What do you think?
The Great Contradiction: The Tragic Side of the American Founding
A major new history from our most trusted voice on the Revolutionary era, the author of the Pulitzer Prize–winning Founding Brothers and the National Book Award winner American Sphinx, and featured in THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, a film by Ken Burns, Sarah Botstein, and David Schmidt, on PBS.
An astounding look at how America’s founders—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams—regarded the issue of slavery as they drafted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. A daring and important work that ultimately reckons with the two great failures of America’s the failure to end slavery and the failure to avoid Indian removal.
On the eve of the American Revolution, half a million enslaved African Americans were 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 admired historians, Joseph J. Ellis, calls the “great contradiction”: How could a government that had been justified 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 the pursuit of Indian lands?
With narrative grace and a flair for irony and paradox, Ellis 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.
An astounding look at how America’s founders—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams—regarded the issue of slavery as they drafted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. A daring and important work that ultimately reckons with the two great failures of America’s the failure to end slavery and the failure to avoid Indian removal.
On the eve of the American Revolution, half a million enslaved African Americans were 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 admired historians, Joseph J. Ellis, calls the “great contradiction”: How could a government that had been justified 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 the pursuit of Indian lands?
With narrative grace and a flair for irony and paradox, Ellis 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.
287 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 28, 2025
About the author
Joseph J. Ellis
39 books1,365 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 200 reviews
February 13, 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. A great America at 250 reading
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. A great America at 250 reading
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.
December 31, 2025
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.
May 4, 2026
A thoughtful, succinct presentation of the American Founding as it relates to the intentions behind key phrases within the Declaration of Independence, such as:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Just how self-evident are these truths, given how often they have been subverted by subsequent political leaders? Does the category of "all men" include women, immigrants, or people who do not identify as White? And, if so, how to reconcile our ongoing failure to fully uphold such principled treatment of our fellow human beings?
In this book, the persistence of the Atlantic Slave Trade beyond 1808, and (to a much lesser degree) the lead up to the Indian Removal Act of 1830, are scrutinized carefully. I admit that the informational details found here were not included in my own public school American History education during the time of Kennedy through Reagan.
Ellis does an excellent job of blowing much of the dust off of what has been a hagiographic representation of America's first statesmen and politicians. At the same time, he emphasizes and recognizes how most of these individuals grappled honorably and sincerely with the many extremely difficult points of contention which threatened to undermine the possibility of forming a unified nation from disparate states. Even so, what does seem self-evident is that we have not heeded such basic, ancillary wisdom as that:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana, 1905
The conditions which jeopardized and complicated America's founding have not disappeared and - more recently - have been further strengthened and given free reign:
The single voice of reason was drowned by the howlings of a triple-headed monster in which Prejudice, Avarice & Pusillanimity were united.
John Laurens, 1782
Sadly, many in our citizenry today can describe our current bipartisan elected leaders' governing dynamic in precisely these terms. And the worries and fears which accompanied Laurens, Franklin, Hamilton, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe to their graves remain with us. As Ellis painfully but honestly summarizes:
Looking forward, one could safely predict that prominent leaders... 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.
The unvarnished truth of America's origin story still contains lessons for how we might govern today. We Americans of all stripes do have a time-limited set of choices before us. Let's not let Apathy, Equivocation, or Moral Indolence keep us from participating in a system that is purportedly "of the People, by the People, and for the People".
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Just how self-evident are these truths, given how often they have been subverted by subsequent political leaders? Does the category of "all men" include women, immigrants, or people who do not identify as White? And, if so, how to reconcile our ongoing failure to fully uphold such principled treatment of our fellow human beings?
In this book, the persistence of the Atlantic Slave Trade beyond 1808, and (to a much lesser degree) the lead up to the Indian Removal Act of 1830, are scrutinized carefully. I admit that the informational details found here were not included in my own public school American History education during the time of Kennedy through Reagan.
Ellis does an excellent job of blowing much of the dust off of what has been a hagiographic representation of America's first statesmen and politicians. At the same time, he emphasizes and recognizes how most of these individuals grappled honorably and sincerely with the many extremely difficult points of contention which threatened to undermine the possibility of forming a unified nation from disparate states. Even so, what does seem self-evident is that we have not heeded such basic, ancillary wisdom as that:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana, 1905
The conditions which jeopardized and complicated America's founding have not disappeared and - more recently - have been further strengthened and given free reign:
The single voice of reason was drowned by the howlings of a triple-headed monster in which Prejudice, Avarice & Pusillanimity were united.
John Laurens, 1782
Sadly, many in our citizenry today can describe our current bipartisan elected leaders' governing dynamic in precisely these terms. And the worries and fears which accompanied Laurens, Franklin, Hamilton, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe to their graves remain with us. As Ellis painfully but honestly summarizes:
Looking forward, one could safely predict that prominent leaders... 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.
The unvarnished truth of America's origin story still contains lessons for how we might govern today. We Americans of all stripes do have a time-limited set of choices before us. Let's not let Apathy, Equivocation, or Moral Indolence keep us from participating in a system that is purportedly "of the People, by the People, and for the People".
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.
July 19, 2026
Yet another great book that if a sufficient number of my fellow citizens would read "might" go a long way to cooling off at least some aspects of the culture wars we're now (seemingly endlessly) enduring.
For two reasons:
First, the "tragic side" to our founding to which the author alludes are the dual "cardinal sins" (my words, not his) of this country:
1) The repeated breaking of agreements and treaties with the Native Peoples, leading in some cases, to near genocide; and
2) The enslavement of hundreds of thousands of our fellow human beings because they were Black.
And the second reason is that the author takes great care not to "paint" any of the principals in this story as one-dimensional, that is, as either "all" good or bad. Rather, he shows them as they were -- human beings like ourselves subject to misinformation, prejudices, the accepted "wisdom" or practice of their time, and the political realities that anyone in office then or since knows to exist.
The result? While not minimizing in the least the horrors of these two great "sins," he gives us an informative view of WHY they occurred. He certainly does not ask us to excuse these great faults, but he also does not condemn any of the figures he discusses. He condemns the OUTCOME of both the decisions they made and avoided -- or ducked -- making.
This provides us with a useful "prism" if you will through which to approach and view our own troubled times. None of us is fully "good" or "bad," either, something which persons of all political persuasions should remember. And we are also subject to our own prejudices and blind spots, many of them culturally and historically inherited, which can yield such powerful controls over our instinctive responses.
What he does make clear is that the men of the Founding generation (and almost all were men since women were excluded from decision-making processes) had CHOICES, some of which they faced and made and others which they shied from. By exploring in some depth the considerably mixed feelings of such persons as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington on both the "place" and treatment of Native and Black peoples, he allows us to see them wrestling with their consciences, principles, and prejudices.
