What do you think?
Rate this book
The Great Contradiction: The Tragic Side of the American Founding
A major new history from the author of the Pulitzer Prize–winning Founding Brothers and the National Book Award winner American Sphinx, on how America’s founders—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams—regarded the issue of slavery as they drafted the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. In this daring and important work, our most trusted voice on the founding era reckons with the realities and regrets of our founding and the tragedy of its two great the failure to end slavery and the failure to avoid Indian removal
“How does it appear in the sight-of-heaven,” wrote Samuel Hopkins of Newport, “that these States, who have been fighting for liberty, cannot agree in any political constitution unless it indulge and authorize them to enslave their fellow men.”
On the eve of the American Revolution, half a million enslaved African Americans, many in place for several generations, were permanently embedded in the North American population. The slave trade was flourishing, even as the thirteen colonies armed themselves to defend against the idea of being governed without consent. This paradox gave birth to what one of our most trusted and admired historians, Joseph J. Ellis, calls the “American Dilemma.” How could a government that had been fought for and founded on the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence institutionalize slavery? How could it permit a tidal wave of western migration by settlers who understood the phrase “pursuit of happiness” to mean claiming Indian land?
In The Great Contradiction, Ellis, with narrative grace and a flair for irony and paradox, addresses the questions that lie at America’s twisted roots—questions that turned even the sharpest minds of the revolutionary generation into mental contortionists. He discusses the first debates around slavery and the treatment of Native Americans, from the Constitutional Convention to the Treaty of New York, revealing the thinking and rationalizations behind Jay, Hamilton, and Madison’s revisions of the Articles of Confederation, and highlights the key role of figures like Quaker abolitionist Anthony Benezet and Creek chief Alexander McGillivray.
Ellis writes with candor and deftness, his clarion voice rising above presentist historians and partisans, who are eager to make the founders into trophies in the ongoing culture wars. Instead, Ellis tells a story that is rooted in the coexistence of grandeur and failure, brilliance and blindness, grace and sin.
“How does it appear in the sight-of-heaven,” wrote Samuel Hopkins of Newport, “that these States, who have been fighting for liberty, cannot agree in any political constitution unless it indulge and authorize them to enslave their fellow men.”
On the eve of the American Revolution, half a million enslaved African Americans, many in place for several generations, were permanently embedded in the North American population. The slave trade was flourishing, even as the thirteen colonies armed themselves to defend against the idea of being governed without consent. This paradox gave birth to what one of our most trusted and admired historians, Joseph J. Ellis, calls the “American Dilemma.” How could a government that had been fought for and founded on the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence institutionalize slavery? How could it permit a tidal wave of western migration by settlers who understood the phrase “pursuit of happiness” to mean claiming Indian land?
In The Great Contradiction, Ellis, with narrative grace and a flair for irony and paradox, addresses the questions that lie at America’s twisted roots—questions that turned even the sharpest minds of the revolutionary generation into mental contortionists. He discusses the first debates around slavery and the treatment of Native Americans, from the Constitutional Convention to the Treaty of New York, revealing the thinking and rationalizations behind Jay, Hamilton, and Madison’s revisions of the Articles of Confederation, and highlights the key role of figures like Quaker abolitionist Anthony Benezet and Creek chief Alexander McGillivray.
Ellis writes with candor and deftness, his clarion voice rising above presentist historians and partisans, who are eager to make the founders into trophies in the ongoing culture wars. Instead, Ellis tells a story that is rooted in the coexistence of grandeur and failure, brilliance and blindness, grace and sin.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published October 28, 2025
258 people are currently reading
6851 people want to read
About the author
Joseph J. Ellis
38 books1,334 followersJoseph John-Michael Ellis III is an American historian whose work focuses on the lives and times of the Founding Fathers of the United States. His book American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson won a National Book Award in 1997 and Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for History. Both of these books were bestsellers.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews
December 30, 2025
This is a well-written, entertaining, informative non-fiction book. It explores the conflict of the founding fathers' pursuit of liberty while supporting slavery and the relocation of the Native American people from their lands in a clear and concise manner. The opinions of George Washington, Henry Knox, and Philip Schuyler on the topic of the Native American situation were fascinating. Ms. Kimberly Farr does an outstanding job narrating the audiobook.
March 2, 2026
This was a powerful and thought-provoking book. Joseph Ellis, one of our most preeminent historians and writers, delivers a hard-hitting examination of America’s founding — not as a mythic triumph, but as a fragile and morally complicated beginning.
What struck me most was Ellis’s unflinching description of how the Founding Fathers effectively punted on two of the most explosive issues facing the young republic: slavery and Native American sovereignty. The priority was winning independence and holding the union together — with the hope that slavery might somehow “work itself out” over time. Reading this with modern hindsight is sobering. It reframes the Constitution not just as a work of genius, but as a document shaped by avoidance, compromise, and political necessity.
Ellis provides incredible insights into figures like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. One fascinating takeaway — without spoiling too much — is Ellis’s argument that Washington, had he lived later, would almost certainly have fought on the Union side in the Civil War. That alone speaks volumes about Washington’s evolving views on national unity and slavery.
I also appreciated the attention given to lesser-discussed but crucial figures. Learning more about Alexander McGillivray — the brilliant Creek leader who negotiated directly with Washington — added an essential Native diplomatic dimension that often gets overlooked. And as always, I loved seeing familiar Revolutionary War personalities like Joseph Plumb Martin and the “battling bookseller” Henry Knox make meaningful appearances. Ellis has a gift for weaving these lives together into a living narrative.
My only real critique is structural. The book ends somewhat abruptly. Just as we’re deep into Jefferson’s later life — his financial ruin, his contradictions, his legacy — the narrative simply stops. No epilogue, no extended reflection, no afterword to help land the plane. It felt like the intellectual momentum deserved a more deliberate closing.
Still, this book gave me a deeper understanding of the origins of America’s enduring racial struggles and political fractures. Reading it around Lincoln’s birthday made the connections even more powerful. Lincoln, in many ways, was forced to confront and resolve the moral crises that the founders lacked either the unity or the gumption to face directly.
Ellis doesn’t tear the founders down — but he does humanize them. And in doing so, he reveals how the contradictions present at the creation still echo loudly today.
A compelling, unsettling, and necessary read.
What struck me most was Ellis’s unflinching description of how the Founding Fathers effectively punted on two of the most explosive issues facing the young republic: slavery and Native American sovereignty. The priority was winning independence and holding the union together — with the hope that slavery might somehow “work itself out” over time. Reading this with modern hindsight is sobering. It reframes the Constitution not just as a work of genius, but as a document shaped by avoidance, compromise, and political necessity.
Ellis provides incredible insights into figures like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. One fascinating takeaway — without spoiling too much — is Ellis’s argument that Washington, had he lived later, would almost certainly have fought on the Union side in the Civil War. That alone speaks volumes about Washington’s evolving views on national unity and slavery.
I also appreciated the attention given to lesser-discussed but crucial figures. Learning more about Alexander McGillivray — the brilliant Creek leader who negotiated directly with Washington — added an essential Native diplomatic dimension that often gets overlooked. And as always, I loved seeing familiar Revolutionary War personalities like Joseph Plumb Martin and the “battling bookseller” Henry Knox make meaningful appearances. Ellis has a gift for weaving these lives together into a living narrative.
My only real critique is structural. The book ends somewhat abruptly. Just as we’re deep into Jefferson’s later life — his financial ruin, his contradictions, his legacy — the narrative simply stops. No epilogue, no extended reflection, no afterword to help land the plane. It felt like the intellectual momentum deserved a more deliberate closing.
Still, this book gave me a deeper understanding of the origins of America’s enduring racial struggles and political fractures. Reading it around Lincoln’s birthday made the connections even more powerful. Lincoln, in many ways, was forced to confront and resolve the moral crises that the founders lacked either the unity or the gumption to face directly.
Ellis doesn’t tear the founders down — but he does humanize them. And in doing so, he reveals how the contradictions present at the creation still echo loudly today.
