Union and join the cause of Canada and Great Britain. The Battle of New Orleans -- Andrew Jackson's greatest military achievement -- was wholly unnecessary, as the Treaty of Ghent had been signed for weeks. That's crazy! I'm still looking for a narrative to better portray the craziness of the War of 1812.
I finished this book last week up at the lake, probably my last opportunity for leisurely enjoyment before entering the cave that is first year of law school. So these longwinded Goodreads reviews are probably on hiatus. I know, I'm tearing up too.
Assuming I find the cave's exit, I'll catch you on the other side.
They must be despised by pedestrian nonfiction writers because once you have the experience of such a nonfiction book, those that fail to bring you back to it seem plodding, wonky, dry, directionless, or perhaps a combination of these. I am routinely fascinated by real life events I read about; I often times find myself far from fascinated and even frustrated by the actual book describing it.
Though this is not an all-out indictment of Madison and Jefferson, such is the case with this book.
My droves of loyal readers are familiar with my soft spot for the revolutionary era. It is at once both the most radical era in the history of North America, and amazingly similar to today. What amazes me the most is that the actors on this stage actually DID the things they dreamt -- compare them to today's Occupy or tea party movements. People who claim to have had it up to here with the current state of affairs but do little more than scribble protest signs and camp out in parks. Once upon a time, these people actually revolted -- physically, dangerously, violently revolted -- then emerged into a completely uncharted new state of affairs and had to make everything up as they went along. All while wearing three layers of heavy clothing in blistering heat, without air conditioning, amidst sickness and disease for which they had little to no cure.
So how is it that Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenburg crafted 644 pages about two of the most fascinating central characters of this era without once making me think "Good lord, that is amazing?"
They fell victim to that endless series of facts and figures, a literary bog of listing nouns in temporal succession which rarely conveys any higher ideas other than the encyclopedic ones they so diligently notate.
Maybe this isn't entirely fair -- the authors did have themes, and stuck to them, and supported them with some anecdotes. I'm just saying David McCullough would've done it way better.
It's titled "Madison and Jefferson," we're told, and not the other way around, because too often the fourth president is considered a mere subordinate to the third and instead deserves his own limelight. Or, perhaps "Jefferson and Madison" was already taken. It was.
It's a bold premise to carry as a banner. Madison, though brilliant, was by nature a careful and guarded man. He did not lead courageously like Washington, nor rhapsodize eloquently like Jefferson. So while the devoted historian can unearth secondary sources proving Madison had a devilish sense of humor and enjoyed somewhat taboo entertainment (imagine today a leaked recording of President Obama describing the lewd Tosh.0 or Family Guy episode he found hysterical), it is difficult to relay that to us because Madison never recorded such evidence himself. It also doesn't help that, despite the authors' protest, Madison often seemed destined to follow Jefferson, both in succession as President and when it came to seeking political and policy guidance.
It's a premise almost destined for failure. I can't fault the authors for this failure, nor can I even fault them for undertaking this effort to begin with -- everyone I know who is interested in history agrees with me that we're lacking a pantheon-level Madison biography. Yet his friendship and professional partnership with Jefferson unquestionably and irreversibly linked their two legacies. You just can't write a Madison biography without keeping Jefferson prominently involved for the formative decades of Madison's life, and by that point you have no choice but to make it a book about both of them.
Last random note, the War of 1812 has to be one of the most underrated American events. I mean -- when we fought Britain for the second time in less than 40 years, they remained militarily superior and the one man considered indispensable to victory in 1783 had been laying at rest at Mount Vernon for 13 years. Consider random facts: we fought three main northern campaigns: Detroit, Quebec, and Montreal. Guess which one we won? What could have happened if we had taken two of three, or a clean sweep? There was a legitimate -- though never close to successful -- effort by New England Federalists to secede from the Union and join the cause of Canada and Great Britain. The Battle of New Orleans -- Andrew Jackson's greatest military achievement -- was wholly unnecessary, as the Treaty of Ghent had been signed for weeks. That's crazy! I'm still looking for a narrative to better portray the craziness of the War of 1812.
I finished this book last week up at the lake, probably my last opportunity for leisurely enjoyment before entering the cave that is first year of law school. So these longwinded Goodreads reviews are probably on hiatus. I know, I'm tearing up too.
Assuming I find the cave's exit, I'll catch you on the other side.
May 8, 2018
I might be a little biased having read several other president-based books in the recent past, so much of what was covered was repetitive. If you're new to these two presidents, this is a great place to start, instead of reading about both individually.
October 26, 2020
Fair warning, this book is no leisurely beach read. It's dense, detailed and even dry at times, but packs plenty of information and insight into its roughly 650 pages (with another ~100 pages of end notes).
I'm too worn out after finishing it to offer a dense and detailed review, but felt compelled to point out a few things. The analysis of Thomas Jefferson's authorship of the Declaration of Independence, parsing his words and likening it to a divorce decree, is among the best I've seen in any Jefferson biography. Elsewhere in the book, I appreciated the authors' efforts to define the terminology of the time, providing clarity by giving precise definitions of specific words and phrases used in various writings that meant something slightly different back then than they do now. And it was a thought-provoking idea to give Madison top billing as the more effective half in the partnership of Jefferson the thinker and Madison the doer, though the authors also resist efforts to box either man into those traditional descriptions.
Though the book presents itself as a dual biography, there's not too much about Madison and Jefferson's personal lives. The focus is squarely on their partnership and their politics. The first half of the book, focusing on the creation of the country, is more compelling than the latter half that focuses on the men's subsequent presidencies. Consequently, the first half of the book requires more careful attention, lest you lose focus for a moment and miss an important point.