Both Washington and Jefferson despised the institution of slavery, but both also doubted that Black people could successfully live alongside the white freemen. Both regarded the Native peoples as worthy of dignity and the right to live in peace, but both also did know how to stop the increasing flow of settlers from the Atlantic coast moving steadily and in greater numbers ever westward, encountering and clashing with the Natives who hunted and farmed on those lands.
As you read the book you might find yourself asking yourself some questions, as I did, such as: Just HOW might the Founding generation better treated the Native peoples? By attempting to legally fence off some land for their exclusive use, for instance? (Several attempts were made by this, including by Washington, but they all failed in the face of settler pressures.) And how to reconcile the Native peoples' regard for the land as sacred and not subject to exploitation to the point of harm with the European idea of "property"?
And as for the slavery issue, since the Southern states made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that their price for endorsing the Constitution in the summer of 1787 was that the Northern states would NOT attempt to in any way curtail the institution of slavery nor the slave trade. Even the most noble among us, had we found ourselves sitting in that hot hall in the summer of '87, would have had to be weighing the true and real "cost" of refusing to allow slavery to continue or expand with the loss of achieving a united nation (unlike the effective dis-united states under the existing Articles of Confederation).
While this book told me little that I did not already know, since I have been delving deep into American history since my retirement 22 years ago, I thought the manner of Ellis' presentation of the material, and the respectful treatment of all involved -- very much including Native and Black peoples -- provides readers with the kind of "low-temperature" information about this period and those crucial decisions which is so needed now.
As we have throughout our history, unfortunately, in recent years we have seen a resurgence of BOTH racial prejudice -- especially against Blacks and Hispanics -- and of the non-factual myth that the "only true Americans" are white descendants of Europeans.
The true is that we are ALL Americans, the good along with the bad, the wise with the foolish, the saints with the sinners. Unless we find a way to honestly confront and deal with our differences -- including separating fact from fiction -- our descendants may well look upon us with the same disdain that so many now regard the Founders.
After all, "decisions delayed" are not the same thing as "decisions avoided." Sooner or later our dilemmas must be faced and dealt with, preferably long before injustice and injury have done irreparable damage.
For two reasons:
First, the "tragic side" to our founding to which the author alludes are the dual "cardinal sins" (my words, not his) of this country:
1) The repeated breaking of agreements and treaties with the Native Peoples, leading in some cases, to near genocide; and
2) The enslavement of hundreds of thousands of our fellow human beings because they were Black.
And the second reason is that the author takes great care not to "paint" any of the principals in this story as one-dimensional, that is, as either "all" good or bad. Rather, he shows them as they were -- human beings like ourselves subject to misinformation, prejudices, the accepted "wisdom" or practice of their time, and the political realities that anyone in office then or since knows to exist.
The result? While not minimizing in the least the horrors of these two great "sins," he gives us an informative view of WHY they occurred. He certainly does not ask us to excuse these great faults, but he also does not condemn any of the figures he discusses. He condemns the OUTCOME of both the decisions they made and avoided -- or ducked -- making.
This provides us with a useful "prism" if you will through which to approach and view our own troubled times. None of us is fully "good" or "bad," either, something which persons of all political persuasions should remember. And we are also subject to our own prejudices and blind spots, many of them culturally and historically inherited, which can yield such powerful controls over our instinctive responses.
What he does make clear is that the men of the Founding generation (and almost all were men since women were excluded from decision-making processes) had CHOICES, some of which they faced and made and others which they shied from. By exploring in some depth the considerably mixed feelings of such persons as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington on both the "place" and treatment of Native and Black peoples, he allows us to see them wrestling with their consciences, principles, and prejudices.
Both Washington and Jefferson despised the institution of slavery, but both also doubted that Black people could successfully live alongside the white freemen. Both regarded the Native peoples as worthy of dignity and the right to live in peace, but both also did know how to stop the increasing flow of settlers from the Atlantic coast moving steadily and in greater numbers ever westward, encountering and clashing with the Natives who hunted and farmed on those lands.
As you read the book you might find yourself asking yourself some questions, as I did, such as: Just HOW might the Founding generation better treated the Native peoples? By attempting to legally fence off some land for their exclusive use, for instance? (Several attempts were made by this, including by Washington, but they all failed in the face of settler pressures.) And how to reconcile the Native peoples' regard for the land as sacred and not subject to exploitation to the point of harm with the European idea of "property"?
And as for the slavery issue, since the Southern states made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that their price for endorsing the Constitution in the summer of 1787 was that the Northern states would NOT attempt to in any way curtail the institution of slavery nor the slave trade. Even the most noble among us, had we found ourselves sitting in that hot hall in the summer of '87, would have had to be weighing the true and real "cost" of refusing to allow slavery to continue or expand with the loss of achieving a united nation (unlike the effective dis-united states under the existing Articles of Confederation).
While this book told me little that I did not already know, since I have been delving deep into American history since my retirement 22 years ago, I thought the manner of Ellis' presentation of the material, and the respectful treatment of all involved -- very much including Native and Black peoples -- provides readers with the kind of "low-temperature" information about this period and those crucial decisions which is so needed now.
As we have throughout our history, unfortunately, in recent years we have seen a resurgence of BOTH racial prejudice -- especially against Blacks and Hispanics -- and of the non-factual myth that the "only true Americans" are white descendants of Europeans.
The true is that we are ALL Americans, the good along with the bad, the wise with the foolish, the saints with the sinners. Unless we find a way to honestly confront and deal with our differences -- including separating fact from fiction -- our descendants may well look upon us with the same disdain that so many now regard the Founders.
After all, "decisions delayed" are not the same thing as "decisions avoided." Sooner or later our dilemmas must be faced and dealt with, preferably long before injustice and injury have done irreparable damage.
September 19, 2026
A concise, sensitive, well-researched, and very readable work.
Ellis examines the role that African-American slavery and Indian displacement played in the founding era. Most of the book deals with slavery, and the rest (actually a single chapter) with Indian affairs.
“We have been asked to choose between two competing narratives of the founding,” Ellis writes in the introduction. “One features the founders as demigods who were permitted to glimpse the eternal truths, or as Ralph Waldo Emerson once put it, ‘to see God face to face.’ The other is crowded with a cast of despicable villains who collectively comprise the deadest, whitest males in American history. These mindlessly celebratory and naïvely judgmental responses to the founders are in fact complementary cartoons, the front and back sides of the same childlike portrait that we periodically rotate, like adolescents fluctuating between the emotional imperatives of unconditional love and Oedipal hate….the prominent founders were neither demigods nor devils, and embracing either stereotype tells us more about ourselves than it does about them.” Such “pro-American” and “anti-American” commentators, Ellis writes, “think more like lawyers than historians…The moralistic agenda that some historians brandish so proudly is both fatally flawed and richly ironic, the former because might-have-been history is not really history at all, the latter because the egalitarian assumptions they celebrate all had their origins in the founding era they seek to demonize.” Ellis is able to quote John Adams himself on this very subject: “It is a common observation in Europe that nothing is so false as modern history. And I should add that nothing is so false as modern history except modern American history.”