A compelling, unsettling, and necessary read.
January 1, 2026
Joseph Ellis has written a number of books about the American founding fathers. For this book he has gone through his notes one more time and prepared this book's narrative focusing on the contradiction between slavery and displacement of Indians with the spirit of liberty and equality that justified their formation of a new republic.
Most people at the time identified as citizens of their State first, and identification as part of a United States came second. A majority of the population at that time were satisfied with the government operating under the Articles of Confederation, and it was a small group of elites that felt it needed to be improved. Thus getting it changed required some skilled manipulations. Ellis refers to it as a coup d'état.
Ultimately the southern states valued slavery more than unity, and they were willing to vote no on any unity plan if slavery was threatened. The northern states were not willing to do the same with their antislavery position. The solution was to avoid discussion of slavery to the extent possible.
It was interesting how the newly prepared constitution was interpreted differently between northern and southern states. Many in the north felt that it provided for a strong central government that would have sufficient power to end slavery sometime in the future. Proslavery leaders in the south felt that the Constitution protected their interests. It was good that they both felt that way they did, because otherwise the Constitution would have never been adopted.
The book includes a chapter on negotiations between the early government and native Americans. One thing the new Constitution provided for was that the Federal Government was the entity that made treaties with the Indians. It's obvious from the following language in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 by the Confederation Congress that their early intent was to treat native Americans with respect.
The book ends with a chapter discussing the fate of Washington's and Jefferson's slaves. Both their estates were heavily in debt and slaves were their most valuable asset. Washington was still able to free his slave after his death through his will, but creditors forced the sale of Jefferson's slaves.
Below are some quotations from the book with my introductory comments.
Slavery which is so obviously evil to us today was not so obviously evil prior to the eighteenth century. It's interesting to note that among all the great philosophers and thinkers of the ancient Greeks and Romans, there was not a single abolitionist. The following excerpt from this book expands on that observation.
Most people at the time identified as citizens of their State first, and identification as part of a United States came second. A majority of the population at that time were satisfied with the government operating under the Articles of Confederation, and it was a small group of elites that felt it needed to be improved. Thus getting it changed required some skilled manipulations. Ellis refers to it as a coup d'état.
Ultimately the southern states valued slavery more than unity, and they were willing to vote no on any unity plan if slavery was threatened. The northern states were not willing to do the same with their antislavery position. The solution was to avoid discussion of slavery to the extent possible.
It was interesting how the newly prepared constitution was interpreted differently between northern and southern states. Many in the north felt that it provided for a strong central government that would have sufficient power to end slavery sometime in the future. Proslavery leaders in the south felt that the Constitution protected their interests. It was good that they both felt that way they did, because otherwise the Constitution would have never been adopted.
The book includes a chapter on negotiations between the early government and native Americans. One thing the new Constitution provided for was that the Federal Government was the entity that made treaties with the Indians. It's obvious from the following language in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 by the Confederation Congress that their early intent was to treat native Americans with respect.
“... the utmost good faith shall always be observed towards Indians; their land and property shall never be taken from them without their consent.”The book describes the negotiations between the new Federal government and the Creek Nation (1790 Treaty of New York). The book says that George Washington felt his honor was besmirched by the later invasion of new settlers into the Creek territory in violation of the treaty. The Federal government was powerless to keep settlers out of Indian country.
The book ends with a chapter discussing the fate of Washington's and Jefferson's slaves. Both their estates were heavily in debt and slaves were their most valuable asset. Washington was still able to free his slave after his death through his will, but creditors forced the sale of Jefferson's slaves.
Below are some quotations from the book with my introductory comments.
Slavery which is so obviously evil to us today was not so obviously evil prior to the eighteenth century. It's interesting to note that among all the great philosophers and thinkers of the ancient Greeks and Romans, there was not a single abolitionist. The following excerpt from this book expands on that observation.
For more than four centuries the most important voices of Western civilization remained mute as a highly organized program of unspeakable barbarity with genocidal implications flourished throughout Europe. Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Aquinas, Erasmus, Locke, and all the Catholic popes regarded slavery and the slave trade as acceptable features of European society. Western civilization lacked a conscience.The following quote from the book is a reminder that African Americans have deeper roots in American than most whites.
Since a majority of the white population in the United States arrived in the 19th and early 20th centuries, African Americans as a group can trace their origins as Americans further back in time than a majority of whites.The slave trade was financially the most lucrative business available to traders of that era which explains their moral blindness.
Moral blindness made eminent economic sense.
December 6, 2025
4.5 Stars!
"Western civilization lacked a conscience."
"We are beginning to forget that the patriots of former days were men like ourselves."
The Great Contradiction, to which this book speaks is the original sin of The United States: the failure to end slavery and the failure to avoid Indian removal. I agree on both counts. You can't talk all this shit about "Freedom" while enslaving Black people and committing genocide against Native Americans. I mean not only did the founders do nothing to abolish slavery they actually endorsed it by passing the original Fugitive Slave Act. So even the founders who were against slavery morally, were perfectly ok with slavery in practice.
"Within the Virginia political universe, the most self-evident truth of all was white supremacy."
This is a short and very easy to read book about the founding of the United States. You don't need to be a History buff to enjoy this book.
"Next to the failure to end slavery, or at least put it on the road to extinction, the inability to reach a just accommodation with Native Americans was the greatest failure of the revolutionary generation."
"Western civilization lacked a conscience."
"We are beginning to forget that the patriots of former days were men like ourselves."
The Great Contradiction, to which this book speaks is the original sin of The United States: the failure to end slavery and the failure to avoid Indian removal. I agree on both counts. You can't talk all this shit about "Freedom" while enslaving Black people and committing genocide against Native Americans. I mean not only did the founders do nothing to abolish slavery they actually endorsed it by passing the original Fugitive Slave Act. So even the founders who were against slavery morally, were perfectly ok with slavery in practice.
"Within the Virginia political universe, the most self-evident truth of all was white supremacy."
This is a short and very easy to read book about the founding of the United States. You don't need to be a History buff to enjoy this book.
"Next to the failure to end slavery, or at least put it on the road to extinction, the inability to reach a just accommodation with Native Americans was the greatest failure of the revolutionary generation."
August 28, 2025
Short, insightful, and pulls no punches.
p 5 "Moral blindness made eminent economic sense"
p 135 “Next to the failure to end slavery, or at least put it on the road to extinction, the inability to reach a just accommodation with the Native Americans was the greatest failure of the revolutionary generation.”
Full review coming soon for Shelf Awareness.
p 5 "Moral blindness made eminent economic sense"
p 135 “Next to the failure to end slavery, or at least put it on the road to extinction, the inability to reach a just accommodation with the Native Americans was the greatest failure of the revolutionary generation.”
Full review coming soon for Shelf Awareness.
October 31, 2025
Remarkably truthful. Amazing insight in relatively few pages. Ellis is an American treasure. The shadow of the Great Contradiction continues to hang over the United States. Understanding our history in its entirety is a necessary step toward healing.
January 19, 2026
A concise and unvarnished examination of the central contradiction at the heart of the American founding: a government born from the ideals of the Declaration of Independence that simultaneously preserved and protected slavery. Joseph Ellis argues that this tension was not accidental but a deliberate political compromise, understood by the Founders and deferred to future generations. The book situates this unresolved moral failure as a defining legacy of the nation’s history rather than a problem safely confined to the past.
December 25, 2025
I loved this book. History books that are under 200 pages are a refreshing companion to longer, denser historical records. I felt this book portrayed the founding fathers well: principled and brilliant white men who lived with contradictions as it related to African Americans and Native people. Ultimately, different decisions could have been made but they were deferred to future generations. Facing history in its atrocity and reality is a necessary step in becoming the nation we are capable of.
December 25, 2025
Although Ellis covers no real new ground here, he brings forward ideas from previous works that shine a harsher light on two ideas: 1, How the Founders accepted slavery to achieve and maintain a union between the end of the Revolution and the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and 2, initial attempts to share land with Native Americans.