So don't go speed-reading through this, expecting a breezy account of a consequential political friendship. It's not a popular McCullough or Meacham-type treatment - in the end, I found it more "important" than "enjoyable" - but hopefully you'll come away feeling like you have learned a lot more about Madison, Jefferson and their times, and that your own investment in time and attention was worth it.
I'm too worn out after finishing it to offer a dense and detailed review, but felt compelled to point out a few things. The analysis of Thomas Jefferson's authorship of the Declaration of Independence, parsing his words and likening it to a divorce decree, is among the best I've seen in any Jefferson biography. Elsewhere in the book, I appreciated the authors' efforts to define the terminology of the time, providing clarity by giving precise definitions of specific words and phrases used in various writings that meant something slightly different back then than they do now. And it was a thought-provoking idea to give Madison top billing as the more effective half in the partnership of Jefferson the thinker and Madison the doer, though the authors also resist efforts to box either man into those traditional descriptions.
Though the book presents itself as a dual biography, there's not too much about Madison and Jefferson's personal lives. The focus is squarely on their partnership and their politics. The first half of the book, focusing on the creation of the country, is more compelling than the latter half that focuses on the men's subsequent presidencies. Consequently, the first half of the book requires more careful attention, lest you lose focus for a moment and miss an important point.
So don't go speed-reading through this, expecting a breezy account of a consequential political friendship. It's not a popular McCullough or Meacham-type treatment - in the end, I found it more "important" than "enjoyable" - but hopefully you'll come away feeling like you have learned a lot more about Madison, Jefferson and their times, and that your own investment in time and attention was worth it.
July 9, 2019
This was an incredibly disappointing slog that took me exactly 8 months to push myself through. That’s a ridiculous amount of time, which should tell you how unmotivated I was to finish it. While the moments when Madison was the focus were thoroughly fleshed out, the authors clearly pray at the altar of Thomas Jefferson, making for an infuriatingly sunny portrait of a seriously flawed man... which is part of what makes his genius so interesting in the first place. The lack of objectivity toward every single person who ever confronted or challenged Jefferson, and the blatant whitewashing of his problematic and disturbing hypocrisy toward slavery (Sally Hemings is a quick blip on the radar—the authors just couldn’t bear to think of their precious TJ as a sexual predator) did a major disservice to the full history of the man. The stereotypical treatment of Hamilton as Machiavelli 2.0 is laughable, and they disrespect the memories and accomplishments of numerous founders, including that of Washington, painting him as a lazy leader content to hide behind the skirts of others. This wasn’t a history book. This was an apology.
June 15, 2017
In a very big book the authors tackle a very big topic, the lives and times of and the relationship between two of our country’s Founding Father, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson’s life has been covered extensively; Madison’s not as much. As the title suggests, the authors’ goal is to bring “little Jemmy” out of the very large historical shadow cast by the author of the Declaration of Independence. And to their credit, Burstein and Isenberg do a very good job in presenting Madison as a critical stand-alone US historical figure and not just as a Jefferson “yes man”; as well as placing both men in the context of their times as the United States came into existence and developed its national identity.
Extensively using contemporary sources – letters, newspaper articles and diaries – the book paints an intellectually coherent as well as humanly touching portrait of these two great men, bound together by a common heritage and political philosophy, who implicitly trusted each other but did not always agree. Jefferson was the mentor – as he was with James Monroe and others – but Madison was his own man. This evidenced by his presence at and contributions to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, chronicled extremely well in this book, while Jefferson was a very distant but interested spectator in Paris. Elected to the Presidency and inheriting many of Jefferson’s unsolved problems, Madison took a very aggressive and arguably very different strategy than his predecessor would have with the War of 1812. This another point in US history covered extremely well in this narrative.
Lastly the book also does a very good job outlining and highlighting the two men’s difficulties and at times hypocrisy when dealing with slavery as well as their personal and philosophical conflicts with other historical giants such as Washington, Hamilton, Adams and John Marshall. It also paints these two men as supreme politicians - Virginians first, Americans second - This without shattering our image of them but realistically tempering it. As stated this is a big, dense book – not something one can read over a weekend – but if you are interested in the founding and early years of our country’s history and where these two “fathers” fit in, Madison and Jefferson is well worth the time and effort.
Extensively using contemporary sources – letters, newspaper articles and diaries – the book paints an intellectually coherent as well as humanly touching portrait of these two great men, bound together by a common heritage and political philosophy, who implicitly trusted each other but did not always agree. Jefferson was the mentor – as he was with James Monroe and others – but Madison was his own man. This evidenced by his presence at and contributions to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, chronicled extremely well in this book, while Jefferson was a very distant but interested spectator in Paris. Elected to the Presidency and inheriting many of Jefferson’s unsolved problems, Madison took a very aggressive and arguably very different strategy than his predecessor would have with the War of 1812. This another point in US history covered extremely well in this narrative.
Lastly the book also does a very good job outlining and highlighting the two men’s difficulties and at times hypocrisy when dealing with slavery as well as their personal and philosophical conflicts with other historical giants such as Washington, Hamilton, Adams and John Marshall. It also paints these two men as supreme politicians - Virginians first, Americans second - This without shattering our image of them but realistically tempering it. As stated this is a big, dense book – not something one can read over a weekend – but if you are interested in the founding and early years of our country’s history and where these two “fathers” fit in, Madison and Jefferson is well worth the time and effort.