Ellis describes how, at the start of the Revolution, the Founders basically put off these issues because they were simply too controversial. “Slavery was a taboo topic with the explosive potential to blow up any pretense of political unity.” According to Ellis, the Founders were “well-meaning prisoners of circumstance,” and there was no way for them to abolish slavery even if they had wanted to do so. As Ellis puts it, “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.” Those Founders who supported slavery weren’t eager to take up abolition, and those Founders who were appalled by slavery often just hoped that the issue would work itself out one day, after future Americans, hopefully, grew more enlightened and fixed the problem for them. One of the reasons most of the Founders never seriously considered abolishing slavery was because a “frontal assault” on slavery would risk the unity of the colonies in wartime, and would, after the war, risk the support of the southern states when it came to the founding of the new Republic. In the introduction, Ellis compares the American Revolution with the French and Russian ones, where demands for immediate justice led to the arbitrary terror and the reign of dictatorships. Ellis wonders whether, if the Founders had done what many contemporary Americans wish they had done, the American republic we know today would ever have been created. Ellis also notes that the Constitution contains no provision that restricted slavery in any way. However, he also notes that, had it contained such provisions, it never could have been passed or ratified
Ellis also notes that the onset of the revolution “stigmatized any and all institutions based on coercion rather than consent,” and that the meaning of freedom expanded to include all sorts of societal ills, from patriarchy to the property requirement to vote and, of course, slavery, as expressed in many letters and petitions written to the revolutionary leaders like John Adams. “Indeed, by the winter and spring of 1776, the entire reform agenda for the next century of American history had risen to the surface.”
Ellis also clarifies the state of the abolitionist movement at this time in American history. In the introduction Ellis describes how, on the very eve of the Revolution, Christian revivalist movements also led to the birth of a new abolitionist movement, “the first of its kind in world history,” as Ellis notes. A big question that dominated its thinking, however, was how to abolish slavery without creating a biracial society. The European powers that practiced slavery (and abolished slavery before America did) all kept their slaves in their overseas colonies, but in America, these slaves were residents. Ellis also notes that Britain was, during the time of the Revolution, the world’s leading slave trader, and proved reluctant to fully exploit such ideas as arming slaves against the rebels
If you’re familiar with this subject, you might not find anything new here, but the book does a good job showing the important role played by compromise in actually founding the nation. As Ellis writes when covering the Constitutional Convention, “the northern states cared more about preserving the union than they cared about ending slavery, while the priorities of the states in the deep south were precisely the opposite.” Ellis also writes that “the only way to end slavery at the founding was to create a federal government empowered to make domestic and foreign policy for the states. The only way to assure that a Constitution possessing such powers was ratified was to keep slavery off the agenda.” Ellis also shows how, even in the Founding era, prominent Americans were repulsed by slavery. And, even in the revolutionary era, there were American voices who criticized the revolutionaries for proclaiming liberty on one hand and tolerating or defending slavery on the other. To some commentators, criticism of the Founders’ hypocrisy is a modern phenomenon and a product of today’s times, but it is interesting to see how these exact criticisms actually existed even back then, albeit by a minority of Americans.
The role of people like Washington and Jefferson in this story is a familiar one, but Ellis still provides some rounded and vivid portraits of them and some good insights into their thinking. From reading the book, it seems like most of them were conscious of their own hypocrisies. Both Washington and Jefferson knew slavery was terrible, but neither of them pushed for emancipation.
Another issue Ellis raises is the state of the Founders’ thinking about American government. In the introduction, Ellis raises the interesting point that the Founders didn't really believe in the modern or even Jacksonian definition of “democracy.” They did believe in the “public interest,” but Ellis argues that the “majority” of Americans didn't understand this, “mostly because they were born, lived their lives, and died within a three-hour horse ride. They could not think nationally or (as Alexander Hamilton preferred) 'continentally,' because their mental horizons were quite literally limited by their day-to-day experience of life. During the war for independence, they strongly supported local militia units, but refused to extend that support to the Continental Army.”
Democracy was also one of the reasons that slavery continued during the revolutionary and founding eras. “The dominant assumption within the American political universe is that democracy is always an asset for the side committed to worthy causes,” Ellis writes in the introduction. “The exact opposite was true when it came to avoiding Indian removal or ending slavery. Any political movement to achieve these goals needed to come from the top down rather than the bottom up. Why? Because a sizable portion of the white population sought to pursue their happiness by acquiring land occupied by Native Americans. And an even larger proportion of the same segment of American society, even those willing to contemplate the abolition of slavery, could not imagine a post-emancipation America of racial equality as anything but a nightmare.”
Ellis also suggests that, as the new American nation consolidated, revolutionary ideology faded, and the enslaved population increased, the prospect for an end (or peaceful end) to American slavery grew more and more remote. And the bigger the slave population got, the more it could be argued that abolition was simply “impractical.” As Ellis puts it, “The further one got from 1776, the lower the revolutionary fires burned, and the less imperative the values of the revolutionary promise seemed.” Future historical developments would also cast doubt on the wisdom of abolition, like the Haitian Revolution, the invention of the cotton gin, the presidencies of the “Virginia Dynasty,” the belief in states’ rights over domestic matters, and the Missouri Compromise.
When it comes to Indian affairs, Ellis writes that “for the roughly hundred thousand Indians living between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, the American victory in 1783 proved an unmitigated calamity from which history would provide no rescue, unless their forced removal to land west of the Mississippi can be regarded as such.” Ellis notes the irony that the new American republic was meant to be better than the European empires, yet then proceeded to adopt essentially “imperialist” policies in regard to the original inhabitants of America. He provides some interesting insights into people like Alexander McGillivray.
Ellis also does a good job explaining Washington’s rather naive belief that federal troops could keep the peace in the West even as more and more settlers headed in that direction, even though the new federal government lacked the means to protect the Indians. He also describes how the Washington administration tried to normalize its relations with the tribes in part to counter the more ruthless tendencies of the settlers. Ellis argues that Washington and his government adopted their Indian policies out of genuine principle and that the values of the new republic required it. It would have been more politically expedient to simply ignore Indian interests, but they didn't. They tried to stop American Indian policy from becoming one of removal. Ellis notes that “a referendum among the white citizenry would have produced an overwhelming majority for Indian removal.” Ellis also notes that when Washington thought he had negotiated treaties with the Indian nations that respected their rights and protected them from American settlers, he was often undermined by state governments that kept encouraging further settlement. This genuinely infuriated Washington, and he considered it a stain on his own honor and that of the federal government’s. Like Washington, Thomas Jefferson also believed that the Indians were foreign nations rather than American subjects, and that their rights had to be respected. Unfortunately, as long as white settlers continued to move west, there would be trouble. They Founders failed to prevent Indian displacement in large part because of the sheer numbers of settlers moving west. The white population increased more and more as the Indian population declined at roughly the same rate. Another reason was that stopping the flow of western migration would have required a larger army than the federal government had. In the early Republic, the federal government also lacked the legal precedent and political institutions to take stronger action against the settlers. Ellis calls these settlers a “relentless tide that swept all treaties, promises, excellent intentions, and moral considerations to the far banks of history. This, then, is a story about irony, in which the train of the American people made an American tragedy inevitable for the first Americans.” The Founders and their ignorance, (willful or not) seems to be a major theme in the stories of American slavery and Indian displacement. Ellis concludes that, in the absence of “political institutions and legal precedents” devoted to protecting the natives, “ultimate authority resided outside of government altogether, with those ordinary American citizens seeking a better life and a parcel of land to the west. In that sense, Indian removal was the inevitable consequence of unbridled democracy in action.”