The book itself focuses far more on the former topic, though its chapter on the Treaty of New York is a fascinating look at how Washington et al. attempted to demonstrate the strengths of a newfound nation’s ideal as a republic and as a diplomatic force with the sovereign Creek Nation.
Regarding slavery, the book concludes with brief examinations of how Washington and Jefferson considered their legacies — or, perhaps more properly, how history would remember them. Both men, both architects and leaders of The Cause, were of the Virginia planter class — and Jefferson, at least, would live to see how Old Dominion would lose its stature due to the very reason it was able to establish itself in early America.
Washington, Jefferson and several other Virginians — including Madison and Monroe — died in debt; they were presidents who would live on in the history books, beneficiaries of an abhorrent practice they claimed to detest though didn’t always seem (if at all) to grasp the contradiction of their reluctance to end slavery.
Ellis, as always, puts the reader in the time and setting of his subject; however, in “The Great Contradiction,” the 82-year-old author adopts a looser dual standard approach. Here, he seeks understanding for the actions, within their context, while still holding them accountable for their inexplicable behavior. (Or, at least he did so more than he has in his previous books.)
The answer, as he has returned to time and again over the course of his bibliography, is we simply wouldn’t have an America to write about had it not been for the exact course our leaders have taken — and, ever-curious, he joins the reader in finding out why.
The book itself focuses far more on the former topic, though its chapter on the Treaty of New York is a fascinating look at how Washington et al. attempted to demonstrate the strengths of a newfound nation’s ideal as a republic and as a diplomatic force with the sovereign Creek Nation.
Regarding slavery, the book concludes with brief examinations of how Washington and Jefferson considered their legacies — or, perhaps more properly, how history would remember them. Both men, both architects and leaders of The Cause, were of the Virginia planter class — and Jefferson, at least, would live to see how Old Dominion would lose its stature due to the very reason it was able to establish itself in early America.
Washington, Jefferson and several other Virginians — including Madison and Monroe — died in debt; they were presidents who would live on in the history books, beneficiaries of an abhorrent practice they claimed to detest though didn’t always seem (if at all) to grasp the contradiction of their reluctance to end slavery.
Ellis, as always, puts the reader in the time and setting of his subject; however, in “The Great Contradiction,” the 82-year-old author adopts a looser dual standard approach. Here, he seeks understanding for the actions, within their context, while still holding them accountable for their inexplicable behavior. (Or, at least he did so more than he has in his previous books.)
The answer, as he has returned to time and again over the course of his bibliography, is we simply wouldn’t have an America to write about had it not been for the exact course our leaders have taken — and, ever-curious, he joins the reader in finding out why.
December 18, 2025
I liked a lot of this book. I thought it was interesting and well written. It was easy to understand and I really did learn a lot as an APUSH teacher that I can use in future lessons. I will say that I think the author needed to talk more about Jefferson having children with an enslaved woman and the implications of that. There's a whole chapter at the end of the book dedicated to Jefferson and his contradictory views on slavery, and there is the smallest mention of him having biracial, enslaved children and no mention of Sally Hemmings. I also think that if the author was going to tackle Native American treatment in this book, he needed to make it longer and include more about it. Overall though it was an interesting read and I did learn a lot.
March 16, 2026
This explores the tension between the founding ideals of liberty and equality and the reality that many of the same founders were deeply connected to slavery. Rather than portraying them as heroes or villains, Joseph J. Ellis presents the nation’s founding as a moment shaped by a moral conflict that was postponed rather than resolved. The book highlights how the promise of freedom coexisted with a system that denied it to millions. It’s a reminder that history is often complicated and uncomfortable and that grappling with those contradictions is part of why studying the past is so meaningful and important.
March 13, 2026
4.5 This is a thought provoking look at two “failures” that founding fathers in establishing a new national formed ideals “all men are created equal.” The issue of slavery is major focus of this book especially highlighting the moral struggles of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
The sad treatment of Native Americans that Washington tried begin to address was explored.
The one omission in the I noticed is that It was not mentioned about relationship of Thomas Jefferson with Sally Hemmings, an enslaved woman and their children.
The sad treatment of Native Americans that Washington tried begin to address was explored.
The one omission in the I noticed is that It was not mentioned about relationship of Thomas Jefferson with Sally Hemmings, an enslaved woman and their children.
Did not finish
November 12, 2025"It dawned on me, gradually, that for the same reason that religions require divinely inspired prophets, emerging nations seem to require mythological heroes. Think Odysseus for Greece, Romulus and Remus for Rome, King Arthur for England." set me off in so many different ways that i'm just cutting my losses on this one. you're telling me that you, a historian specializing in the founding of the united states, do not even know the definition of a nation? can't even get started on the king arthur thing but please know that i'm weeping blood.
November 25, 2025
Accessible history of the thought and thinking of founding fathers over issues of enslavement and the treatment of native American persons.
December 30, 2025
4.5 stars rounded up to a 5. Ellis's writing is engaging and accessible (as always), and this short book doesn't mince words about the founding generation's failures with respect to slavery and Native American policy. Particularly important book in 2025 and on the heels of the 250th.
January 31, 2026
The founders were so close to an immortal greatness but couldn’t let go of their final vice.
November 5, 2025
“Looking forward, one could safely predict that prominent leaders in Virginia would wrap themselves in the Confederate flag, embrace the myth of the “Lost Cause,” vehemently oppose the civil rights movement, and derive their sense of significance by standing proudly on the wrong side of American history.”
November 9, 2025
Joseph J. Ellis --- winner of the Pulitzer Prize for History for FOUNDING BROTHERS: The Revolutionary Generation and the National Book Award for AMERICAN SPHINX: The Character of Thomas Jefferson --- has long been regarded as one of the foremost contemporary scholars of the Revolutionary Era.
In THE GREAT CONTRADICTION: The Tragic Side of the American Founding, Ellis examines “two legacies of the founding era that must be noticed, and both qualify as enormous tragedies.” Those legacies --- the utter failure to end slavery “or, more realistically, put it on the road to extinction,” and the unsuccessful attempt to protect the territorial rights of the fledgling nation’s Native American population --- have haunted the country throughout its history.
From the outset, Ellis acknowledges the gulf that separates the Declaration of Independence’s soaring rhetoric of equality from the political realities confronting the founders as they strove first to unite to win a war against the powerful British Empire, and then to navigate the by-no-means assured transition from a loose affiliation of states jealous of their identities and prerogatives to a unified nation.
Beginning with the debates of the Continental Congress, Ellis recognizes that when it came to the slave trade and slavery, “moral considerations had no role to play in the deliberations.” He argues that in severing the colonies’ ties with the British Empire, unlike historic revolutionaries like Robespierre, Lenin and Mao, “the leaders of the American resistance were not utopian visionaries, but, rather, an assemblage of pragmatic statesmen accustomed to negotiating the space between ideals and realities in their respective colonial governments.” For them, at all times, “there was a clear consensus that slavery was a taboo topic with the explosive potential to blow up any pretense of political unity.”
In this concise but well-sourced and lucid account, Ellis explains how once the war had been won (with the aid of at least 5,000 Black soldiers, though some 10,000 to 12,000 fought on the British side), that perspective carried over into the debates surrounding the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution. In his view, the vision of a national government advanced by men like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay was nothing less than a “coup d’etat,” but one doomed to failure if abolitionists had pressed their arguments to their ultimate conclusion. In detailing the four sectional compromises over slavery that were part of this process, he argues that pragmatism ultimately triumphed over principle, as it became clear that any effort to abolish the slave trade, let alone emancipate the nearly 700,000 slaves living in America by 1790, doomed the federal project to failure.
Ellis devotes considerably less attention to the story of the failed attempt to put policy toward Native Americans on a more humane path. Most of his discussion concerns the efforts of George Washington and his Secretary of War, Henry Knox, to negotiate the pact formalized as the Treaty of New York in August 1790 with the colorful and controversial chief of the Creek Nation, Alexander McGillivray. “They inherited an Indian policy headed inexorably toward the extermination of Indian Country east of the Mississippi,” Ellis writes in describing the challenge facing Washington and Knox, “and they attempted to turn it around.”