April 26, 2012
A broad, epic, sweeping look at the first generation of leaders of our country, focusing primarily on Madison and Jefferson. An honest and unsentimentalized look at these at these great though flawed leaders. The authors work hard to elevate Madison as peer and partner to Jefferson, and by and large succeed. They don't shy away from Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemmings, nor from the ongoing scandal of slavery in this country. Saddest is the realization that along with the slaves that Jefferson (and Madison) kept, Jefferson kept his own children by Hemmings enslaved, and they--and other human beings--were sold off as property after his death. Sobering reflections on a critical period of our history and on persons deemed "fathers" of our nation.
As a postscript: I started Rachel Maddow's new book "Drift" prior to writing this review. She begins the introduction with a lengthy quote from Madison, begins her first chapter by talking about Jefferson, and mentions Madison again further in. In spite of their flaws, their thoughts and work still matter to us over 200 years later.
700 plus pages, and well worth the read.
As a postscript: I started Rachel Maddow's new book "Drift" prior to writing this review. She begins the introduction with a lengthy quote from Madison, begins her first chapter by talking about Jefferson, and mentions Madison again further in. In spite of their flaws, their thoughts and work still matter to us over 200 years later.
700 plus pages, and well worth the read.
July 10, 2017
I was disappointed in this book even though it did give Madison his due and that is good. But the writing was turgid and brought in every minor character and source the authors could rope in. Even though the authors made some major points, they tended to get lost in all the political trivia (I get enough of that in today's political environment, thank you!)
With all the attention paid to Hamilton these days, and after reading Chernow's biography of him some time ago, I was surprised that the authors of this book were so uniformly negative about Hamilton and his role in the new government.
Even though the War of 1812 was a major event, I still don't have a good sense of what it involved and how our country managed to win it.
With all the attention paid to Hamilton these days, and after reading Chernow's biography of him some time ago, I was surprised that the authors of this book were so uniformly negative about Hamilton and his role in the new government.
Even though the War of 1812 was a major event, I still don't have a good sense of what it involved and how our country managed to win it.
July 24, 2025
2.5 Stars
This bio-history is a narrative about the 50 year relationship between Jefferson & Madison. Its authorship is a 2 person collaboration, something quite unusual in my experience.
Unfortunately, uniqueness is not a path to excellence here. This book suffers from the most prolix writing I’ve ever encountered. The narrative often careens from event to event and paragraph to paragraph with the interjection of forgotten historical figures who play limited roles and serve only to distract the reader. The writing becomes dense, a sort of ‘black hole’ of literature. The excessive detail obfuscates context surrounding events, often leaving me scratching my head: “ What is the point they’re trying to make?” If I didn’t have some previous knowledge about this era & its participants, I would be totally lost.
They caution the reader to not place 21 st century moral standards on Jefferson & Madison for their views on slavery, but then proceed to do so.
Jefferson receives noticeably harsher treatment than Madison, some of whose limitations are glossed over. But then TJ was much more expressive in his voluminous writings than the more reserved JM, so perhaps TJ deserved it (LOL).
But there are shimmering needles in this massive haystack of minutiae:
1. TJ and JM are painted as having almost pathological angst over Hamilton and his political views. To paraphrase a modern political slur, they were suffering from “HDS-Hamilton Derangement Syndrome “
2. JM’s political philosophy: “realistic in conflict, insistent on order but liberal on a domain of freedom and flexible in its generality”
3. TJ’s political philosophy: “unfettered freedom of natural rights, individual sovereignty, and right to protest any law curtailing personal liberty”
4. “Jefferson was John Marshall’s hater in chief”
5. JM on paper money: “Experiments in paper money would fail everywhere, it was morally certain “
6. Authors’ quote on politics: “politics is an irrational business driven by strong personalities & shared perceptions “
7. And the best of the bunch from a reprinted oration by British politician/poet of 17th/18th century, Joseph Addison (comment on Hamilton/Jefferson-Federalist/ Jeffersonian feud) :”There cannot a greater judgement befall a country than dreadful spirit of division as rends a government into 2 distinct peoples, averse to one another…; the effects are fatal to morals & it sinks the virtue of a nation, destroying common sense. A furious party spirit breaks out in falsehood and distractions, filling a nation with spleen & rancor and extinguishes seeds of good nature, compassion and humanity.” (SOUND FAMILIAR TO ANYONE TODAY ?)
If any potential readers of this book cannot restrain themselves,
I recommend you simply skip the first 619 pages and read the last chapter which is a nice summary, perhaps the best writing of the whole narrative.
This bio-history is a narrative about the 50 year relationship between Jefferson & Madison. Its authorship is a 2 person collaboration, something quite unusual in my experience.
Unfortunately, uniqueness is not a path to excellence here. This book suffers from the most prolix writing I’ve ever encountered. The narrative often careens from event to event and paragraph to paragraph with the interjection of forgotten historical figures who play limited roles and serve only to distract the reader. The writing becomes dense, a sort of ‘black hole’ of literature. The excessive detail obfuscates context surrounding events, often leaving me scratching my head: “ What is the point they’re trying to make?” If I didn’t have some previous knowledge about this era & its participants, I would be totally lost.
They caution the reader to not place 21 st century moral standards on Jefferson & Madison for their views on slavery, but then proceed to do so.
Jefferson receives noticeably harsher treatment than Madison, some of whose limitations are glossed over. But then TJ was much more expressive in his voluminous writings than the more reserved JM, so perhaps TJ deserved it (LOL).
