What do you think?
Rate this book
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.
* This audiobook edition includes a downloadable PDF with maps and charts from the book.
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.
* This audiobook edition includes a downloadable PDF with maps and charts from the book.
Audible Audio
First published October 28, 2025
About the author
Joseph J. Ellis
38 books1,352 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 161 reviews
December 30, 2025
This is a well-written, entertaining, informative non-fiction book. It explores the conflict of the founding fathers' pursuit of liberty while supporting slavery and the relocation of the Native American people from their lands in a clear and concise manner. The opinions of George Washington, Henry Knox, and Philip Schuyler on the topic of the Native American situation were fascinating. Ms. Kimberly Farr does an outstanding job narrating the audiobook.
March 2, 2026
This was a powerful and thought-provoking book. Joseph Ellis, one of our most preeminent historians and writers, delivers a hard-hitting examination of America’s founding — not as a mythic triumph, but as a fragile and morally complicated beginning.
What struck me most was Ellis’s unflinching description of how the Founding Fathers effectively punted on two of the most explosive issues facing the young republic: slavery and Native American sovereignty. The priority was winning independence and holding the union together — with the hope that slavery might somehow “work itself out” over time. Reading this with modern hindsight is sobering. It reframes the Constitution not just as a work of genius, but as a document shaped by avoidance, compromise, and political necessity.
Ellis provides incredible insights into figures like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. One fascinating takeaway — without spoiling too much — is Ellis’s argument that Washington, had he lived later, would almost certainly have fought on the Union side in the Civil War. That alone speaks volumes about Washington’s evolving views on national unity and slavery.
I also appreciated the attention given to lesser-discussed but crucial figures. Learning more about Alexander McGillivray — the brilliant Creek leader who negotiated directly with Washington — added an essential Native diplomatic dimension that often gets overlooked. And as always, I loved seeing familiar Revolutionary War personalities like Joseph Plumb Martin and the “battling bookseller” Henry Knox make meaningful appearances. Ellis has a gift for weaving these lives together into a living narrative.
My only real critique is structural. The book ends somewhat abruptly. Just as we’re deep into Jefferson’s later life — his financial ruin, his contradictions, his legacy — the narrative simply stops. No epilogue, no extended reflection, no afterword to help land the plane. It felt like the intellectual momentum deserved a more deliberate closing.
Still, this book gave me a deeper understanding of the origins of America’s enduring racial struggles and political fractures. Reading it around Lincoln’s birthday made the connections even more powerful. Lincoln, in many ways, was forced to confront and resolve the moral crises that the founders lacked either the unity or the gumption to face directly.
Ellis doesn’t tear the founders down — but he does humanize them. And in doing so, he reveals how the contradictions present at the creation still echo loudly today.
A compelling, unsettling, and necessary read.
What struck me most was Ellis’s unflinching description of how the Founding Fathers effectively punted on two of the most explosive issues facing the young republic: slavery and Native American sovereignty. The priority was winning independence and holding the union together — with the hope that slavery might somehow “work itself out” over time. Reading this with modern hindsight is sobering. It reframes the Constitution not just as a work of genius, but as a document shaped by avoidance, compromise, and political necessity.
Ellis provides incredible insights into figures like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. One fascinating takeaway — without spoiling too much — is Ellis’s argument that Washington, had he lived later, would almost certainly have fought on the Union side in the Civil War. That alone speaks volumes about Washington’s evolving views on national unity and slavery.
I also appreciated the attention given to lesser-discussed but crucial figures. Learning more about Alexander McGillivray — the brilliant Creek leader who negotiated directly with Washington — added an essential Native diplomatic dimension that often gets overlooked. And as always, I loved seeing familiar Revolutionary War personalities like Joseph Plumb Martin and the “battling bookseller” Henry Knox make meaningful appearances. Ellis has a gift for weaving these lives together into a living narrative.
My only real critique is structural. The book ends somewhat abruptly. Just as we’re deep into Jefferson’s later life — his financial ruin, his contradictions, his legacy — the narrative simply stops. No epilogue, no extended reflection, no afterword to help land the plane. It felt like the intellectual momentum deserved a more deliberate closing.