The treaty, signed amid a celebratory atmosphere, was intended to protect the Creeks and allied tribes in the face of rapid settlement of their homelands. But as Ellis explains, the good intentions it embodied were swamped by the demographic realities of an expanding white American population and a shrinking Native American one. “No political effort to contain or control this explosion stood much chance of success,” he argues. And by the time of Andrew Jackson’s presidency and the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, a policy antithetical to the one pursued by Washington and Knox had long held sway.
THE GREAT CONTRADICTION concludes with brief portraits of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in their final years, contrasting Washington’s decision to free his Mount Vernon slaves in his will with Jefferson’s refusal to do so based on his judgment that emancipation without repatriation of America’s slave population was impossible. In different but related ways, the actions of both men epitomize the tragedy of this era of American history.
In a work that is both clear-eyed and sympathetic, Ellis --- who describes his efforts during the past four decades as “dedicated to rescuing the founders from the electromagnetic field we have constructed around them, asserting that “the mythology surrounding the founding generation was a fog bank that needed to be blown away” --- thoughtfully fulfills his mission. In doing so, he enables us to see, and perhaps identify with, America's founders in their full humanity. Despite all their undeniable achievements, the legacies of these leaders must be weighed against their inability to rise above their circumstances and do what they knew to be right.
Reviewed by Harvey Freedenberg
In THE GREAT CONTRADICTION: The Tragic Side of the American Founding, Ellis examines “two legacies of the founding era that must be noticed, and both qualify as enormous tragedies.” Those legacies --- the utter failure to end slavery “or, more realistically, put it on the road to extinction,” and the unsuccessful attempt to protect the territorial rights of the fledgling nation’s Native American population --- have haunted the country throughout its history.
From the outset, Ellis acknowledges the gulf that separates the Declaration of Independence’s soaring rhetoric of equality from the political realities confronting the founders as they strove first to unite to win a war against the powerful British Empire, and then to navigate the by-no-means assured transition from a loose affiliation of states jealous of their identities and prerogatives to a unified nation.
Beginning with the debates of the Continental Congress, Ellis recognizes that when it came to the slave trade and slavery, “moral considerations had no role to play in the deliberations.” He argues that in severing the colonies’ ties with the British Empire, unlike historic revolutionaries like Robespierre, Lenin and Mao, “the leaders of the American resistance were not utopian visionaries, but, rather, an assemblage of pragmatic statesmen accustomed to negotiating the space between ideals and realities in their respective colonial governments.” For them, at all times, “there was a clear consensus that slavery was a taboo topic with the explosive potential to blow up any pretense of political unity.”
In this concise but well-sourced and lucid account, Ellis explains how once the war had been won (with the aid of at least 5,000 Black soldiers, though some 10,000 to 12,000 fought on the British side), that perspective carried over into the debates surrounding the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution. In his view, the vision of a national government advanced by men like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay was nothing less than a “coup d’etat,” but one doomed to failure if abolitionists had pressed their arguments to their ultimate conclusion. In detailing the four sectional compromises over slavery that were part of this process, he argues that pragmatism ultimately triumphed over principle, as it became clear that any effort to abolish the slave trade, let alone emancipate the nearly 700,000 slaves living in America by 1790, doomed the federal project to failure.
Ellis devotes considerably less attention to the story of the failed attempt to put policy toward Native Americans on a more humane path. Most of his discussion concerns the efforts of George Washington and his Secretary of War, Henry Knox, to negotiate the pact formalized as the Treaty of New York in August 1790 with the colorful and controversial chief of the Creek Nation, Alexander McGillivray. “They inherited an Indian policy headed inexorably toward the extermination of Indian Country east of the Mississippi,” Ellis writes in describing the challenge facing Washington and Knox, “and they attempted to turn it around.”
The treaty, signed amid a celebratory atmosphere, was intended to protect the Creeks and allied tribes in the face of rapid settlement of their homelands. But as Ellis explains, the good intentions it embodied were swamped by the demographic realities of an expanding white American population and a shrinking Native American one. “No political effort to contain or control this explosion stood much chance of success,” he argues. And by the time of Andrew Jackson’s presidency and the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, a policy antithetical to the one pursued by Washington and Knox had long held sway.
THE GREAT CONTRADICTION concludes with brief portraits of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in their final years, contrasting Washington’s decision to free his Mount Vernon slaves in his will with Jefferson’s refusal to do so based on his judgment that emancipation without repatriation of America’s slave population was impossible. In different but related ways, the actions of both men epitomize the tragedy of this era of American history.
In a work that is both clear-eyed and sympathetic, Ellis --- who describes his efforts during the past four decades as “dedicated to rescuing the founders from the electromagnetic field we have constructed around them, asserting that “the mythology surrounding the founding generation was a fog bank that needed to be blown away” --- thoughtfully fulfills his mission. In doing so, he enables us to see, and perhaps identify with, America's founders in their full humanity. Despite all their undeniable achievements, the legacies of these leaders must be weighed against their inability to rise above their circumstances and do what they knew to be right.
Reviewed by Harvey Freedenberg
November 17, 2025
This is a review of "The Great Contradiction" The tragic side of the American founding by Joseph j Ellis. I have read this book and have some things that I would like you to know about this author and this narrative. Joseph j Ellis is a proven and award winning top nationally acclaimed author and historian. He is a Known intellectual, concerning research and an accurate telling of whatever subject he might be discussing. You will find that all of his statements, all of the information you have never heard is documented in the back of the book under notes and abbreviations.
I have read all of his printed works and have the utmost respect for the honest way he delivers any subject. He is truthful, honest and his directness of the subject is enlightening and unusual. These are just a few of the gifts this author and historian brings to the written page.
This book is the most to the point complete narrative to the buildup to the revolution for independence that I have ever read. He offers you the real result of that struggle. Mr Ellis gives us the reasons with a deep insight as to what led up to war. I say the reasons will surprise you. I'm a 65-year-old American who has attended two colleges and studied as an amateur historian. Mr Ellis has offered truth between the lines ,truth of history that we were never taught. The extreme aversion to harmonious collaboration with the black race is centuries old ignorance. This book is totally enlightening in the real thoughts and results of our struggle for independence. You will be shocked to learn ,we were governed by mob rule. The individual states and the people within the states made the rules. Folks did as they pleased for years. No federal government as we know it is in sight. Not for years to come. The founding fathers generation were a mass of contradictions. Mr Ellis explains the slavery issue was always on the table, to be abolished. Our founding fathers or the founding generation, knew that it was repugnant and a violation to man; they did address it over and over again only to table it from fear. There were many reasons most were financial and some were the inability to deal with an integrated community and a white race that might become diluted with The blood of their slaves. This was almost 100 years before the civil war.
Mr Ellis explains the Native American plight ,which was basically lies, treaties that were broken mainly by the people settling in their territory. The murders that you read about were mainly committed by mob rule, again the US government is not yet set up. Note, we're dealing with the years in the 1790s. It's really a surprise to me to find out how long it took to set up a functioning federal government. You will learn what I call the truth in our historic paperwork, documents and the attitude of the founders. After reading this you can really understand why the country is set up as it is. One could predict some of the future if you were standing in 1793 and looking at the information I just read. Actually some did but it did no good.
This is a book that will enlighten you it will fill in all the gaps you've never learned that you didn't know existed. Mr Ellis tells our story as blunt and truthful as you have never heard. I truly enjoyed learning the truth of our founding some of the subjects are quite upsetting, but so is some of our history. Hopefully we can learn from these filled in voids of information.
Was equality ever really on the table? Read the" Great Contradiction"by Joseph j Ellis okay and find out.
March 3, 2026
The founding fathers of the American Revolution are often treated with near god-like qualities. Indeed, they exhibited great courage in risking their lives and treasure in an audacious attempt to defeat the greatest military power of the time – England.