But there are shimmering needles in this massive haystack of minutiae:
1. TJ and JM are painted as having almost pathological angst over Hamilton and his political views. To paraphrase a modern political slur, they were suffering from “HDS-Hamilton Derangement Syndrome “
2. JM’s political philosophy: “realistic in conflict, insistent on order but liberal on a domain of freedom and flexible in its generality”
3. TJ’s political philosophy: “unfettered freedom of natural rights, individual sovereignty, and right to protest any law curtailing personal liberty”
4. “Jefferson was John Marshall’s hater in chief”
5. JM on paper money: “Experiments in paper money would fail everywhere, it was morally certain “
6. Authors’ quote on politics: “politics is an irrational business driven by strong personalities & shared perceptions “
7. And the best of the bunch from a reprinted oration by British politician/poet of 17th/18th century, Joseph Addison (comment on Hamilton/Jefferson-Federalist/ Jeffersonian feud) :”There cannot a greater judgement befall a country than dreadful spirit of division as rends a government into 2 distinct peoples, averse to one another…; the effects are fatal to morals & it sinks the virtue of a nation, destroying common sense. A furious party spirit breaks out in falsehood and distractions, filling a nation with spleen & rancor and extinguishes seeds of good nature, compassion and humanity.” (SOUND FAMILIAR TO ANYONE TODAY ?)
If any potential readers of this book cannot restrain themselves,
I recommend you simply skip the first 619 pages and read the last chapter which is a nice summary, perhaps the best writing of the whole narrative.
February 4, 2013
Not your typical biography. If you think Jefferson was just a deist who had a romantic streak and tried to make America the land of small farmers and Madison was only a writer of the Constitution, you have another think coming. Of course, they were, but they were also very complicated individuals, as this biography makes clear. The two of them "conspired" to make sure that Virginia was the premier state in the Union and fought to make slaves worth 3/5 of a man for population counts relating to Congressional representation. Neither particularly believed in slavery but both supported the "Back to Africa" resettlement of freed slaves in Africa. Jefferson was a passionate, rhetorial writer who would write a defense of himself and/or his actions anytime someone published a criticism of him. He would send his draft to Madison who would edit it so that it wouldn't offend people and the writing would be published. Jefferson thought more in blacks and whites, like the scientist he was; Madison was a political animal who thought in compromises in order to get things accomplished. But both believed in Virginia's preeminence and fought to protect the Southern way of life, even as they saw the economic validity of that system become in doubt as other world markets were opened for the agricultural products it sold and the North became more prosperous due to its manufacturing base. They formed a formidable and fantastic team.
Of course, there are other characters involved. Poor John Adams, who as a Federalist was a prime target for "Democratic-Republican" attacks. It's interesting that both John and John Quincy were the only two of the first set of presidents who only served one term. It's fascinating to read about the early days of people like Henry Clay, John Calhoun. and Andrew Jackson. It was also interesting to me that Alexander Hamilton was such a wretced man who was antagonistic to most ideas that weren't his. Also Patrick Henry comes in for a beating as a vain, foolish man who was revered by the Virginian people but disliked by the politicians.
It also becomes quite clear that the country was headed for a civil war based on the status of slavery from its very founding. Madison and Jefferson were both quite aware of this, but, as politicans are wont to do, did everything they could to be sure that the conflict was dealt with by a future generation.
Anyone interested in either these particular men or the first footsteps of a new nation should read this. You'll discover things you never knew.....
Of course, there are other characters involved. Poor John Adams, who as a Federalist was a prime target for "Democratic-Republican" attacks. It's interesting that both John and John Quincy were the only two of the first set of presidents who only served one term. It's fascinating to read about the early days of people like Henry Clay, John Calhoun. and Andrew Jackson. It was also interesting to me that Alexander Hamilton was such a wretced man who was antagonistic to most ideas that weren't his. Also Patrick Henry comes in for a beating as a vain, foolish man who was revered by the Virginian people but disliked by the politicians.
It also becomes quite clear that the country was headed for a civil war based on the status of slavery from its very founding. Madison and Jefferson were both quite aware of this, but, as politicans are wont to do, did everything they could to be sure that the conflict was dealt with by a future generation.
Anyone interested in either these particular men or the first footsteps of a new nation should read this. You'll discover things you never knew.....
November 18, 2014
This is a story of two men: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. It's a story of their life and times, and the many other persons who collaborated in the events on the North American continent during their lifetimes. It's about their relationship with each other and with other persons. It's about real men, not mythological men. An excellent history.
OK. A couple of fun facts. The first statements seriously considering secession were authored by whom? Ah, you are correct, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, 1798. And the discord underlying these resolutions flashed-over on April 12, 1861. That discord began long before the American Revolution, and you can still hear echos of it today.
OK. A couple of fun facts. The first statements seriously considering secession were authored by whom? Ah, you are correct, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, 1798. And the discord underlying these resolutions flashed-over on April 12, 1861. That discord began long before the American Revolution, and you can still hear echos of it today.
May 14, 2017
Madison and Jefferson chronicles the political careers of our 3rd and 4th Presidents, two thirds of what author Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg called THE VIRGINIA DYNASTY which includes the fifth President, James Monroe but not the first President, George Washington. The dynasty of the four Presidents was broken by four years with John Adams as President, but the main reason Washington is not included is that he was the standard-bearer of another party, the Federalists, while the other Virginians were the first Presidents from what became known as the Democratic-Republican party.
History has proclaimed James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to be near the top of the list of our best Presidents. Certainly their work prior to their administrations has something to do with this. Madison is often called “The Father of the Constitution” and Jefferson wrote The Declaration of Independence. If nothing else, their work put them front and center in the political spectrum and continues to give them a unique status.
Burstein and Isenberg’s focus was on the men’s political careers. They did not give any detailed information on their childhoods or adolescence. What we do know is that both came from well-to-do families, that they were among the “planter” class in Virginia, and that they owned slaves.
It is slavery that muddies the historical waters. Indeed, it is the blemish that dominates a pock-marked American face. Burstein and Isenberg wrote,
“While they sought to remake their world, and make it freer, Madison and Jefferson grew up believing that authentic Americans were white men, most of them thrifty farmers.”
Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal” but didn’t believe that applied to Negroes. As for the Constitution, ratification was assured by the three-fifths compromise, which allowed the Southern states to count each slave as three-fifths of a person, thus ensuring their voting block the majority in the Electoral College and in the House of Representatives.
It also gave great power to Virginia which was just fine with Madison and Jefferson. “It is hard for most to think of Madison and Jefferson and admit that they were Virginians first, Americans second. But this fact seems beyond dispute.
One might remember that Robert E. Lee gave up his military commission to fight for the Confederacy. In truth, he was fighting for his native state Virginia. Such an allegiance dominated the minds and hearts of colonial Virginians, including Madison and Jefferson.
The issue of states rights, which last came into political play with Governor George Wallace of Alabama running for President on such a ticket in 1968, was a primary aspect of their political philosophy, particularly Jefferson’s. Jefferson was in France during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and would not likely have signed it had he been in Philadelphia. He did not like the idea of a strong executive branch, looking at it as akin to the British system. I write this on the 802nd anniversary of the day in 1215 that English barons delivered an ultimatum to King John which ultimately led to the Magna Carta. That document changed Great Britain from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy with the creation of Parliament. It was Jefferson’s goal to never see the President have the power King George III of England wielded over America. What Jefferson and Madison led was the disloyal opposition to the Federalists who they saw as monarchists. “For better or worse, they gave the United States its profoundly paradoxical character, enabling the nation to claim itself a generator of positive change in the world, at the same time rendering it a world unto itself.”
One could go on and on with the positive and negative of these proud Virginians, but I want to touch upon one aspect of the political scene that has been with us since the beginning of the republic. President Trump seems to believe that media reporting, “false news” and attacks on his administration and himself are recent phenomenon in our history. When one studies the early history of our country, it is impossible to deny that the press was a key influence in how Americans formed their opinions about their leaders, mostly with negative articles. Jefferson wrote,
“During this course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety.”
There is an irony here, in that Jefferson (with Madison’s assistance) often used the press (even supporting a prominent newspaper financially) to attack his opponents. That is one difference between eras. Our current President has neither the temperament or the intellect to use the press to his own advantage. His tweets harmonize only with those of like mind while sounding dissonant melodies to those who listen for the truth.
The Washington Post has recently added this statement under the banner: DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS. It is hoped by those who stand by the ideas and words of Madison in the Constitution that democracy will not be swallowed up in the darkness that cloaks the President during his late-night tweeting. Indeed, it takes more than hoping and thinking and wishing and praying. It takes action. The late radio talk show host Al Julius, who was prominent in Pittsburgh but also had a show in Philadelphia on WCAU 1210 AM Radio in the late 1960’s, ended his program with these words:
BE INFORMED, GET INVOLVED, AND DON’T LET THEM GRIND YOU DOWN.
Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg conclude their book with this summation:
“Once again, they were politicians, who knew enough about the nature of tyranny to renounce complacency when it hindered the honest pursuit of truth.”
FIVE STARS
History has proclaimed James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to be near the top of the list of our best Presidents. Certainly their work prior to their administrations has something to do with this. Madison is often called “The Father of the Constitution” and Jefferson wrote The Declaration of Independence. If nothing else, their work put them front and center in the political spectrum and continues to give them a unique status.
Burstein and Isenberg’s focus was on the men’s political careers. They did not give any detailed information on their childhoods or adolescence. What we do know is that both came from well-to-do families, that they were among the “planter” class in Virginia, and that they owned slaves.
It is slavery that muddies the historical waters. Indeed, it is the blemish that dominates a pock-marked American face. Burstein and Isenberg wrote,
“While they sought to remake their world, and make it freer, Madison and Jefferson grew up believing that authentic Americans were white men, most of them thrifty farmers.”
Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal” but didn’t believe that applied to Negroes. As for the Constitution, ratification was assured by the three-fifths compromise, which allowed the Southern states to count each slave as three-fifths of a person, thus ensuring their voting block the majority in the Electoral College and in the House of Representatives.
It also gave great power to Virginia which was just fine with Madison and Jefferson. “It is hard for most to think of Madison and Jefferson and admit that they were Virginians first, Americans second. But this fact seems beyond dispute.
One might remember that Robert E. Lee gave up his military commission to fight for the Confederacy. In truth, he was fighting for his native state Virginia. Such an allegiance dominated the minds and hearts of colonial Virginians, including Madison and Jefferson.
The issue of states rights, which last came into political play with Governor George Wallace of Alabama running for President on such a ticket in 1968, was a primary aspect of their political philosophy, particularly Jefferson’s. Jefferson was in France during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and would not likely have signed it had he been in Philadelphia. He did not like the idea of a strong executive branch, looking at it as akin to the British system. I write this on the 802nd anniversary of the day in 1215 that English barons delivered an ultimatum to King John which ultimately led to the Magna Carta. That document changed Great Britain from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy with the creation of Parliament. It was Jefferson’s goal to never see the President have the power King George III of England wielded over America. What Jefferson and Madison led was the disloyal opposition to the Federalists who they saw as monarchists. “For better or worse, they gave the United States its profoundly paradoxical character, enabling the nation to claim itself a generator of positive change in the world, at the same time rendering it a world unto itself.”
One could go on and on with the positive and negative of these proud Virginians, but I want to touch upon one aspect of the political scene that has been with us since the beginning of the republic. President Trump seems to believe that media reporting, “false news” and attacks on his administration and himself are recent phenomenon in our history. When one studies the early history of our country, it is impossible to deny that the press was a key influence in how Americans formed their opinions about their leaders, mostly with negative articles. Jefferson wrote,
“During this course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety.”