The narrative is balanced, accessible, and thoughtful and Ellis’s style is lucid and engaging and avoids being preachy, if that’s what you’re worried about. The book ends a bit abruptly, with no real epilogue, a strange choice for a work dealing with topics like these. Also, at one point in the narrative Ellis describes a certain painting but, for some reason, doesn’t include this painting in the actual book. Also, for some reason Ellis describes the Constitution of 1787 as a “coup.” Does he mean a success? If so, that seems like a peculiar word choice. Besides, that process was pretty drawn-out, so why use that term?
A clear, smoothly written and insightful work.
Ellis examines the role that African-American slavery and Indian displacement played in the founding era. Most of the book deals with slavery, and the rest (actually a single chapter) with Indian affairs.
“We have been asked to choose between two competing narratives of the founding,” Ellis writes in the introduction. “One features the founders as demigods who were permitted to glimpse the eternal truths, or as Ralph Waldo Emerson once put it, ‘to see God face to face.’ The other is crowded with a cast of despicable villains who collectively comprise the deadest, whitest males in American history. These mindlessly celebratory and naïvely judgmental responses to the founders are in fact complementary cartoons, the front and back sides of the same childlike portrait that we periodically rotate, like adolescents fluctuating between the emotional imperatives of unconditional love and Oedipal hate….the prominent founders were neither demigods nor devils, and embracing either stereotype tells us more about ourselves than it does about them.” Such “pro-American” and “anti-American” commentators, Ellis writes, “think more like lawyers than historians…The moralistic agenda that some historians brandish so proudly is both fatally flawed and richly ironic, the former because might-have-been history is not really history at all, the latter because the egalitarian assumptions they celebrate all had their origins in the founding era they seek to demonize.” Ellis is able to quote John Adams himself on this very subject: “It is a common observation in Europe that nothing is so false as modern history. And I should add that nothing is so false as modern history except modern American history.”
Ellis describes how, at the start of the Revolution, the Founders basically put off these issues because they were simply too controversial. “Slavery was a taboo topic with the explosive potential to blow up any pretense of political unity.” According to Ellis, the Founders were “well-meaning prisoners of circumstance,” and there was no way for them to abolish slavery even if they had wanted to do so. As Ellis puts it, “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.” Those Founders who supported slavery weren’t eager to take up abolition, and those Founders who were appalled by slavery often just hoped that the issue would work itself out one day, after future Americans, hopefully, grew more enlightened and fixed the problem for them. One of the reasons most of the Founders never seriously considered abolishing slavery was because a “frontal assault” on slavery would risk the unity of the colonies in wartime, and would, after the war, risk the support of the southern states when it came to the founding of the new Republic. In the introduction, Ellis compares the American Revolution with the French and Russian ones, where demands for immediate justice led to the arbitrary terror and the reign of dictatorships. Ellis wonders whether, if the Founders had done what many contemporary Americans wish they had done, the American republic we know today would ever have been created. Ellis also notes that the Constitution contains no provision that restricted slavery in any way. However, he also notes that, had it contained such provisions, it never could have been passed or ratified
Ellis also notes that the onset of the revolution “stigmatized any and all institutions based on coercion rather than consent,” and that the meaning of freedom expanded to include all sorts of societal ills, from patriarchy to the property requirement to vote and, of course, slavery, as expressed in many letters and petitions written to the revolutionary leaders like John Adams. “Indeed, by the winter and spring of 1776, the entire reform agenda for the next century of American history had risen to the surface.”
Ellis also clarifies the state of the abolitionist movement at this time in American history. In the introduction Ellis describes how, on the very eve of the Revolution, Christian revivalist movements also led to the birth of a new abolitionist movement, “the first of its kind in world history,” as Ellis notes. A big question that dominated its thinking, however, was how to abolish slavery without creating a biracial society. The European powers that practiced slavery (and abolished slavery before America did) all kept their slaves in their overseas colonies, but in America, these slaves were residents. Ellis also notes that Britain was, during the time of the Revolution, the world’s leading slave trader, and proved reluctant to fully exploit such ideas as arming slaves against the rebels
If you’re familiar with this subject, you might not find anything new here, but the book does a good job showing the important role played by compromise in actually founding the nation. As Ellis writes when covering the Constitutional Convention, “the northern states cared more about preserving the union than they cared about ending slavery, while the priorities of the states in the deep south were precisely the opposite.” Ellis also writes that “the only way to end slavery at the founding was to create a federal government empowered to make domestic and foreign policy for the states. The only way to assure that a Constitution possessing such powers was ratified was to keep slavery off the agenda.” Ellis also shows how, even in the Founding era, prominent Americans were repulsed by slavery. And, even in the revolutionary era, there were American voices who criticized the revolutionaries for proclaiming liberty on one hand and tolerating or defending slavery on the other. To some commentators, criticism of the Founders’ hypocrisy is a modern phenomenon and a product of today’s times, but it is interesting to see how these exact criticisms actually existed even back then, albeit by a minority of Americans.
The role of people like Washington and Jefferson in this story is a familiar one, but Ellis still provides some rounded and vivid portraits of them and some good insights into their thinking. From reading the book, it seems like most of them were conscious of their own hypocrisies. Both Washington and Jefferson knew slavery was terrible, but neither of them pushed for emancipation.
Another issue Ellis raises is the state of the Founders’ thinking about American government. In the introduction, Ellis raises the interesting point that the Founders didn't really believe in the modern or even Jacksonian definition of “democracy.” They did believe in the “public interest,” but Ellis argues that the “majority” of Americans didn't understand this, “mostly because they were born, lived their lives, and died within a three-hour horse ride. They could not think nationally or (as Alexander Hamilton preferred) 'continentally,' because their mental horizons were quite literally limited by their day-to-day experience of life. During the war for independence, they strongly supported local militia units, but refused to extend that support to the Continental Army.”