Although many American history books have long described the founding fathers in this light, relatively little attention has been given to the “Great Contradiction” as described by author and historian Joseph Ellis. That contradiction, of course, was slavery. Simply put how could a government founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence have allowed slavery to continue. The simple answer according to Ellis was practicality. The 13 original colonies would never have been united against England had slavery been prohibited. The Constitution would never have been adopted by the colonies to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation if the slave trade were abolished.
Some critics of the book have claimed it is unfair to the founding fathers especially Washington and Jefferson- both slaveholders - to use today’s morality in judging these leaders. But what these critics ignore, and Ellis highlights is the fact that slavery was condemned by many American leaders at the time of the revolution and the drafting of the Constitution. Even by the standards of the day, slavery was morally repugnant to several of the Founding Fathers including John Adams.
So, the overall result was good though the compromises to get there were morally flawed, and Ellis does a wonderful job of highlighting that contradiction without preaching.
But for me the most interesting part of the book were the chapters devoted to issues relating to the Native Americans. Washington realized some agreement was needed to allow some settlements in the areas east of the Mississippi River. To that end negotiations began with Alexander McGillivary the leader of the Creek Nation. I knew nothing of this Native American who was the son of a Muscogee mother and a Scottish father. He was educated in the British colonies and was able to negotiate in the Kings English with Washington and other American leaders. The negotiations took place in New York amid much pomp and circumstance.
As great as Washington was in leading the revolutionary forces and being the first president, he was naive when it came to confronting the Native American issue. He believed troops could enforce the agreement separating settlers from Native Americans while preserving their tribal lands. The sheer numbers of settlers, however, streaming west even in the early years of the republic doomed this agreement to fail. According to Ellis, this was one more example of American leaders ignoring reality. The eventual resettlement or death for thousands of Native Americans would make a mockery of this and many other such agreements.
Once again, the ideas outlined in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal did not apply to slaves or Native Americans, thus the Great Contradiction. As we near the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence it is worth keeping this contradiction in mind as we praise the courage and foresight of the Founding Fathers.
Although many American history books have long described the founding fathers in this light, relatively little attention has been given to the “Great Contradiction” as described by author and historian Joseph Ellis. That contradiction, of course, was slavery. Simply put how could a government founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence have allowed slavery to continue. The simple answer according to Ellis was practicality. The 13 original colonies would never have been united against England had slavery been prohibited. The Constitution would never have been adopted by the colonies to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation if the slave trade were abolished.
Some critics of the book have claimed it is unfair to the founding fathers especially Washington and Jefferson- both slaveholders - to use today’s morality in judging these leaders. But what these critics ignore, and Ellis highlights is the fact that slavery was condemned by many American leaders at the time of the revolution and the drafting of the Constitution. Even by the standards of the day, slavery was morally repugnant to several of the Founding Fathers including John Adams.
So, the overall result was good though the compromises to get there were morally flawed, and Ellis does a wonderful job of highlighting that contradiction without preaching.
But for me the most interesting part of the book were the chapters devoted to issues relating to the Native Americans. Washington realized some agreement was needed to allow some settlements in the areas east of the Mississippi River. To that end negotiations began with Alexander McGillivary the leader of the Creek Nation. I knew nothing of this Native American who was the son of a Muscogee mother and a Scottish father. He was educated in the British colonies and was able to negotiate in the Kings English with Washington and other American leaders. The negotiations took place in New York amid much pomp and circumstance.
As great as Washington was in leading the revolutionary forces and being the first president, he was naive when it came to confronting the Native American issue. He believed troops could enforce the agreement separating settlers from Native Americans while preserving their tribal lands. The sheer numbers of settlers, however, streaming west even in the early years of the republic doomed this agreement to fail. According to Ellis, this was one more example of American leaders ignoring reality. The eventual resettlement or death for thousands of Native Americans would make a mockery of this and many other such agreements.
Once again, the ideas outlined in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal did not apply to slaves or Native Americans, thus the Great Contradiction. As we near the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence it is worth keeping this contradiction in mind as we praise the courage and foresight of the Founding Fathers.
December 23, 2025
I read The Great Contradiction: The Tragic Side of the American Founding on the heels of Joseph Ellis' Revolutionary Summer and found that the two books—both slim volumes averaging just over 200 pages of text each—complement each other quite smoothly and, taken together, are equally effective in abolishing many of the national myths that we learned from childhood on up and in replacing them with much more realistic, actual history. Having now used a word that will undoubtedly turn potential readers away from both books, I must hasten to stress that this is readable—I'm tempted to say entertaining—history that is a far cry from that boring history book we had to wade through in our public school days.
In The Great Contradiction, Ellis addresses three principal topics very clearly: the machinations, deals, trade-offs and heavy politicking that produced an intentionally ambiguous document that the U.S. calls its Constitution; the abject failure of the so-called “Founders” to abolish slavery when they may have had the opportunity, as well as their valiant but equally failed attempt to safeguard the rights of the previous inhabitants of the land, the American “Indians”; and how the personalities of several primary actors--Adams, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Monroe, etc.—shaped the future of the confederation of states during their infancy.
Readers certainly emerge from a reading of The Great Contradiction with a clear (and probably new) understanding of the two-and-a-half-century old conflict between Federalists and “states righters.” Those of us who thought that was a 20th and 21st century disagreement have been mistaken. It's been a point of contention since before the States were ever United.
Now, if one absolutely insists on stark, objective facts and believes that nuances and implications have no place in a book dealing with historical matters, such a reader may well levy a string of criticisms against Ellis in his handling of the “Great Contradiction” in the nation's founding. Of all his books, this one may be the most forthright in expressing the author's beliefs and opinions as well as his approvals and disapprovals. In the case of Joseph J. Ellis, I do not find this objectionable because he is a noted expert in his field of American history, and, along with Nathaniel Philbrick, he is among the most knowledgeable authors in that field that I have read. I trust his opinions and conclusions to be based on meticulous study and am perfectly satisfied that he should express them in his analyses of events, their causes, and their effects.
Readers will, I believe, find The Great Contradiction to be a quick yet intriguing read that will not only hold their interest throughout but will also imbue them with a greater and more accurate understanding of the fraught and ambiguous environment in which the States would become more or less united as an actual nation rather than the loose confederation in which they found themselves once the treaty of 1783 formally ended the Revolution. The book is assuredly worth the reader's time, attention, and enjoyment.
In The Great Contradiction, Ellis addresses three principal topics very clearly: the machinations, deals, trade-offs and heavy politicking that produced an intentionally ambiguous document that the U.S. calls its Constitution; the abject failure of the so-called “Founders” to abolish slavery when they may have had the opportunity, as well as their valiant but equally failed attempt to safeguard the rights of the previous inhabitants of the land, the American “Indians”; and how the personalities of several primary actors--Adams, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Monroe, etc.—shaped the future of the confederation of states during their infancy.
Readers certainly emerge from a reading of The Great Contradiction with a clear (and probably new) understanding of the two-and-a-half-century old conflict between Federalists and “states righters.” Those of us who thought that was a 20th and 21st century disagreement have been mistaken. It's been a point of contention since before the States were ever United.
Now, if one absolutely insists on stark, objective facts and believes that nuances and implications have no place in a book dealing with historical matters, such a reader may well levy a string of criticisms against Ellis in his handling of the “Great Contradiction” in the nation's founding. Of all his books, this one may be the most forthright in expressing the author's beliefs and opinions as well as his approvals and disapprovals. In the case of Joseph J. Ellis, I do not find this objectionable because he is a noted expert in his field of American history, and, along with Nathaniel Philbrick, he is among the most knowledgeable authors in that field that I have read. I trust his opinions and conclusions to be based on meticulous study and am perfectly satisfied that he should express them in his analyses of events, their causes, and their effects.
Readers will, I believe, find The Great Contradiction to be a quick yet intriguing read that will not only hold their interest throughout but will also imbue them with a greater and more accurate understanding of the fraught and ambiguous environment in which the States would become more or less united as an actual nation rather than the loose confederation in which they found themselves once the treaty of 1783 formally ended the Revolution. The book is assuredly worth the reader's time, attention, and enjoyment.