There is an irony here, in that Jefferson (with Madison’s assistance) often used the press (even supporting a prominent newspaper financially) to attack his opponents. That is one difference between eras. Our current President has neither the temperament or the intellect to use the press to his own advantage. His tweets harmonize only with those of like mind while sounding dissonant melodies to those who listen for the truth.
The Washington Post has recently added this statement under the banner: DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS. It is hoped by those who stand by the ideas and words of Madison in the Constitution that democracy will not be swallowed up in the darkness that cloaks the President during his late-night tweeting. Indeed, it takes more than hoping and thinking and wishing and praying. It takes action. The late radio talk show host Al Julius, who was prominent in Pittsburgh but also had a show in Philadelphia on WCAU 1210 AM Radio in the late 1960’s, ended his program with these words:
BE INFORMED, GET INVOLVED, AND DON’T LET THEM GRIND YOU DOWN.
Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg conclude their book with this summation:
“Once again, they were politicians, who knew enough about the nature of tyranny to renounce complacency when it hindered the honest pursuit of truth.”
FIVE STARS
December 19, 2011
I was hoping this would be as compelling and enlightening as "John Adams" by David McCullough, and that I would be able to get a different historical perspective on Adams, Madison and especially Jefferson than what "John Adams" offered so I could compare and contrast.
The problem was, I couldn't stop falling asleep and I couldn't make it through the first 50 pages. That's rare for me to be able to not read a book because it is so dryly written that I couldn't stay awake to read it.
The problem was, I couldn't stop falling asleep and I couldn't make it through the first 50 pages. That's rare for me to be able to not read a book because it is so dryly written that I couldn't stay awake to read it.
February 4, 2017
I have read about Thomas Jefferson and James Madison separately. This well-written book tells the great story of the two men and their time together. Their relationship and accomplishments they helped each other achieve is a great read. Enjoy!
December 22, 2020
I have a problem with this book.
The authors use this book to retrieve Thomas Jefferson and James Madison from the fog of legend, and present them, individually and especially in partnership, warts and all, within the context of the politics of their time, and relative to each other. There is a lot to like in this book. Deeply researched, erudite, compelling, weaving in individual episodes with the big picture. I respect the courage of taking on sanitized, idealized conceptions of these founders and telling their fascinating stories within the harsh and gritty political world that lived in and helped to shape. It provides an invaluable insight into the circumstances, forces, and personalities in the first few decades from the Revolution.
BUT ----
Following the Revolution, and the weak Union that emerged from the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 met to revise the terms of Union to try to fix the problems that the Articles failed to address. Starting early in Washington’s first term, intense differences emerge between those espousing a stronger central government and those who prefer to maintain primacy of the States. These differences become ever more dramatic and bitter, leading to the gradual emergence of the Federalist and Republican movements, divided on several key elements of what the Union should become. Most strongly associated with the Federalists – Alexander Hamilton and George Washington. With the Republicans, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. As the authors describe it, the differences were not just policy, but tribal in nature. Increasingly they didn’t merely disagree, they saw each other as the “other”, whose respective visions of the future were anathema to each other. The Federalists were largely associated with the industrializing north-east, the republicans with the agrarian slave-holding south, led by the Virginians. The authors do an excellent job of explaining how and why slavery was so central to the Southern economic model, and the society and culture that upheld it. Tensions were further stoked by the “opportunities” offered by western expansion, to be accomplished by the dispossession and eventual genocide of the aboriginal population.
Here’s my issue. I was distressed in my reading by what I increasingly perceived as serious bias on the part of the authors. I was unsure for awhile whether they were simply describing the world as seen through the eyes of the Republicans, but after getting to the end I can’t help but conclude that the authors have indeed taken a highly biased anti-Federalist viewpoint. There is no pejorative adjective they don’t apply to Federalists in general, and Alexander Hamilton (and to a lesser extent Washington) specifically. They demonize their actions and motives; there seems in their presentation no possibility that there were different legitimate arguments for how the Union should be constructed, a battle of ideas, but rather that the Federalists, and especially Hamilton, were basically trying to reconstitute an American monarchy to replace the British one. I know this is a biography of Jefferson and Madison, so I don’t expect a deep analysis of what made their opponents tick – but what the authors offer reads like Republican propaganda.
It’s clear that Hamilton (and Washington) favoured a strong central government to build a modern state, at the expense of the States, and was prepared to use devious methods to do so. A good example was advocating the assumption of the debt of the States, which certainly was advantageous for establishing the USA’s international credit but was also designed to create leverage for the central government over State governments.
Equally, it seems clear that Jefferson was about creating a “Greater Virginia”, and the Union was useful as long as it fulfilled that purpose, especially in protecting the horror of slavery. (One of my original reasons for reading this history was to learn what led to the establishment of the ludicrous Electoral College).
Interestingly, as discussed in this book, as time passed and Jefferson’s successor James Madison had to confront the realities of governing (such as financing the War of 1812), he wound up supporting some of what used to be Federalist positions (like a national bank, and direct taxation, and permanent armed forces) – demonstrating he was flexible enough to learn from his experience (not necessarily that those positions were always correct.)
Much of this book is in fact highly nuanced, and I learned a lot from it. I don’t think this is a hagiography of Jefferson and Madison at all.
But I was really disappointed at the vitriol regarding their opponents.
I’ve read Chernow’s biographies of Washington and Hamilton – and a criticism I have for Chernow is that he also has a nasty habit of building up his subjects by denigrating the qualities of those who oppose them. (Otherwise, I thought they were great.) I had hoped for better here.