Democracy was also one of the reasons that slavery continued during the revolutionary and founding eras. “The dominant assumption within the American political universe is that democracy is always an asset for the side committed to worthy causes,” Ellis writes in the introduction. “The exact opposite was true when it came to avoiding Indian removal or ending slavery. Any political movement to achieve these goals needed to come from the top down rather than the bottom up. Why? Because a sizable portion of the white population sought to pursue their happiness by acquiring land occupied by Native Americans. And an even larger proportion of the same segment of American society, even those willing to contemplate the abolition of slavery, could not imagine a post-emancipation America of racial equality as anything but a nightmare.”
Ellis also suggests that, as the new American nation consolidated, revolutionary ideology faded, and the enslaved population increased, the prospect for an end (or peaceful end) to American slavery grew more and more remote. And the bigger the slave population got, the more it could be argued that abolition was simply “impractical.” As Ellis puts it, “The further one got from 1776, the lower the revolutionary fires burned, and the less imperative the values of the revolutionary promise seemed.” Future historical developments would also cast doubt on the wisdom of abolition, like the Haitian Revolution, the invention of the cotton gin, the presidencies of the “Virginia Dynasty,” the belief in states’ rights over domestic matters, and the Missouri Compromise.
When it comes to Indian affairs, Ellis writes that “for the roughly hundred thousand Indians living between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, the American victory in 1783 proved an unmitigated calamity from which history would provide no rescue, unless their forced removal to land west of the Mississippi can be regarded as such.” Ellis notes the irony that the new American republic was meant to be better than the European empires, yet then proceeded to adopt essentially “imperialist” policies in regard to the original inhabitants of America. He provides some interesting insights into people like Alexander McGillivray.
Ellis also does a good job explaining Washington’s rather naive belief that federal troops could keep the peace in the West even as more and more settlers headed in that direction, even though the new federal government lacked the means to protect the Indians. He also describes how the Washington administration tried to normalize its relations with the tribes in part to counter the more ruthless tendencies of the settlers. Ellis argues that Washington and his government adopted their Indian policies out of genuine principle and that the values of the new republic required it. It would have been more politically expedient to simply ignore Indian interests, but they didn't. They tried to stop American Indian policy from becoming one of removal. Ellis notes that “a referendum among the white citizenry would have produced an overwhelming majority for Indian removal.” Ellis also notes that when Washington thought he had negotiated treaties with the Indian nations that respected their rights and protected them from American settlers, he was often undermined by state governments that kept encouraging further settlement. This genuinely infuriated Washington, and he considered it a stain on his own honor and that of the federal government’s. Like Washington, Thomas Jefferson also believed that the Indians were foreign nations rather than American subjects, and that their rights had to be respected. Unfortunately, as long as white settlers continued to move west, there would be trouble. They Founders failed to prevent Indian displacement in large part because of the sheer numbers of settlers moving west. The white population increased more and more as the Indian population declined at roughly the same rate. Another reason was that stopping the flow of western migration would have required a larger army than the federal government had. In the early Republic, the federal government also lacked the legal precedent and political institutions to take stronger action against the settlers. Ellis calls these settlers a “relentless tide that swept all treaties, promises, excellent intentions, and moral considerations to the far banks of history. This, then, is a story about irony, in which the train of the American people made an American tragedy inevitable for the first Americans.” The Founders and their ignorance, (willful or not) seems to be a major theme in the stories of American slavery and Indian displacement. Ellis concludes that, in the absence of “political institutions and legal precedents” devoted to protecting the natives, “ultimate authority resided outside of government altogether, with those ordinary American citizens seeking a better life and a parcel of land to the west. In that sense, Indian removal was the inevitable consequence of unbridled democracy in action.”
The narrative is balanced, accessible, and thoughtful and Ellis’s style is lucid and engaging and avoids being preachy, if that’s what you’re worried about. The book ends a bit abruptly, with no real epilogue, a strange choice for a work dealing with topics like these. Also, at one point in the narrative Ellis describes a certain painting but, for some reason, doesn’t include this painting in the actual book. Also, for some reason Ellis describes the Constitution of 1787 as a “coup.” Does he mean a success? If so, that seems like a peculiar word choice. Besides, that process was pretty drawn-out, so why use that term?
A clear, smoothly written and insightful work.
July 20, 2026
This is a book about the tragedies and contradictions between the ideals of The Cause of the American Revolution and the realities of slavery and the treatment of Native Americans at that time. It is written well but it was just “okay” for me. Part of that may be how short it is - it feels like it is barely scratching the surface in certain areas (think an entertaining quick book, instead of a more scholarly tome).
There were some surprises here that I hadn’t read elsewhere like:
-- How had I never heard of Alexander McGillivray (chief of the Creek tribe) and the Treaty of New York which was Knox, Washington and Jefferson’s sincere plan to avoid Native removal and to instead have them live on large enclaves that would be protected by the US government and eventually turned into American states (of course, unfortunately, it didn't work)?
-- I’d heard of Dunmore offering freedom to enslaved people during the war but did not have it painted so vividly prior to this of how many of those people ended up dying from smallpox. The imagery of 500 bodies described as lying on top of each other for two miles is heart wrenching to imagine.
One of the major faults of this book, in my opinion, was this massive tangent/rabbit hole that the reader is taken down about the constitutional convention. Other than a note about the 3/5s clause and some information on the slave trade, etc. it really had nothing else to do with the book’s aim. Then, what followed was a very long tangent on the debates to ratify the constitution or not. During that section, this book went from a 4 star down to a 1 star and I actually felt like abandoning it as it got too far off track.
About halfway through, the narrative switched over to Native treatment by the early US government. This whole section seemed to really only be about the aforementioned treaty with the Creek tribe and it was over pretty quickly. It just felt like there was so much missing. Then, it returns back to slavery which felt inelegant instead of keeping the two sections separate. There’s a good amount of time spent on Washington and his relationship with slavery, really focusing on his worry that posterity would think less of him since he was a slave owner.
I do believe this is good information to read and good to remember the realities of the early government and the early history that still has implications for all of us today. But, I found myself wanting more from this.
There were some surprises here that I hadn’t read elsewhere like:
-- How had I never heard of Alexander McGillivray (chief of the Creek tribe) and the Treaty of New York which was Knox, Washington and Jefferson’s sincere plan to avoid Native removal and to instead have them live on large enclaves that would be protected by the US government and eventually turned into American states (of course, unfortunately, it didn't work)?
-- I’d heard of Dunmore offering freedom to enslaved people during the war but did not have it painted so vividly prior to this of how many of those people ended up dying from smallpox. The imagery of 500 bodies described as lying on top of each other for two miles is heart wrenching to imagine.
One of the major faults of this book, in my opinion, was this massive tangent/rabbit hole that the reader is taken down about the constitutional convention. Other than a note about the 3/5s clause and some information on the slave trade, etc. it really had nothing else to do with the book’s aim. Then, what followed was a very long tangent on the debates to ratify the constitution or not. During that section, this book went from a 4 star down to a 1 star and I actually felt like abandoning it as it got too far off track.