December 26, 2025
This was a gift from my wife for Christmas, and I greatly appreciate it because I consider Joseph Ellis to be the best modern voice on the Founding Era / Founding Fathers and because I learned several new specific facts about that time period.
In this brief book Ellis argues that the Founders made two grievous errors and both were contradictory to the ideas that the drove the Revolution: (1) They did not create a path, gradual or immediate, for the abolition of slavery. (2) They failed to create a workable plan for protecting tribal lands of American Indians and likewise a workable plan for incorporating Indians into the United States as residents and/or citizens. More particularly, Ellis looks at how both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington wrestle with these two issues both mentally and politically.
Some interesting tidbits:
Between 1550 and 1860, European vessels embarked with 12.5 million African captives and landed 10.7 million in the New World. This means, 1.8 million died during the Middle Passage, a staggering number! Of the survivors, only 400,000 (4%) went to North America. Most went to South America and the Caribbean.
George Whitefield and other Great Awakening preachers typically promoted abolition and/or equality. Whitefield wrote, "Do you think you are any better by Nature than the poor Negroes? No, in no wise. Blacks are just as much, and no more, conceived and born in sin, as White men are."
Abraham Lincoln wrote this about Jefferson and his Declaration of Independence: "All honor to Jefferson, to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that today, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of re-applying tyranny and oppression."
At the end of the Revolutionary War, it is estimated that 10% of the Continental Army was Black soldiers.
34 of the 55 Constitutional Convention delegates were slave owners. George Washington was aided by his man servant, Billy Lee, throughout the entirety of the proceedings.
Due to the Three-Fifths Compromise in the Constitution, Jefferson was referred to as "the Negro President" after his narrow victory in the election of 1800.
Calvin Coolidge was distantly related to Jefferson. Jefferson had a granddaughter who married and moved to Boston. Her name was Ellen Randolph Coolidge.
Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all died bankrupt even though they owned substantial plantations and large numbers of slaves.
Lastly, during his first term as POTUS, Washington told his Cabinet that, if there was a civil war during his lifetime, he would side with the North. Jefferson leaked this info to his friends in Virginia and they then regarded Mt. Vernon as an "enemy outpost."
In this brief book Ellis argues that the Founders made two grievous errors and both were contradictory to the ideas that the drove the Revolution: (1) They did not create a path, gradual or immediate, for the abolition of slavery. (2) They failed to create a workable plan for protecting tribal lands of American Indians and likewise a workable plan for incorporating Indians into the United States as residents and/or citizens. More particularly, Ellis looks at how both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington wrestle with these two issues both mentally and politically.
Some interesting tidbits:
Between 1550 and 1860, European vessels embarked with 12.5 million African captives and landed 10.7 million in the New World. This means, 1.8 million died during the Middle Passage, a staggering number! Of the survivors, only 400,000 (4%) went to North America. Most went to South America and the Caribbean.
George Whitefield and other Great Awakening preachers typically promoted abolition and/or equality. Whitefield wrote, "Do you think you are any better by Nature than the poor Negroes? No, in no wise. Blacks are just as much, and no more, conceived and born in sin, as White men are."
Abraham Lincoln wrote this about Jefferson and his Declaration of Independence: "All honor to Jefferson, to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that today, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of re-applying tyranny and oppression."
At the end of the Revolutionary War, it is estimated that 10% of the Continental Army was Black soldiers.
34 of the 55 Constitutional Convention delegates were slave owners. George Washington was aided by his man servant, Billy Lee, throughout the entirety of the proceedings.
Due to the Three-Fifths Compromise in the Constitution, Jefferson was referred to as "the Negro President" after his narrow victory in the election of 1800.
Calvin Coolidge was distantly related to Jefferson. Jefferson had a granddaughter who married and moved to Boston. Her name was Ellen Randolph Coolidge.
Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all died bankrupt even though they owned substantial plantations and large numbers of slaves.
Lastly, during his first term as POTUS, Washington told his Cabinet that, if there was a civil war during his lifetime, he would side with the North. Jefferson leaked this info to his friends in Virginia and they then regarded Mt. Vernon as an "enemy outpost."
November 20, 2025
3.5/5
Succinct and concise "The Great Contradiction" focuses on the hypocrisy not just within individual leaders of "The Cause" but to the social structure and justifications of the time concerning who was deemed as 'all men'. Starting with a look prior to the lead up of the Revolution, it extends far beyond the usual points of slavery's role in determining state inclusion into the union and it's representational power. It doesn't give a pass to many who have gone down in history as not being in favor of slavery or were 'friends' to indigenous populations. Those who did not denounce or fight against this dehumanization still saw how other humans were treated as a matter of 'regrettable' tool for negotiation.
I have read collections of articles concerning black soldiers and contributors to the cause. But this work did a good job of putting those accounts into perspective in terms of scale. Some may argue that this author might not be the most appropriate voice to be speaking this story, but something about this approach leads me to believe they're using their established publishing history to open a door. He demonstrates the injustice mostly from the statements and records of leaders and their households and correspondents. He doesn't need to dive into assumptions about the lives of the enslaved and indigenous populations more than the simple truth of the matter to make his point about the people controlling their lives.
The one exception to this happens to also be one area I had no previous knowledge of. No where in all my readings concerning the founding had I ever heard the story of Alexander McGillivray. I appreciated that how native populations factored into early expansionism and formation of the union. It brought 'real' individuals onto the stage where other works have glassed over the nations and the resolution rather than the process.
I also found the depiction of Washington to be surprisingly well rounded. Ellis didn't shy away from his rougher edges that he'd like glossed over in his monuments. More works these days are shattering the infallible moral hero myth. But I admit I didn't know of his vow not to break up families and never gave him at least a touch of credit that the integration of his slaves and Martha's might have been a factor in his decisions on that account.
A good introduction to the topic that I hope will make way for more elements of forgotten lives taken up by more authors.
Succinct and concise "The Great Contradiction" focuses on the hypocrisy not just within individual leaders of "The Cause" but to the social structure and justifications of the time concerning who was deemed as 'all men'. Starting with a look prior to the lead up of the Revolution, it extends far beyond the usual points of slavery's role in determining state inclusion into the union and it's representational power. It doesn't give a pass to many who have gone down in history as not being in favor of slavery or were 'friends' to indigenous populations. Those who did not denounce or fight against this dehumanization still saw how other humans were treated as a matter of 'regrettable' tool for negotiation.
I have read collections of articles concerning black soldiers and contributors to the cause. But this work did a good job of putting those accounts into perspective in terms of scale. Some may argue that this author might not be the most appropriate voice to be speaking this story, but something about this approach leads me to believe they're using their established publishing history to open a door. He demonstrates the injustice mostly from the statements and records of leaders and their households and correspondents. He doesn't need to dive into assumptions about the lives of the enslaved and indigenous populations more than the simple truth of the matter to make his point about the people controlling their lives.
The one exception to this happens to also be one area I had no previous knowledge of. No where in all my readings concerning the founding had I ever heard the story of Alexander McGillivray. I appreciated that how native populations factored into early expansionism and formation of the union. It brought 'real' individuals onto the stage where other works have glassed over the nations and the resolution rather than the process.
I also found the depiction of Washington to be surprisingly well rounded. Ellis didn't shy away from his rougher edges that he'd like glossed over in his monuments. More works these days are shattering the infallible moral hero myth. But I admit I didn't know of his vow not to break up families and never gave him at least a touch of credit that the integration of his slaves and Martha's might have been a factor in his decisions on that account.
A good introduction to the topic that I hope will make way for more elements of forgotten lives taken up by more authors.
January 5, 2026
This review is for the Kindle edition
The book is divided into two major sections: Part One contains seven chapters, and Part Two includes two chapters and a notes section, for a total of 285 pages. The author relies almost exclusively on secondary sources. It is unclear why primary archival materials—readily available through the National Archives and numerous academic institutions—were not incorporated.
I have assigned this book a two‑star rating for the following reasons:
1. Overreliance on Secondary Sources
The author’s exclusive use of secondary sources results in a work that functions largely as a survey of material already published rather than an original contribution to the historical record.