The authors use this book to retrieve Thomas Jefferson and James Madison from the fog of legend, and present them, individually and especially in partnership, warts and all, within the context of the politics of their time, and relative to each other. There is a lot to like in this book. Deeply researched, erudite, compelling, weaving in individual episodes with the big picture. I respect the courage of taking on sanitized, idealized conceptions of these founders and telling their fascinating stories within the harsh and gritty political world that lived in and helped to shape. It provides an invaluable insight into the circumstances, forces, and personalities in the first few decades from the Revolution.
BUT ----
Following the Revolution, and the weak Union that emerged from the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 met to revise the terms of Union to try to fix the problems that the Articles failed to address. Starting early in Washington’s first term, intense differences emerge between those espousing a stronger central government and those who prefer to maintain primacy of the States. These differences become ever more dramatic and bitter, leading to the gradual emergence of the Federalist and Republican movements, divided on several key elements of what the Union should become. Most strongly associated with the Federalists – Alexander Hamilton and George Washington. With the Republicans, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. As the authors describe it, the differences were not just policy, but tribal in nature. Increasingly they didn’t merely disagree, they saw each other as the “other”, whose respective visions of the future were anathema to each other. The Federalists were largely associated with the industrializing north-east, the republicans with the agrarian slave-holding south, led by the Virginians. The authors do an excellent job of explaining how and why slavery was so central to the Southern economic model, and the society and culture that upheld it. Tensions were further stoked by the “opportunities” offered by western expansion, to be accomplished by the dispossession and eventual genocide of the aboriginal population.
Here’s my issue. I was distressed in my reading by what I increasingly perceived as serious bias on the part of the authors. I was unsure for awhile whether they were simply describing the world as seen through the eyes of the Republicans, but after getting to the end I can’t help but conclude that the authors have indeed taken a highly biased anti-Federalist viewpoint. There is no pejorative adjective they don’t apply to Federalists in general, and Alexander Hamilton (and to a lesser extent Washington) specifically. They demonize their actions and motives; there seems in their presentation no possibility that there were different legitimate arguments for how the Union should be constructed, a battle of ideas, but rather that the Federalists, and especially Hamilton, were basically trying to reconstitute an American monarchy to replace the British one. I know this is a biography of Jefferson and Madison, so I don’t expect a deep analysis of what made their opponents tick – but what the authors offer reads like Republican propaganda.
It’s clear that Hamilton (and Washington) favoured a strong central government to build a modern state, at the expense of the States, and was prepared to use devious methods to do so. A good example was advocating the assumption of the debt of the States, which certainly was advantageous for establishing the USA’s international credit but was also designed to create leverage for the central government over State governments.
Equally, it seems clear that Jefferson was about creating a “Greater Virginia”, and the Union was useful as long as it fulfilled that purpose, especially in protecting the horror of slavery. (One of my original reasons for reading this history was to learn what led to the establishment of the ludicrous Electoral College).
Interestingly, as discussed in this book, as time passed and Jefferson’s successor James Madison had to confront the realities of governing (such as financing the War of 1812), he wound up supporting some of what used to be Federalist positions (like a national bank, and direct taxation, and permanent armed forces) – demonstrating he was flexible enough to learn from his experience (not necessarily that those positions were always correct.)
Much of this book is in fact highly nuanced, and I learned a lot from it. I don’t think this is a hagiography of Jefferson and Madison at all.
But I was really disappointed at the vitriol regarding their opponents.
I’ve read Chernow’s biographies of Washington and Hamilton – and a criticism I have for Chernow is that he also has a nasty habit of building up his subjects by denigrating the qualities of those who oppose them. (Otherwise, I thought they were great.) I had hoped for better here.
September 18, 2021
At first glance this looks like a double biography, but it is more correctly the biography of the relationship between these two founders. There is some discussion of their early lives and the starts of their careers, but only a little. What portion is included is for the specific purpose of noting who/what influenced their thinking, and to set up one thesis of the authors that both founders spent most of their lives as Virginians first, and Americans second.
In addition to making plain the regional nature of their concerns, and how that priority affected their political actions, the authors wish to re-evaluate the common perceptions of both men and their relationship. They note the common view that Jefferson played the primary and leading role in their relationship, but dispute that by showing the influence that Madison had on him and the policies of his presidential administration. They also take care to separate the two personalities, and show that the common depictions of Madison (bookish, boring, submissive to Jefferson) are particularly off base.
The authors are convincing in their theses, and their marshalled evidence is quite compelling. I do admit, though, having not read much about Madison on his own, I did not have some of the preconceptions that they were arguing against.
This is not a 'popular history' or narrative history like you will find with McCullough or Philbrick; this is definitely more in depth than that, though it is still accessible. It is, though, quite dense. The authors throw a lot of names and events at you, and you are expected to keep up. The reader is clearly expected to already know who did what and when; events are referred to without a lot of background. This book is very much focused on the why and wherefore, instead.
Given the density of this book, it is not one I would suggest for a novice reader when it comes to Revolution and Early American history. But for somebody who already has some grounding in the basics and who wants to know more about the workings of these two founders, I highly recommend it.
In addition to making plain the regional nature of their concerns, and how that priority affected their political actions, the authors wish to re-evaluate the common perceptions of both men and their relationship. They note the common view that Jefferson played the primary and leading role in their relationship, but dispute that by showing the influence that Madison had on him and the policies of his presidential administration. They also take care to separate the two personalities, and show that the common depictions of Madison (bookish, boring, submissive to Jefferson) are particularly off base.
The authors are convincing in their theses, and their marshalled evidence is quite compelling. I do admit, though, having not read much about Madison on his own, I did not have some of the preconceptions that they were arguing against.