Still, this book gave me a deeper understanding of the origins of America’s enduring racial struggles and political fractures. Reading it around Lincoln’s birthday made the connections even more powerful. Lincoln, in many ways, was forced to confront and resolve the moral crises that the founders lacked either the unity or the gumption to face directly.
Ellis doesn’t tear the founders down — but he does humanize them. And in doing so, he reveals how the contradictions present at the creation still echo loudly today.
A compelling, unsettling, and necessary read.
January 1, 2026
Joseph Ellis has written a number of books about the American founding fathers. For this book he has gone through his notes one more time and prepared this book's narrative focusing on the contradiction between slavery and displacement of Indians with the spirit of liberty and equality that justified their formation of a new republic.
Most people at the time identified as citizens of their State first, and identification as part of a United States came second. A majority of the population at that time were satisfied with the government operating under the Articles of Confederation, and it was a small group of elites that felt it needed to be improved. Thus getting it changed required some skilled manipulations. Ellis refers to it as a coup d'état.
Ultimately the southern states valued slavery more than unity, and they were willing to vote no on any unity plan if slavery was threatened. The northern states were not willing to do the same with their antislavery position. The solution was to avoid discussion of slavery to the extent possible.
It was interesting how the newly prepared constitution was interpreted differently between northern and southern states. Many in the north felt that it provided for a strong central government that would have sufficient power to end slavery sometime in the future. Proslavery leaders in the south felt that the Constitution protected their interests. It was good that they both felt that way they did, because otherwise the Constitution would have never been adopted.
The book includes a chapter on negotiations between the early government and native Americans. One thing the new Constitution provided for was that the Federal Government was the entity that made treaties with the Indians. It's obvious from the following language in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 by the Confederation Congress that their early intent was to treat native Americans with respect.
The book ends with a chapter discussing the fate of Washington's and Jefferson's slaves. Both their estates were heavily in debt and slaves were their most valuable asset. Washington was still able to free his slave after his death through his will, but creditors forced the sale of Jefferson's slaves.
Below are some quotations from the book with my introductory comments.
Slavery which is so obviously evil to us today was not so obviously evil prior to the eighteenth century. It's interesting to note that among all the great philosophers and thinkers of the ancient Greeks and Romans, there was not a single abolitionist. The following excerpt from this book expands on that observation.
Most people at the time identified as citizens of their State first, and identification as part of a United States came second. A majority of the population at that time were satisfied with the government operating under the Articles of Confederation, and it was a small group of elites that felt it needed to be improved. Thus getting it changed required some skilled manipulations. Ellis refers to it as a coup d'état.
Ultimately the southern states valued slavery more than unity, and they were willing to vote no on any unity plan if slavery was threatened. The northern states were not willing to do the same with their antislavery position. The solution was to avoid discussion of slavery to the extent possible.
It was interesting how the newly prepared constitution was interpreted differently between northern and southern states. Many in the north felt that it provided for a strong central government that would have sufficient power to end slavery sometime in the future. Proslavery leaders in the south felt that the Constitution protected their interests. It was good that they both felt that way they did, because otherwise the Constitution would have never been adopted.
The book includes a chapter on negotiations between the early government and native Americans. One thing the new Constitution provided for was that the Federal Government was the entity that made treaties with the Indians. It's obvious from the following language in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 by the Confederation Congress that their early intent was to treat native Americans with respect.
“... the utmost good faith shall always be observed towards Indians; their land and property shall never be taken from them without their consent.”The book describes the negotiations between the new Federal government and the Creek Nation (1790 Treaty of New York). The book says that George Washington felt his honor was besmirched by the later invasion of new settlers into the Creek territory in violation of the treaty. The Federal government was powerless to keep settlers out of Indian country.
The book ends with a chapter discussing the fate of Washington's and Jefferson's slaves. Both their estates were heavily in debt and slaves were their most valuable asset. Washington was still able to free his slave after his death through his will, but creditors forced the sale of Jefferson's slaves.
Below are some quotations from the book with my introductory comments.