2. Absence of a Bibliography
Despite extensive references to previously published scholarship, the book does not include a formal bibliography. This omission limits transparency and makes it difficult for readers to verify sources or pursue further study.
3. Narrative Weakened by Excessive Moral Commentary
Even assuming the secondary materials are accurate and reliable, the book contains detailed historical information. However, the narrative impact is diminished by an overemphasis on moral commentary that appears unnecessarily accusatory.
While the atrocities of slavery must be confronted and clearly articulated, such discussions are most effective when presented objectively rather than through rhetoric that mirrors the condemnatory tone it criticizes. A historical example—Thomas Paine’s 1764 exchange with a local minister who challenged his own inconsistency—illustrates how moral arguments lose effectiveness when they appear hypocritical.
4. Lack of Accountability for Academic Narratives
The author frequently infers - in general - that the reader may be perpetuating myths and misconceptions about the Founding Fathers and slavery. Yet the book does not acknowledge the responsibility held by scholars, including those in the author’s own profession, who shaped the very educational frameworks being critiqued. This lack of self‑reflection weakens the argument.
5. Distracting Use of Virtue Signaling
The book has the potential to be a valuable resource. However, its effectiveness is undermined by recurring expressions of virtue signaling that detract from the otherwise informative historical material.
The book is divided into two major sections: Part One contains seven chapters, and Part Two includes two chapters and a notes section, for a total of 285 pages. The author relies almost exclusively on secondary sources. It is unclear why primary archival materials—readily available through the National Archives and numerous academic institutions—were not incorporated.
I have assigned this book a two‑star rating for the following reasons:
1. Overreliance on Secondary Sources
The author’s exclusive use of secondary sources results in a work that functions largely as a survey of material already published rather than an original contribution to the historical record.
2. Absence of a Bibliography
Despite extensive references to previously published scholarship, the book does not include a formal bibliography. This omission limits transparency and makes it difficult for readers to verify sources or pursue further study.
3. Narrative Weakened by Excessive Moral Commentary
Even assuming the secondary materials are accurate and reliable, the book contains detailed historical information. However, the narrative impact is diminished by an overemphasis on moral commentary that appears unnecessarily accusatory.
While the atrocities of slavery must be confronted and clearly articulated, such discussions are most effective when presented objectively rather than through rhetoric that mirrors the condemnatory tone it criticizes. A historical example—Thomas Paine’s 1764 exchange with a local minister who challenged his own inconsistency—illustrates how moral arguments lose effectiveness when they appear hypocritical.
4. Lack of Accountability for Academic Narratives
The author frequently infers - in general - that the reader may be perpetuating myths and misconceptions about the Founding Fathers and slavery. Yet the book does not acknowledge the responsibility held by scholars, including those in the author’s own profession, who shaped the very educational frameworks being critiqued. This lack of self‑reflection weakens the argument.
5. Distracting Use of Virtue Signaling
The book has the potential to be a valuable resource. However, its effectiveness is undermined by recurring expressions of virtue signaling that detract from the otherwise informative historical material.
December 31, 2025
* I never regurgitate long summaries about what books are about because so many other reviews already do it. I appreciate when reviews get right to the point.
If you love American history and insightful writing vivid with imagery, Ellis is your guy.
If you're already an Ellis fan (raising my hand, too), you know that he's unlike 99% of other historians in that he doesn't just repeat what happened, when, and by whom. He cleves into the inner soul of the Revolutionary era to psycho-profile its founders, their virtues, and their flaws.
The Great Contradiction is the same, but this time, he dredges up two long (but not deeply) buried hideous traits of America's founding: slavery and mis-/mal- treatment of Native Americans.
I could quibble with a few of Ellis's finer points but...
OK, I will.
Most glaringly, he contends that abolition was dead by the time the 1820s rolled into view. It might have been hibernating, but it was far from dead, as its revitalization showed in the mid-1800s. And even if abolition didn't end slavery directly, it was one link in a chain reaction leading to the Civil War and ultimately led to abolition.
A second finer point is that Ellis's work tends to be bounded in time and space, meaning, the analysis tends to be confined to the Revolutionary era and to the Revolutionary region. With the international ban on slavery Canada, Mexico, and Haiti banning slavery in the early 1800s, the domestic abolition movement piled on, thereby putting slavery's future on the road itself to abolition.
But, like I said, this is quibbling. Even if some finer points of an author's analysis are imbalanced, they're still thought provoking. And in the end, it shows as Lincoln intimated, there's no such thing as a perfect union. Only a more perfect one that every generation, ourselves included, must craft.
PS: One of these days, I'd love to see Ellis 's views on a 3rd Contradiction: How the founding's nod to capitalism (including Hamilton's treatment of debt) set American on the path to fiscal bondage (wheter it be to foreign debt servicers, the marginalization of certain communities within the country, or elected officials to their donors).
If you love American history and insightful writing vivid with imagery, Ellis is your guy.
If you're already an Ellis fan (raising my hand, too), you know that he's unlike 99% of other historians in that he doesn't just repeat what happened, when, and by whom. He cleves into the inner soul of the Revolutionary era to psycho-profile its founders, their virtues, and their flaws.
The Great Contradiction is the same, but this time, he dredges up two long (but not deeply) buried hideous traits of America's founding: slavery and mis-/mal- treatment of Native Americans.
I could quibble with a few of Ellis's finer points but...
OK, I will.
Most glaringly, he contends that abolition was dead by the time the 1820s rolled into view. It might have been hibernating, but it was far from dead, as its revitalization showed in the mid-1800s. And even if abolition didn't end slavery directly, it was one link in a chain reaction leading to the Civil War and ultimately led to abolition.
A second finer point is that Ellis's work tends to be bounded in time and space, meaning, the analysis tends to be confined to the Revolutionary era and to the Revolutionary region. With the international ban on slavery Canada, Mexico, and Haiti banning slavery in the early 1800s, the domestic abolition movement piled on, thereby putting slavery's future on the road itself to abolition.
But, like I said, this is quibbling. Even if some finer points of an author's analysis are imbalanced, they're still thought provoking. And in the end, it shows as Lincoln intimated, there's no such thing as a perfect union. Only a more perfect one that every generation, ourselves included, must craft.
PS: One of these days, I'd love to see Ellis 's views on a 3rd Contradiction: How the founding's nod to capitalism (including Hamilton's treatment of debt) set American on the path to fiscal bondage (wheter it be to foreign debt servicers, the marginalization of certain communities within the country, or elected officials to their donors).
March 23, 2026
Reading The Great Contradiction by Joseph J. Ellis felt less like discovering something new and more like having a long-standing doubt finally confirmed.
For quite some time, I have questioned why certain parts of American history are not challenged more openly. It often seemed as though there were invisible boundaries in how these stories could be told, particularly in mainstream accounts. In most of what I had read about American independence and the Declaration, the individuals involved were almost always described in reverential terms, great men, wise men, men of foresight, integrity, honour, and near-flawless judgement. The repetition of this portrayal gives it the appearance of unquestionable truth.
But that narrative has always sat uneasily with me. When viewed alongside slavery, racial segregation, and the treatment of Native populations, it begins to look less like a complete account and more like a carefully curated one. The suffering of entire communities appears to be either marginalised or treated as a secondary detail, as though it does not quite fit the story being told.
What this book does, quite bluntly, is strip away the idea that these figures were beyond criticism. There were no sacred red lines. They were questioned, challenged, and in many cases, exposed for acting out of self-interest, political expediency, and a desire to secure their place in history. The notion that they operated with consistent moral integrity does not stand up to scrutiny. That is what makes the book effective. It does not try to preserve a comforting image. Instead, it presents a far more uncomfortable one, where ideals and actions are often at odds, and where the gap between rhetoric and reality is hard to ignore.
If anything, the book reinforces a simple but important point: history is not just about what is recorded, but about what is emphasised, and what is conveniently left out. This account brings some of those neglected aspects to the surface, and in doing so, challenges the reader to reconsider what they have long taken for granted.