About halfway through, the narrative switched over to Native treatment by the early US government. This whole section seemed to really only be about the aforementioned treaty with the Creek tribe and it was over pretty quickly. It just felt like there was so much missing. Then, it returns back to slavery which felt inelegant instead of keeping the two sections separate. There’s a good amount of time spent on Washington and his relationship with slavery, really focusing on his worry that posterity would think less of him since he was a slave owner.
I do believe this is good information to read and good to remember the realities of the early government and the early history that still has implications for all of us today. But, I found myself wanting more from this.
April 2, 2026
All thanks go to Joesph Ellis and his book “Revolutionary Summer” for showing me how history can come alive. If I hadn’t read that book ten years back, there’s no saying how my relationship with reading would look today—likely not as strong. So when I saw that Ellis (age 82) recently published a book expounding the Great Contradiction of the American founding, how could I not immediately pick it up? To have this Titan of American historical scholarship, in 200 pages no less, unfurl the shade of America’s past and present in the time of MAGA can be nothing more than a godsend.
I’ve been reading quite a bit about American history this past year and I’ve been struggling with what it means to me to be an American. For all the patriotic talk that I and many others have heard growing up in the US, the current political moment has forced me to go back and rediscover America and what she stands and has stood up for. Truthfully, things don’t look great. In a simple model, American history is comprised of two currents: (1) a belief that white folks have been preordained to dominate this land and by manifest destiny, maintain the freedom TO subjugate others to their whims and interests, and (2) a belief that the nation’s founding principles of freedom and liberty for ALL people is worth fighting for and that the people should have the freedom FROM others exercising their will on them. The only thing maintaining my love of country is the latter.
Joesph Ellis lays this dissonance at the very feet of the founders. How could men, whose liberal ideals were foundational to rallying others behind their revolutionary cause, be so blind to their own betrayal of those very ideals by allowing the enslavement of other human beings as well as the genocide of native peoples?
As Ellis reminds us, it’s not that simple. In fact it would be foolish and historically immature to moralize the actions of these men of a bygone era. As Ellis rightly states, in order for slavery to be abolished the founders needed to create a strong national government that would enforce its emancipatory policy over the states, but in order to form this more perfect union they had to acquiesce to the slaveholding-interests of the southern states. It isn’t pretty, but when has politics ever been so? This isn’t to say that the we can’t make moral judgments about the past; rather, we should be careful to note that moral judgments can obscure a deeper understanding of the history.
Much like Ben Franklin and his final politically-risky public denunciation of slavery before his passing, this too feels like a last uncensored State of the Union from one the greatest historians of our time.
I’ve been reading quite a bit about American history this past year and I’ve been struggling with what it means to me to be an American. For all the patriotic talk that I and many others have heard growing up in the US, the current political moment has forced me to go back and rediscover America and what she stands and has stood up for. Truthfully, things don’t look great. In a simple model, American history is comprised of two currents: (1) a belief that white folks have been preordained to dominate this land and by manifest destiny, maintain the freedom TO subjugate others to their whims and interests, and (2) a belief that the nation’s founding principles of freedom and liberty for ALL people is worth fighting for and that the people should have the freedom FROM others exercising their will on them. The only thing maintaining my love of country is the latter.
Joesph Ellis lays this dissonance at the very feet of the founders. How could men, whose liberal ideals were foundational to rallying others behind their revolutionary cause, be so blind to their own betrayal of those very ideals by allowing the enslavement of other human beings as well as the genocide of native peoples?
As Ellis reminds us, it’s not that simple. In fact it would be foolish and historically immature to moralize the actions of these men of a bygone era. As Ellis rightly states, in order for slavery to be abolished the founders needed to create a strong national government that would enforce its emancipatory policy over the states, but in order to form this more perfect union they had to acquiesce to the slaveholding-interests of the southern states. It isn’t pretty, but when has politics ever been so? This isn’t to say that the we can’t make moral judgments about the past; rather, we should be careful to note that moral judgments can obscure a deeper understanding of the history.
Much like Ben Franklin and his final politically-risky public denunciation of slavery before his passing, this too feels like a last uncensored State of the Union from one the greatest historians of our time.
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.
April 12, 2026
Engaging and informative, but starts from the (I think faulty) premise that the U.S. founding was an inherently good thing. Ellis's predominant argument is that the founders did the best they could while still successfully unifying the colonies, and I simply think the thing they easily could have done better is not enslave people and colonize others.
August 29, 2026
Anybody who has read Joseph Ellis' FOUNDING BROTHERS or his other books on the American Revolution likely knows he is one of the best popular historians around. His newest book explores how a few political leaders of that momentous era tried--and tragically failed-- on two of the knottist dilemmas of that period: slavery and Indian Removal
In tbe case of slavery, the economic power of the institution, mainly in the Southern States, overwhelmed those in tbe North who proposed to end the horrid practice, even with a timeline stretching into 1800 or 1808. Only the Trans-Atlantic trade in human cargo was stopped on the latter date, but this had little effect on the institution. Slavery continued to grow into newly-admitted states throughout the Southern and Border States and Territories.
Mr. Ellis cautions the reader not to lean into a "presentist" viewpoint on the issue, pointing to how many of the Founders were slave-holders themselves, and how leaders like Thomas Jefferson early on in his political career tried and failed to achieve even modest emancipation measures in Virginia's Huuse OIf Burgesses. Colonial legislstors there overwhelmingly opposed any reforms.
It is important, Ellis states, not to see the Founders as either saints nor devils but in measures both outstanding and also flawed. In truth, ending slavery of one kind or another only came up for sharp intellectual criticism in Europe during the Enlightenment itself.
To a degree, I can accept this thinking. But it has always been dispiriting to me to read, for instance, about General George Washington demanding the return of runaway slaves during negotiations with retreating British authorities. The fact is there were men (Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, the Marquis de Lafeyette, and various religious thinkers) who pointed up the crying need for their generation to strike a blow now and wean a free republican nation from the scourge of base hypicrisy which chattel slavery represented.
As later generations learned, to their pain and detriment, punting away this great issue only hardened slaveholders and tormented millions of their victims. It also only postponed the horrific cataclysm of Civil War and the long, ugly twilight injustices of Jim Crow that grew after that. The recent Make America Great Again movement is part of the legacy of bondage and dehumanization not addressed at America's first hours of freedom.
The last portion of the book deals with the waves of white settlers coming into the Trans-Mississippi areas and running into violent conflicts with tribes like the Creeks, Cherokees, Delawares, the Five Iroqouis Nations , etc. Again, the economic thirst for farm land and river trading by these eager migrants overwhelmed any attempts by President Washington, his Secretary of War Henry Knox,or later Administrations to carve out compromises with the marked for displacement indidgenous nations. Indian Removal asa policy spread clear to the Pacific.
If anything, this lamentable result seems more inevitable than the failures of eliminating the crimes of slave power.
THE GREAT CONTRADICTION is a sobering, head-on and pragmatic look at two of the chief historical struggles and dilemmas of the United States. To read this is to better understand how these struggles handicap America today.
In tbe case of slavery, the economic power of the institution, mainly in the Southern States, overwhelmed those in tbe North who proposed to end the horrid practice, even with a timeline stretching into 1800 or 1808. Only the Trans-Atlantic trade in human cargo was stopped on the latter date, but this had little effect on the institution. Slavery continued to grow into newly-admitted states throughout the Southern and Border States and Territories.
Mr. Ellis cautions the reader not to lean into a "presentist" viewpoint on the issue, pointing to how many of the Founders were slave-holders themselves, and how leaders like Thomas Jefferson early on in his political career tried and failed to achieve even modest emancipation measures in Virginia's Huuse OIf Burgesses. Colonial legislstors there overwhelmingly opposed any reforms.
It is important, Ellis states, not to see the Founders as either saints nor devils but in measures both outstanding and also flawed. In truth, ending slavery of one kind or another only came up for sharp intellectual criticism in Europe during the Enlightenment itself.
To a degree, I can accept this thinking. But it has always been dispiriting to me to read, for instance, about General George Washington demanding the return of runaway slaves during negotiations with retreating British authorities. The fact is there were men (Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, the Marquis de Lafeyette, and various religious thinkers) who pointed up the crying need for their generation to strike a blow now and wean a free republican nation from the scourge of base hypicrisy which chattel slavery represented.
As later generations learned, to their pain and detriment, punting away this great issue only hardened slaveholders and tormented millions of their victims. It also only postponed the horrific cataclysm of Civil War and the long, ugly twilight injustices of Jim Crow that grew after that. The recent Make America Great Again movement is part of the legacy of bondage and dehumanization not addressed at America's first hours of freedom.
The last portion of the book deals with the waves of white settlers coming into the Trans-Mississippi areas and running into violent conflicts with tribes like the Creeks, Cherokees, Delawares, the Five Iroqouis Nations , etc. Again, the economic thirst for farm land and river trading by these eager migrants overwhelmed any attempts by President Washington, his Secretary of War Henry Knox,or later Administrations to carve out compromises with the marked for displacement indidgenous nations. Indian Removal asa policy spread clear to the Pacific.
If anything, this lamentable result seems more inevitable than the failures of eliminating the crimes of slave power.
THE GREAT CONTRADICTION is a sobering, head-on and pragmatic look at two of the chief historical struggles and dilemmas of the United States. To read this is to better understand how these struggles handicap America today.
June 21, 2026
Listened on Audible with a professional narrator who was above average.
Having read and enjoyed Founding Brothers also by Ellis and seeing him frequently on Ken Burns Revolutionary War and other programs, I was interested to read his take on the questions of slavery and native Americans in the founding period.
The book spends most of the time on the slavery question and debates, such as they were, with a much shorter section covering the new government’s strategy and treaty with the Muscogee tribe in 1790. In the final section there are reflections on the legacy of both Washington and Jefferson relative to their actions and inactions on the question of slavery.
Ultimately Ellis concludes that the Constitution could not have been ratified had slavery been a central issue but that the anti slavery petition of 1790 led by Franklin in his final public act, was the last best hope for the new country to put slavery on a course for abolition. That fleeting moment could have changed the course of history but the founding generation’s failure to do so sewed the seeds of the Civil War.
On the Native American question he gives full props to Henry Knox and George Washington who wanted and attempted to apply the principles of the Declaration and Constitution to native tribes in the Muscogee treaty. Unfortunately, demographics and the astronomical cost of policing the boundaries that would have been required overwhelmed their best intentions.
Having read and enjoyed Founding Brothers also by Ellis and seeing him frequently on Ken Burns Revolutionary War and other programs, I was interested to read his take on the questions of slavery and native Americans in the founding period.
The book spends most of the time on the slavery question and debates, such as they were, with a much shorter section covering the new government’s strategy and treaty with the Muscogee tribe in 1790. In the final section there are reflections on the legacy of both Washington and Jefferson relative to their actions and inactions on the question of slavery.
Ultimately Ellis concludes that the Constitution could not have been ratified had slavery been a central issue but that the anti slavery petition of 1790 led by Franklin in his final public act, was the last best hope for the new country to put slavery on a course for abolition. That fleeting moment could have changed the course of history but the founding generation’s failure to do so sewed the seeds of the Civil War.
On the Native American question he gives full props to Henry Knox and George Washington who wanted and attempted to apply the principles of the Declaration and Constitution to native tribes in the Muscogee treaty. Unfortunately, demographics and the astronomical cost of policing the boundaries that would have been required overwhelmed their best intentions.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
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 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.
June 13, 2026
Brief and concise. An excellent review for those unfamiliar with this period.
July 30, 2026
The Great Contradiction: The Tragic Side of the American Founding - Ellis
5 stars
I read Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation in 2009. I was so impressed with that readable book that I wanted to read more of Ellis’ books about the founding of the United States. Somehow I never got around to it, although several of his books are on my physical and electronic shelves. The Great Contradiction: The Tragic Side of the American Founding is his newest book, published in 2025. I was concerned that skipping so many of his previous books would make this book hard to follow. It was never a problem. The writing is direct and concise, but filled with fascinating details that are backed with numerous citations. Ellis kept my attention from the first page to the last.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
This book deals very specifically with a tragic irony. Despite the lofty words of the Declaration of Independence, the founders of the new nation failed to end slavery and allowed the dislocation and effective genocide of the native population. Ellis places these failures within the context of the rapidly changing political, demographic, and social pressures of the time. He looks closely at the actions of Washington, Jefferson, and the other prominent Virginia statesmen. Ellis managed to present these men without labeling them as either heroes or devils. The book acknowledges the precarious difficulty of creating a new form of government. And, it draws a clear line from the nation’s beginnings to our current situation today. If we benefit from the amazing successes of the founders, we also pay for their mistakes.
The book ends with a poignant late in life meeting between Lafayette and Jefferson. Jefferson comes off as a very tragic, failed figure.
“As for Jefferson, he will forever be remembered for his iconic eloquence in the Declaration of Independence, but his failure to live up to his own words ended in tragedy for him, his black and white families, and decades of decline for the Commonwealth he so loved.”
5 stars
I read Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation in 2009. I was so impressed with that readable book that I wanted to read more of Ellis’ books about the founding of the United States. Somehow I never got around to it, although several of his books are on my physical and electronic shelves. The Great Contradiction: The Tragic Side of the American Founding is his newest book, published in 2025. I was concerned that skipping so many of his previous books would make this book hard to follow. It was never a problem. The writing is direct and concise, but filled with fascinating details that are backed with numerous citations. Ellis kept my attention from the first page to the last.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
This book deals very specifically with a tragic irony. Despite the lofty words of the Declaration of Independence, the founders of the new nation failed to end slavery and allowed the dislocation and effective genocide of the native population. Ellis places these failures within the context of the rapidly changing political, demographic, and social pressures of the time. He looks closely at the actions of Washington, Jefferson, and the other prominent Virginia statesmen. Ellis managed to present these men without labeling them as either heroes or devils. The book acknowledges the precarious difficulty of creating a new form of government. And, it draws a clear line from the nation’s beginnings to our current situation today. If we benefit from the amazing successes of the founders, we also pay for their mistakes.
The book ends with a poignant late in life meeting between Lafayette and Jefferson. Jefferson comes off as a very tragic, failed figure.
“As for Jefferson, he will forever be remembered for his iconic eloquence in the Declaration of Independence, but his failure to live up to his own words ended in tragedy for him, his black and white families, and decades of decline for the Commonwealth he so loved.”
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.
August 30, 2026
This was an insightful examination into how the founding fathers compromised on the slavery issue in order to get the Constitution written and passed, believing that a strong federal government could later address the issue and disprove the dichotomy of declaring that “all men are created equal” in a nation filled with enslaved people, and the duplicity of the writers who also happened to be the ones in power. In other words, they kicked the moral bucket down the road to expedite and solidify their power and financial well-being. No surprises there.
That there may have been regrets later in life—and the emancipation of half of Washington’s slaves upon his death and the death of his wife (she released them early, fearing they’d plot her death if forced to continue as slaves) seems to indicate there might have been—does nothing to negate a lifetime of being the oppressor. He only feared his legacy, not his actual lack of morality dealing in human trafficking.
And Jefferson? Hoo, boy. Don’t get me started! He knew (at the end of his life) that any chance to end slavery had passed him by fifty years earlier at the Constitutional convention. He advocated for their inferiority and that emancipation must be linked to a future expatriation to another (hypothetical) land (his touted removal plan)—a financially impossible feat for any government. On a personal note, he lived the lie of privately fathering racially mixed offspring (and keeping them as slaves) while publicly decrying such practices. Hypocrite.
Lafayette tried, and always believed that ALL men were equal, and firmly stated that slavery was wrong, but he fought the good fight in vain with his American friends. Money and racism would always win the day.
The audiobook narrator was easy to listen to and she was quite engaging.
Three and a half stars.
That there may have been regrets later in life—and the emancipation of half of Washington’s slaves upon his death and the death of his wife (she released them early, fearing they’d plot her death if forced to continue as slaves) seems to indicate there might have been—does nothing to negate a lifetime of being the oppressor. He only feared his legacy, not his actual lack of morality dealing in human trafficking.
And Jefferson? Hoo, boy. Don’t get me started! He knew (at the end of his life) that any chance to end slavery had passed him by fifty years earlier at the Constitutional convention. He advocated for their inferiority and that emancipation must be linked to a future expatriation to another (hypothetical) land (his touted removal plan)—a financially impossible feat for any government. On a personal note, he lived the lie of privately fathering racially mixed offspring (and keeping them as slaves) while publicly decrying such practices. Hypocrite.
Lafayette tried, and always believed that ALL men were equal, and firmly stated that slavery was wrong, but he fought the good fight in vain with his American friends. Money and racism would always win the day.
The audiobook narrator was easy to listen to and she was quite engaging.
Three and a half stars.
April 27, 2026
I listened to this whole book after already getting a quarter of the way into Daring to Be Free: Rebellion and Resistance of the Enslaved in the Atlantic World, which gave me some perspectives that affected my take on Joseph Ellis's historical narrative. Namely, despite sometimes opting for the language of "enslaved Africans" rather than "slaves," I noticed multiple sections where he refers to various groups of enslaved Africans/African-Americans as helpless victims and commodities. Certain commonly used phrases really do reinforce the white supremacist mentality. I'm indebted to Sudhir Hazareesingh for helping to enlighten me about that.
Here are some of the notes I took while listening:
“African-American” was first used in 1782. Most African-Americans’ lineage has been here in America longer than most white people’s.
Among white/European people, the first to speak out and break the hundreds of years of silence about slavery was Anthony Benezet and other Quakers and religious (Protestant) people.
The first paragraph of the most famous speech in American history is factually incorrect. “Four score and seven years ago … “ (bc at that time the colonies were all set up as independent but separate states, not intended to remain a single union beyond uniting to rebel for independence from Britain.
“Freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was a modification by Thomas Jefferson from “property” instead of “pursuit of happiness” - which then includes everyone.
But later others (in the making of the Virginia constitution) amended it to also say “Those who enter into a state of society,” a “clever, lawyer-like” phrase that excluded, in their eyes, enslaved African-Americans and Native Americans.
When Pennsylvania finally added emancipatory laws to their state constitution, they did it so only the children of the currently enslaved people would become free, only once they reached the age of 28. Even this weak, in-the-future clause only passed 24-21.
Here are some of the notes I took while listening:
“African-American” was first used in 1782. Most African-Americans’ lineage has been here in America longer than most white people’s.
Among white/European people, the first to speak out and break the hundreds of years of silence about slavery was Anthony Benezet and other Quakers and religious (Protestant) people.
The first paragraph of the most famous speech in American history is factually incorrect. “Four score and seven years ago … “ (bc at that time the colonies were all set up as independent but separate states, not intended to remain a single union beyond uniting to rebel for independence from Britain.
“Freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was a modification by Thomas Jefferson from “property” instead of “pursuit of happiness” - which then includes everyone.
But later others (in the making of the Virginia constitution) amended it to also say “Those who enter into a state of society,” a “clever, lawyer-like” phrase that excluded, in their eyes, enslaved African-Americans and Native Americans.
When Pennsylvania finally added emancipatory laws to their state constitution, they did it so only the children of the currently enslaved people would become free, only once they reached the age of 28. Even this weak, in-the-future clause only passed 24-21.
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.
June 15, 2026
Joseph Ellis has written a concise but very informative text concerning the creation of our republic viewed through the lens of our founders’ abject failure to address the issues of slavery and Indian removal. I found particularly interesting the machinations called upon during the Constitutional Convention to bring the states together under a federal government despite the differences between north and south regarding slavery. After a discussion of Washington’s failed attempts to create protected enclaves for Indians, the final chapters dealing with Washington’s and Jefferson’s attitudes and actions towards their own slaves underscored (particularly in the case of Jefferson) the atrocity of the “great contradiction”.
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.
June 9, 2026
This was a fascinating read as it threaded the American Revolution and Founding Era with westward expansion and the Civil War. The founders were well aware that Native American sovereignty and slavery were massive political issues, but were unwilling to address them out of fear of creating conflict. George Washington himself described the sectional divide between the North and South and essentially foreshadowed an impending civil war. This book was a good reminder that history is complicated, ugly, and often presented in an oversimplified way.
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.
April 14, 2026
A book that should be taught in all US History classes.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 200 reviews