Slavery which is so obviously evil to us today was not so obviously evil prior to the eighteenth century. It's interesting to note that among all the great philosophers and thinkers of the ancient Greeks and Romans, there was not a single abolitionist. The following excerpt from this book expands on that observation.
For more than four centuries the most important voices of Western civilization remained mute as a highly organized program of unspeakable barbarity with genocidal implications flourished throughout Europe. Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Aquinas, Erasmus, Locke, and all the Catholic popes regarded slavery and the slave trade as acceptable features of European society. Western civilization lacked a conscience.The following quote from the book is a reminder that African Americans have deeper roots in American than most whites.
Since a majority of the white population in the United States arrived in the 19th and early 20th centuries, African Americans as a group can trace their origins as Americans further back in time than a majority of whites.The slave trade was financially the most lucrative business available to traders of that era which explains their moral blindness.
Moral blindness made eminent economic sense.
December 6, 2025
4.5 Stars!
"Western civilization lacked a conscience."
"We are beginning to forget that the patriots of former days were men like ourselves."
The Great Contradiction, to which this book speaks is the original sin of The United States: the failure to end slavery and the failure to avoid Indian removal. I agree on both counts. You can't talk all this shit about "Freedom" while enslaving Black people and committing genocide against Native Americans. I mean not only did the founders do nothing to abolish slavery they actually endorsed it by passing the original Fugitive Slave Act. So even the founders who were against slavery morally, were perfectly ok with slavery in practice.
"Within the Virginia political universe, the most self-evident truth of all was white supremacy."
This is a short and very easy to read book about the founding of the United States. You don't need to be a History buff to enjoy this book.
"Next to the failure to end slavery, or at least put it on the road to extinction, the inability to reach a just accommodation with Native Americans was the greatest failure of the revolutionary generation."
"Western civilization lacked a conscience."
"We are beginning to forget that the patriots of former days were men like ourselves."
The Great Contradiction, to which this book speaks is the original sin of The United States: the failure to end slavery and the failure to avoid Indian removal. I agree on both counts. You can't talk all this shit about "Freedom" while enslaving Black people and committing genocide against Native Americans. I mean not only did the founders do nothing to abolish slavery they actually endorsed it by passing the original Fugitive Slave Act. So even the founders who were against slavery morally, were perfectly ok with slavery in practice.
"Within the Virginia political universe, the most self-evident truth of all was white supremacy."
This is a short and very easy to read book about the founding of the United States. You don't need to be a History buff to enjoy this book.
"Next to the failure to end slavery, or at least put it on the road to extinction, the inability to reach a just accommodation with Native Americans was the greatest failure of the revolutionary generation."
August 28, 2025
Short, insightful, and pulls no punches.
p 5 "Moral blindness made eminent economic sense"
p 135 “Next to the failure to end slavery, or at least put it on the road to extinction, the inability to reach a just accommodation with the Native Americans was the greatest failure of the revolutionary generation.”
Full review coming soon for Shelf Awareness.
p 5 "Moral blindness made eminent economic sense"
p 135 “Next to the failure to end slavery, or at least put it on the road to extinction, the inability to reach a just accommodation with the Native Americans was the greatest failure of the revolutionary generation.”
Full review coming soon for Shelf Awareness.
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.
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 19, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 12, 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.
January 31, 2026
The founders were so close to an immortal greatness but couldn’t let go of their final vice.
November 5, 2025
“Looking forward, one could safely predict that prominent leaders in Virginia would wrap themselves in the Confederate flag, embrace the myth of the “Lost Cause,” vehemently oppose the civil rights movement, and derive their sense of significance by standing proudly on the wrong side of American history.”
January 15, 2026
Thomas Jefferson helped declare that “all men are created equal” while owning human beings trafficked through the transatlantic slave system, and that moral schizophrenia defines the American founding. The Great Contradiction shows that the Founders were fully aware of the violence they were protecting: by the mid-1700s, racialized chattel slavery had been entrenched in all thirteen colonies for well over a century, and the Native American slave trade had already brutalized the continent for more than a hundred years before the Declaration of Independence was issued against British “tyranny” in 1776. Writing liberty into law while practicing enslavement and dispossession required not confusion, but sociopathic compartmentalization—the ability to universalize rights in theory while denying humanity in practice. This was not a tragic contradiction or youthful hypocrisy; it was a deliberate moral architecture that allowed slaveholders to enshrine freedom for themselves while hard-coding bondage for others.
The American founding wasn’t betrayed by its ideals—it was built by men disturbed enough to proclaim them while enslaving others.
June 1, 2026
Joseph Ellis And America 250
This year, 2026, celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. It is valuable to reflect upon our beloved country at this time. An important way to think about the origins of the United States is through this new book by Joseph J. Ellis, "The Great Contradiction: The Tragic Side of the American Founding." (2025). Ellis, retired as Ford Foundation Professor of History at Mount Holyoke College, has written many works about early American history. He has received both the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize. In his many books, Ellis has explored the significance and lasting value of the American Revolution. In this book he explores its tragedies. Ellis sees two tragedies lying at the source of America's founding. The first is slavery and the second is the treatment of the Indians. They are tragedies in themselves and "Great Contradictions" because slavery and the removal of the Indians contradict the principles of freedom and equality articulated in the Declaration of Independence. In the grand words of the Declaration:
"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."
Discussing slavery, which receives most of the attention in this book, and Indian removal in the context of the Declaration is hardly new. What is valuable is the way Ellis approaches his subject with the wisdom and knowledge of over forty years of thought. The book is philosophical as much as historical. Rash, one-sided, ideological conclusions are to be avoided, and Ellis does so here.
In the early sections of the book, Ellis sets out his themes. He asks first if the "tragedies" of the American founding are Greek, based upon fate, or Shakespearean, based upon human fallibility and moral blindness. He asks the reader to consider this question in reflection upon the history.
Next, Ellis offers some crucial points in studying the Founding and history more broadly. He wants to avoid making a mythology of the Founders and the Founding, and seeing them as larger than life rather than as fallible human beings. Conversely, and probably more relevantly to our times, he wants to avoid the tendency to debunk and to criticize on dogmatic ideological and moralizing grounds.
Ellis warns against the "original sin" of "presentism" in historical study by which he means "the presumption that our political and moral values now are wholly reliable standards of truth and justice for our predecessors then." Presentism is difficult but crucial to avoid as the study of American history and the Founding have become intertwined with the unfortunately ongoing culture wars. Among other factors of presentism that Ellis identifies is the faith in democracy and in "we the people". During Revolutionary times, most people identified themselves with their local community or their colony. There was little sense of a "we the people" consisting of a broad nation-state. So too, Ellis argues that there was little sense of "democracy" in early America. Democracy was, rather, something to be feared. The wrong of slavery and the treatment of African Americans and the removal of the Indians were not high on the agenda of most people at the time, although they were recognized as of cruicial importance by some people. The creation of the American Republic was, Ellis argues, a largely top-down affair originating in elite members of the society. This is a theme Ellis developed in his earlier book "The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783 -- 1789.
In his study, Ellis shows how with the pursuit of independence from Great Britain, some Americans became painfully aware of the "Great Contradiction" between the goals and rationales for independence on one hand and slavery and Indian removal on the other hand. The book shows why they failed to resolve these issues. As to slavery, Ellis explores the Articles of Confederation, which gave governmental powers to the States, the Constitutional Convention and its four compromises over the slavery issue, the ratification process, and early Congressional action on the slavery issue. The difficulty is whether there was going to be a nation at all, making compromise necessary. Still, with history being the contingent matter that it is, there may have been possibilities to do things differently. With respect to Indian removal, Ellis argues that George Washington and his cabinet worked hard to avoid running over Indian land rights by attempting to treat with Creek Chief Alexander McGillivary. Unfortunately, this effort failed due to the government's inability to control the large onrush of settlers into Creek territory.
In the final two chapters of his book, discussing George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and their respective attitudes to slavery, Ellis emphasizes further aspects of the failure to control or eliminate slavery when it might have been possible. This involved the great reluctance across the American population at the time to accept African Americans as full participants in American society. This reluctance, as Ellis points out, is still unfortunately with us in contemporary America.
Ellis has written a short, thoughtful, and suggestive book. It combines a love for the United States and its history and goals with a real sense of its tragic failings. This is important and not often done today. Reading this book is valuable in considering America's 250th anniversary.
Robin Friedman
This year, 2026, celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. It is valuable to reflect upon our beloved country at this time. An important way to think about the origins of the United States is through this new book by Joseph J. Ellis, "The Great Contradiction: The Tragic Side of the American Founding." (2025). Ellis, retired as Ford Foundation Professor of History at Mount Holyoke College, has written many works about early American history. He has received both the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize. In his many books, Ellis has explored the significance and lasting value of the American Revolution. In this book he explores its tragedies. Ellis sees two tragedies lying at the source of America's founding. The first is slavery and the second is the treatment of the Indians. They are tragedies in themselves and "Great Contradictions" because slavery and the removal of the Indians contradict the principles of freedom and equality articulated in the Declaration of Independence. In the grand words of the Declaration:
"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."
Discussing slavery, which receives most of the attention in this book, and Indian removal in the context of the Declaration is hardly new. What is valuable is the way Ellis approaches his subject with the wisdom and knowledge of over forty years of thought. The book is philosophical as much as historical. Rash, one-sided, ideological conclusions are to be avoided, and Ellis does so here.
In the early sections of the book, Ellis sets out his themes. He asks first if the "tragedies" of the American founding are Greek, based upon fate, or Shakespearean, based upon human fallibility and moral blindness. He asks the reader to consider this question in reflection upon the history.
Next, Ellis offers some crucial points in studying the Founding and history more broadly. He wants to avoid making a mythology of the Founders and the Founding, and seeing them as larger than life rather than as fallible human beings. Conversely, and probably more relevantly to our times, he wants to avoid the tendency to debunk and to criticize on dogmatic ideological and moralizing grounds.
Ellis warns against the "original sin" of "presentism" in historical study by which he means "the presumption that our political and moral values now are wholly reliable standards of truth and justice for our predecessors then." Presentism is difficult but crucial to avoid as the study of American history and the Founding have become intertwined with the unfortunately ongoing culture wars. Among other factors of presentism that Ellis identifies is the faith in democracy and in "we the people". During Revolutionary times, most people identified themselves with their local community or their colony. There was little sense of a "we the people" consisting of a broad nation-state. So too, Ellis argues that there was little sense of "democracy" in early America. Democracy was, rather, something to be feared. The wrong of slavery and the treatment of African Americans and the removal of the Indians were not high on the agenda of most people at the time, although they were recognized as of cruicial importance by some people. The creation of the American Republic was, Ellis argues, a largely top-down affair originating in elite members of the society. This is a theme Ellis developed in his earlier book "The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783 -- 1789.
In his study, Ellis shows how with the pursuit of independence from Great Britain, some Americans became painfully aware of the "Great Contradiction" between the goals and rationales for independence on one hand and slavery and Indian removal on the other hand. The book shows why they failed to resolve these issues. As to slavery, Ellis explores the Articles of Confederation, which gave governmental powers to the States, the Constitutional Convention and its four compromises over the slavery issue, the ratification process, and early Congressional action on the slavery issue. The difficulty is whether there was going to be a nation at all, making compromise necessary. Still, with history being the contingent matter that it is, there may have been possibilities to do things differently. With respect to Indian removal, Ellis argues that George Washington and his cabinet worked hard to avoid running over Indian land rights by attempting to treat with Creek Chief Alexander McGillivary. Unfortunately, this effort failed due to the government's inability to control the large onrush of settlers into Creek territory.
In the final two chapters of his book, discussing George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and their respective attitudes to slavery, Ellis emphasizes further aspects of the failure to control or eliminate slavery when it might have been possible. This involved the great reluctance across the American population at the time to accept African Americans as full participants in American society. This reluctance, as Ellis points out, is still unfortunately with us in contemporary America.
Ellis has written a short, thoughtful, and suggestive book. It combines a love for the United States and its history and goals with a real sense of its tragic failings. This is important and not often done today. Reading this book is valuable in considering America's 250th anniversary.
Robin Friedman
November 9, 2025
Joseph J. Ellis --- winner of the Pulitzer Prize for History for FOUNDING BROTHERS: The Revolutionary Generation and the National Book Award for AMERICAN SPHINX: The Character of Thomas Jefferson --- has long been regarded as one of the foremost contemporary scholars of the Revolutionary Era.
In THE GREAT CONTRADICTION: The Tragic Side of the American Founding, Ellis examines “two legacies of the founding era that must be noticed, and both qualify as enormous tragedies.” Those legacies --- the utter failure to end slavery “or, more realistically, put it on the road to extinction,” and the unsuccessful attempt to protect the territorial rights of the fledgling nation’s Native American population --- have haunted the country throughout its history.
From the outset, Ellis acknowledges the gulf that separates the Declaration of Independence’s soaring rhetoric of equality from the political realities confronting the founders as they strove first to unite to win a war against the powerful British Empire, and then to navigate the by-no-means assured transition from a loose affiliation of states jealous of their identities and prerogatives to a unified nation.
Beginning with the debates of the Continental Congress, Ellis recognizes that when it came to the slave trade and slavery, “moral considerations had no role to play in the deliberations.” He argues that in severing the colonies’ ties with the British Empire, unlike historic revolutionaries like Robespierre, Lenin and Mao, “the leaders of the American resistance were not utopian visionaries, but, rather, an assemblage of pragmatic statesmen accustomed to negotiating the space between ideals and realities in their respective colonial governments.” For them, at all times, “there was a clear consensus that slavery was a taboo topic with the explosive potential to blow up any pretense of political unity.”
In this concise but well-sourced and lucid account, Ellis explains how once the war had been won (with the aid of at least 5,000 Black soldiers, though some 10,000 to 12,000 fought on the British side), that perspective carried over into the debates surrounding the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution. In his view, the vision of a national government advanced by men like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay was nothing less than a “coup d’etat,” but one doomed to failure if abolitionists had pressed their arguments to their ultimate conclusion. In detailing the four sectional compromises over slavery that were part of this process, he argues that pragmatism ultimately triumphed over principle, as it became clear that any effort to abolish the slave trade, let alone emancipate the nearly 700,000 slaves living in America by 1790, doomed the federal project to failure.
Ellis devotes considerably less attention to the story of the failed attempt to put policy toward Native Americans on a more humane path. Most of his discussion concerns the efforts of George Washington and his Secretary of War, Henry Knox, to negotiate the pact formalized as the Treaty of New York in August 1790 with the colorful and controversial chief of the Creek Nation, Alexander McGillivray. “They inherited an Indian policy headed inexorably toward the extermination of Indian Country east of the Mississippi,” Ellis writes in describing the challenge facing Washington and Knox, “and they attempted to turn it around.”
The treaty, signed amid a celebratory atmosphere, was intended to protect the Creeks and allied tribes in the face of rapid settlement of their homelands. But as Ellis explains, the good intentions it embodied were swamped by the demographic realities of an expanding white American population and a shrinking Native American one. “No political effort to contain or control this explosion stood much chance of success,” he argues. And by the time of Andrew Jackson’s presidency and the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, a policy antithetical to the one pursued by Washington and Knox had long held sway.
THE GREAT CONTRADICTION concludes with brief portraits of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in their final years, contrasting Washington’s decision to free his Mount Vernon slaves in his will with Jefferson’s refusal to do so based on his judgment that emancipation without repatriation of America’s slave population was impossible. In different but related ways, the actions of both men epitomize the tragedy of this era of American history.
In a work that is both clear-eyed and sympathetic, Ellis --- who describes his efforts during the past four decades as “dedicated to rescuing the founders from the electromagnetic field we have constructed around them, asserting that “the mythology surrounding the founding generation was a fog bank that needed to be blown away” --- thoughtfully fulfills his mission. In doing so, he enables us to see, and perhaps identify with, America's founders in their full humanity. Despite all their undeniable achievements, the legacies of these leaders must be weighed against their inability to rise above their circumstances and do what they knew to be right.
Reviewed by Harvey Freedenberg
In THE GREAT CONTRADICTION: The Tragic Side of the American Founding, Ellis examines “two legacies of the founding era that must be noticed, and both qualify as enormous tragedies.” Those legacies --- the utter failure to end slavery “or, more realistically, put it on the road to extinction,” and the unsuccessful attempt to protect the territorial rights of the fledgling nation’s Native American population --- have haunted the country throughout its history.
From the outset, Ellis acknowledges the gulf that separates the Declaration of Independence’s soaring rhetoric of equality from the political realities confronting the founders as they strove first to unite to win a war against the powerful British Empire, and then to navigate the by-no-means assured transition from a loose affiliation of states jealous of their identities and prerogatives to a unified nation.
Beginning with the debates of the Continental Congress, Ellis recognizes that when it came to the slave trade and slavery, “moral considerations had no role to play in the deliberations.” He argues that in severing the colonies’ ties with the British Empire, unlike historic revolutionaries like Robespierre, Lenin and Mao, “the leaders of the American resistance were not utopian visionaries, but, rather, an assemblage of pragmatic statesmen accustomed to negotiating the space between ideals and realities in their respective colonial governments.” For them, at all times, “there was a clear consensus that slavery was a taboo topic with the explosive potential to blow up any pretense of political unity.”
In this concise but well-sourced and lucid account, Ellis explains how once the war had been won (with the aid of at least 5,000 Black soldiers, though some 10,000 to 12,000 fought on the British side), that perspective carried over into the debates surrounding the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution. In his view, the vision of a national government advanced by men like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay was nothing less than a “coup d’etat,” but one doomed to failure if abolitionists had pressed their arguments to their ultimate conclusion. In detailing the four sectional compromises over slavery that were part of this process, he argues that pragmatism ultimately triumphed over principle, as it became clear that any effort to abolish the slave trade, let alone emancipate the nearly 700,000 slaves living in America by 1790, doomed the federal project to failure.
Ellis devotes considerably less attention to the story of the failed attempt to put policy toward Native Americans on a more humane path. Most of his discussion concerns the efforts of George Washington and his Secretary of War, Henry Knox, to negotiate the pact formalized as the Treaty of New York in August 1790 with the colorful and controversial chief of the Creek Nation, Alexander McGillivray. “They inherited an Indian policy headed inexorably toward the extermination of Indian Country east of the Mississippi,” Ellis writes in describing the challenge facing Washington and Knox, “and they attempted to turn it around.”
The treaty, signed amid a celebratory atmosphere, was intended to protect the Creeks and allied tribes in the face of rapid settlement of their homelands. But as Ellis explains, the good intentions it embodied were swamped by the demographic realities of an expanding white American population and a shrinking Native American one. “No political effort to contain or control this explosion stood much chance of success,” he argues. And by the time of Andrew Jackson’s presidency and the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, a policy antithetical to the one pursued by Washington and Knox had long held sway.
THE GREAT CONTRADICTION concludes with brief portraits of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in their final years, contrasting Washington’s decision to free his Mount Vernon slaves in his will with Jefferson’s refusal to do so based on his judgment that emancipation without repatriation of America’s slave population was impossible. In different but related ways, the actions of both men epitomize the tragedy of this era of American history.
In a work that is both clear-eyed and sympathetic, Ellis --- who describes his efforts during the past four decades as “dedicated to rescuing the founders from the electromagnetic field we have constructed around them, asserting that “the mythology surrounding the founding generation was a fog bank that needed to be blown away” --- thoughtfully fulfills his mission. In doing so, he enables us to see, and perhaps identify with, America's founders in their full humanity. Despite all their undeniable achievements, the legacies of these leaders must be weighed against their inability to rise above their circumstances and do what they knew to be right.
Reviewed by Harvey Freedenberg
May 26, 2026
This is a short book that presents so much information in such a brilliant way that it has almost made me reconsider all of what I know about our founding fathers. I can't give it much higher praise. I'll read more of Ellis's work, and speak more about it here, but I plan to chew on this information for a while longer.
Washington had said "If a civil war in this split would take place in my lifetime, I would side with the North." This lead to Virginians treating Mt. Vernon as an enemy outpost. Washington, nearly egotistically concerned with his legacy, understood that slavery would not stand the test of time. However, he did not find it within his willpower to free his slaves during his lifetime, nor push for any major reform against slavery during the Constitutional Convention. A man held up higher than any other in our nation bears our nation's greatest sin, though he absolves it posthumously.
Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, wrote the most damning thing about slavery of all in his Declaration of Independence:
"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
This passage gets furiously struck down. Jefferson seems to cool his own internal revolutionary flames through the rest of his life - simply not trying to find a workaround for slave removal by stating it "cost too much", condemning mixed-race relations while having many of his own children as mulatto, slaves, and pushing the for-slavery agenda that leads to the Civil War. For a man so brilliant, he never got over the moral bump in the road that is slavery, and likely made us far worse off for it.
Lafayette, to his credit, spent many efforts trying to get his revolutionary brethren to ditch slavery. It didn't work, but he continues to be a near fully admirable figure. If he had chose to stay in the US instead of work to bring revolutionary ideas back home to France there is some chance he could have made a difference. But perhaps it was only him, or maybe a Hamilton who does not fall from grace, or even a surviving John Laurens who could have used their convictions to prevent the racial injustices that still plague our populace today.
To both of their credits (not Lafayette's), they did work with Henry Knox on the matter of what to do with the Native American tribes. Lead by Knox, largely on a moral imperative (and Washington on his legacy - to be honest I wish more people had that sensitivity) to provide the same promise of freedom that the Declaration gave to all other (white, at the time) Americans. Washington took to most of it himself, worked on it before other tasks, but ultimately was not able to find a sustainable solution - partially due to the Creek leader Alexander McGillivray's shrewdness, and partially due to the demographic chokehold that the US population had at the time. No fault for trying, but who knows how that possibly could have went the other direction.
Washington had said "If a civil war in this split would take place in my lifetime, I would side with the North." This lead to Virginians treating Mt. Vernon as an enemy outpost. Washington, nearly egotistically concerned with his legacy, understood that slavery would not stand the test of time. However, he did not find it within his willpower to free his slaves during his lifetime, nor push for any major reform against slavery during the Constitutional Convention. A man held up higher than any other in our nation bears our nation's greatest sin, though he absolves it posthumously.
Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, wrote the most damning thing about slavery of all in his Declaration of Independence:
"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
This passage gets furiously struck down. Jefferson seems to cool his own internal revolutionary flames through the rest of his life - simply not trying to find a workaround for slave removal by stating it "cost too much", condemning mixed-race relations while having many of his own children as mulatto, slaves, and pushing the for-slavery agenda that leads to the Civil War. For a man so brilliant, he never got over the moral bump in the road that is slavery, and likely made us far worse off for it.
Lafayette, to his credit, spent many efforts trying to get his revolutionary brethren to ditch slavery. It didn't work, but he continues to be a near fully admirable figure. If he had chose to stay in the US instead of work to bring revolutionary ideas back home to France there is some chance he could have made a difference. But perhaps it was only him, or maybe a Hamilton who does not fall from grace, or even a surviving John Laurens who could have used their convictions to prevent the racial injustices that still plague our populace today.
To both of their credits (not Lafayette's), they did work with Henry Knox on the matter of what to do with the Native American tribes. Lead by Knox, largely on a moral imperative (and Washington on his legacy - to be honest I wish more people had that sensitivity) to provide the same promise of freedom that the Declaration gave to all other (white, at the time) Americans. Washington took to most of it himself, worked on it before other tasks, but ultimately was not able to find a sustainable solution - partially due to the Creek leader Alexander McGillivray's shrewdness, and partially due to the demographic chokehold that the US population had at the time. No fault for trying, but who knows how that possibly could have went the other direction.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 161 reviews