This is not a 'popular history' or narrative history like you will find with McCullough or Philbrick; this is definitely more in depth than that, though it is still accessible. It is, though, quite dense. The authors throw a lot of names and events at you, and you are expected to keep up. The reader is clearly expected to already know who did what and when; events are referred to without a lot of background. This book is very much focused on the why and wherefore, instead.
Given the density of this book, it is not one I would suggest for a novice reader when it comes to Revolution and Early American history. But for somebody who already has some grounding in the basics and who wants to know more about the workings of these two founders, I highly recommend it.
January 1, 2019
I absolutely loved this book. I found it quite refreshing to dive into this brilliant work of historiography after the cluster that is "Gone Girl." In fact, I enjoyed the book so much that my slower pace so that I could savor the pages almost meant that I ran out of time in 2018 to finish!
The partnership of Jefferson and Madison is one that almost anyone in America knows thanks to history books, and Lin-Manuel Miranda's "Hamilton" of course. However, I knew little of the intimacies of the actual partnership and the relationship of these two men. The two authors, Burstein and Isenberg (somehow Goodreads leaves off the female author? hmm...), weave a narrative that shows no hint of dual authorship, a cohesive narrative that draws the reader into the intricacies that come with fighting a revolution through the written word, politics, and much more, establishing a government and forging a legacy.
For any person remotely interested in American history of any time, especially the Revolutionary and Early National Era, I highly recommend this book.
The partnership of Jefferson and Madison is one that almost anyone in America knows thanks to history books, and Lin-Manuel Miranda's "Hamilton" of course. However, I knew little of the intimacies of the actual partnership and the relationship of these two men. The two authors, Burstein and Isenberg (somehow Goodreads leaves off the female author? hmm...), weave a narrative that shows no hint of dual authorship, a cohesive narrative that draws the reader into the intricacies that come with fighting a revolution through the written word, politics, and much more, establishing a government and forging a legacy.
For any person remotely interested in American history of any time, especially the Revolutionary and Early National Era, I highly recommend this book.
June 28, 2024
Finishing this book on the date of Madison's death was extremely coincidental, but seeing as it took me more than three years to read the whole thing, this work feels rather timely, especially at a moment in our nation when age and the appearance of frailty is running up against a palpable fear of this nation's final chapter. There were certainly pages, especially near the end, when I felt these two authors belabored their points on slavery and racism, such deep, original sins that we still seem hard-pressed to constantly deny or disregard for years to come. But nevertheless, so much is covered here, front to back, that it would be an injustice to imply the authors' closing excess warranted a lesser recognition on the bulk of history they compiled and organized. It's a densely-worded account of our complex, yet very human American story as told through the words and experiences of two very prominent leaders. My pen was always out, and nearly every page was marked with lines of my own making, because there's plenty to grapple with, turn after turn, again and again for years to come.
August 29, 2017
Dispels the myths surrounding two founding fathers.
Any student of US history will find the period from 1750ish thru around 1830 to be nothing like the age of enlightenment that portraits of the period suggest. Politics was a rough business, no more civil than than our times. It is amazing that the country held together at all, and from the outset the slave holding states of the South were falling behind the industrial North, and the basis for the Civil War was already in place. I found it reassuring that today's political animosity is no worse than that which Jeff and Mad faced. However, they were able to maintain their principles. Lengthy and interesting for history buffs.
Any student of US history will find the period from 1750ish thru around 1830 to be nothing like the age of enlightenment that portraits of the period suggest. Politics was a rough business, no more civil than than our times. It is amazing that the country held together at all, and from the outset the slave holding states of the South were falling behind the industrial North, and the basis for the Civil War was already in place. I found it reassuring that today's political animosity is no worse than that which Jeff and Mad faced. However, they were able to maintain their principles. Lengthy and interesting for history buffs.
October 23, 2017
The founding fathers present us modern problems
Great history on the personal side of Jefferson and Madison's friendship. Presents us with much dilemma about their view on African-Americans, slavery, women and northerners. Raises deep questions about the meaning of "original intent" in regards to the Constitution. Jefferson comes off, as I have read in other histories, as a jerk. Madison as much more principled.
Great history on the personal side of Jefferson and Madison's friendship. Presents us with much dilemma about their view on African-Americans, slavery, women and northerners. Raises deep questions about the meaning of "original intent" in regards to the Constitution. Jefferson comes off, as I have read in other histories, as a jerk. Madison as much more principled.
June 29, 2020
(Between three and four stars) It was an interesting book. I really liked how the authors compared the men and studied them through their friendship. I think Madison comes across better but that may just be personal preference and the fact that the authors wanted to show more of Madison since Jefferson is probably the more famous of the two men. I also liked how they broke up the long chapters into sections, making it an easier read.
February 6, 2017
I liked this book as it helped me understand the opposite perspective to Washington and Hamilton. The story was interesting but not quite as compelling a read. I most liked better understanding Madison after having read The Federalist Papers and recognized his brilliance in setting up a government with checks and balances.
February 22, 2018
I was afraid this was going to read like the Adams' Dynasty which I gave up reading! But, no! Quite readable and filled with analysis of the politics of the early time period. So much more detail about relationships and the development of ideas than you get in any textbook. Definitely recommend to all history teachers! Took me about 3 weeks to finish but I've had a lot of other stuff to do!
July 21, 2017
Truly fascinating exploration of one of the seminal political alliances in early US history. It's not by chance that Madison's name is first. While much has been written about Jefferson, Madison in many ways made Jefferson's success possible.
July 13, 2020
Probably only readable by diehard history buffs. Great insight into Madison and Jefferson’s collaborations, including their disagreements with Alexander Hamilton. Would have liked more info on Bill of Rights, but I think authors thought everyone else covers that.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 73 reviews