For quite some time, I have questioned why certain parts of American history are not challenged more openly. It often seemed as though there were invisible boundaries in how these stories could be told, particularly in mainstream accounts. In most of what I had read about American independence and the Declaration, the individuals involved were almost always described in reverential terms, great men, wise men, men of foresight, integrity, honour, and near-flawless judgement. The repetition of this portrayal gives it the appearance of unquestionable truth.
But that narrative has always sat uneasily with me. When viewed alongside slavery, racial segregation, and the treatment of Native populations, it begins to look less like a complete account and more like a carefully curated one. The suffering of entire communities appears to be either marginalised or treated as a secondary detail, as though it does not quite fit the story being told.
What this book does, quite bluntly, is strip away the idea that these figures were beyond criticism. There were no sacred red lines. They were questioned, challenged, and in many cases, exposed for acting out of self-interest, political expediency, and a desire to secure their place in history. The notion that they operated with consistent moral integrity does not stand up to scrutiny. That is what makes the book effective. It does not try to preserve a comforting image. Instead, it presents a far more uncomfortable one, where ideals and actions are often at odds, and where the gap between rhetoric and reality is hard to ignore.
If anything, the book reinforces a simple but important point: history is not just about what is recorded, but about what is emphasised, and what is conveniently left out. This account brings some of those neglected aspects to the surface, and in doing so, challenges the reader to reconsider what they have long taken for granted.
February 26, 2026
Ellis’s “The Great Contradiction: The Tragic Side of the American Founding” is his newest work in his series of books on early American history. Unlike most of Ellis’ other works which focus on specific figures, “The Great Contradiction” focuses on the underlying ‘elephant in the room’ haunting the survival of the infant American Republic, this being slavery.
Ellis pulls a lot of ideas that are touched on within his other books, but makes them the main focus of this one. He explains how slavery became an established practice during the colonial era, how the American revolutionary brushed aside solutions to slavery to unite the colonies in the fight against Britain, how the colonial government did the same to establish the republic, and how over the subsequent decades, even through the dissolution of the articles of confederation and the establishment of the constitution, major political figures delayed or avoided the topic of slavery altogether due to the risk it posed at dissolving the nation.
Ellis’ work is both informative and fair. He provides the reader with much background so that they can see not just the wide spectrum of beliefs around the slavery arguments, but how complexly intertwined this systematic oppression was with economics and social status. His breakdown of these ideas show the nuance needed in understanding the founding father’s perspectives on this and the required cognitive dissonance of these historic figures to advocate against slavery, yet still own slaves.
Ellis’ writing style truly excels when he is able to delve into stories, especially ones that have so many complicated threads that need explaining. Because of this, Ellis’ biographical works are phenomenal pieces to read. “The Great Contradiction” does not feel as strong as some of Ellis’ previous books, so for me, it is not at quite the same level, however, the books strong argument and masterful use of primary sources ensures that it is still a good read.
Ellis pulls a lot of ideas that are touched on within his other books, but makes them the main focus of this one. He explains how slavery became an established practice during the colonial era, how the American revolutionary brushed aside solutions to slavery to unite the colonies in the fight against Britain, how the colonial government did the same to establish the republic, and how over the subsequent decades, even through the dissolution of the articles of confederation and the establishment of the constitution, major political figures delayed or avoided the topic of slavery altogether due to the risk it posed at dissolving the nation.
Ellis’ work is both informative and fair. He provides the reader with much background so that they can see not just the wide spectrum of beliefs around the slavery arguments, but how complexly intertwined this systematic oppression was with economics and social status. His breakdown of these ideas show the nuance needed in understanding the founding father’s perspectives on this and the required cognitive dissonance of these historic figures to advocate against slavery, yet still own slaves.
Ellis’ writing style truly excels when he is able to delve into stories, especially ones that have so many complicated threads that need explaining. Because of this, Ellis’ biographical works are phenomenal pieces to read. “The Great Contradiction” does not feel as strong as some of Ellis’ previous books, so for me, it is not at quite the same level, however, the books strong argument and masterful use of primary sources ensures that it is still a good read.
September 1, 2025
A country born with the words "All men are created equal," wins its independence and then must deal with an enormous irony. Two kinds of people are not being treated equally at all. Hundreds of thousands of humans, kidnapped at gunpoint, are given life sentences to do the bidding of their masters or suffer unthinkable punishments. Native Americans who had lived here for centuries found themselves to be inconvenient in the face of the booming and boisterous culture that had arisen with the European invasion. In both cases, men of good will wanted to do the right thing but did not have the power to do so. Half of the country had banned slavery or set the wheels in motion to do so in their states. The southern states were adamant that they be free to keep up the system. Virginia charted what seemed like a more moderate course, being in favor of ending the slave trade. Ellis points out that this was actually a ploy to use the law of supply and demand to make their slave property more valuable. The leaders could only provide a fig leaf of banning the import after 20 years, and hoping that a federal government would then be strong enough to end slavery. It sort of happened in 1861, but much blood was shed getting it done. With the Indians, Washington tried to work out an equitable solution. With great fanfare he invited Creek Indian chiefs to New York to be wined, dined and given an iron clad treaty that they could have their lands and soldiers would be posted to secure the borders. It turned out that there were not enough soldiers to do the job. The can was again kicked down the road to be settled in future blood baths. Ellis, a major historical writer keeps the story in human terms, making occasional jibes at Jefferson, whose inspiring words did not reflect his actual life. A very timely book to say the least.
January 4, 2026
Joseph Ellis has a well deserved reputation as a leading historian in American history. So when I learned that he had written a book largely outside the scope of his earlier books, about the contradiction of America's founding ideals of liberty and equality with its refusal to outlaw slavery and its treatment of Native Americans, I was intrigued.
It is an impressive, thoughtful book. It rejects justifying the actions of our founders as products of our times as it also rejects simply demonizing them. There is an excellent discussion of the writing of Declaration of Independence by a slave holder who acknowledged that slavery was horrible but reluctant to abolish it. It discusses George Washington's initial attempts to recover slaves who escaped during the Revolutionary War but in the end refusing to push the issue for him or the other slave holders. And uses Benjamin Franklin's words to help sum up the issue. Franklin, a staunch abolitionist, endorsed ratification of the Constitution even as he was disappointed that it did not adequately address slavery. That was because of the priority of having the Constitution for all the United States that he and others believed (sadly, wrongly) would provide the structure to later outlaw slavery.
Ellis lies the fault of the contradiction between the promises of the Declaration of Independence and the later removal of Native Americans not at its leaders but at the greed of its citizens. Washington, Henry Knox and even Jefferson come off as trying to do the right thing but having the efforts overwhelmed by settlers ignoring the law and treaties. Ellis also speculates of what might have happened if there had been an effective Supreme Court and viable National Guards at the time.
In short, a great book with fresh perspective that makes you think, albeit with sorrow
It is an impressive, thoughtful book. It rejects justifying the actions of our founders as products of our times as it also rejects simply demonizing them. There is an excellent discussion of the writing of Declaration of Independence by a slave holder who acknowledged that slavery was horrible but reluctant to abolish it. It discusses George Washington's initial attempts to recover slaves who escaped during the Revolutionary War but in the end refusing to push the issue for him or the other slave holders. And uses Benjamin Franklin's words to help sum up the issue. Franklin, a staunch abolitionist, endorsed ratification of the Constitution even as he was disappointed that it did not adequately address slavery. That was because of the priority of having the Constitution for all the United States that he and others believed (sadly, wrongly) would provide the structure to later outlaw slavery.
Ellis lies the fault of the contradiction between the promises of the Declaration of Independence and the later removal of Native Americans not at its leaders but at the greed of its citizens. Washington, Henry Knox and even Jefferson come off as trying to do the right thing but having the efforts overwhelmed by settlers ignoring the law and treaties. Ellis also speculates of what might have happened if there had been an effective Supreme Court and viable National Guards at the time.
In short, a great book with fresh perspective that makes you think, albeit with sorrow
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews