The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789

by Joseph J. Ellis

The prizewinning author of  Founding Brothers  and  American Sphinx  now gives us the unexpected story--brilliantly told--of why the thirteen colonies, having just fought off the imposition of a distant centralized governing power, would decide to subordinate themselves anew.

The triumph of the American Revolution was neither an ideological nor political guarantee that the colonies would relinquish their independence and accept the creation of a federal government with power over their individual autonomy. The Quartet is the story of this second American founding and of the men responsible--some familiar, such as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, and some less so, such as Robert Morris and Gouverneur Morris. It was these men who shaped the contours of American history by diagnosing the systemic dysfunctions created by the Articles of Confederation, manipulating the political process to force a calling of the Constitutional Convention, conspiring to set the agenda in Philadelphia, orchestrating the debate in the state ratifying conventions, and, finally, drafting the Bill of Rights to assure state compliance with the constitutional settlement.

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

320 pages, Hardcover

First published May 5, 2015

About the author

Joseph 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.

Reviews

[Sean Gibson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Disclaimer: If Joseph Ellis wrote about the mating habits of sea sponges, in exhaustive and nauseating detail, I’d probably read it. And give it at least 4 stars. When he’s writing about the Revolutionary War? I generally need a change of undergarments. Ellis is freaking amazing.

I have a rather significant fascination (editor’s note: really, it’s a weird, Single-White-Female-style obsession) with the Revolutionary War. When I was a kid, it was because of the mythical, heroic status ascribed to all of the principles (that and the fact that I share a birthday with Mr. Benjamin Franklin, though we weren’t, of course, born in the same year, because, if we were, well, I guess I’d look pretty good for my age…but only for my age). As I grew older and progressed beyond the stories in schoolbooks and learned about the deep flaws, petty jealousies, and odious mistakes of the Founding Fathers, I only grew more intrigued.

These days, I find less fascination in the battles than I do in the story of how the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and other seminal documents (heh heh…I said “seminal”) were created (editor’s note: the author may be approximately 300 years old, but he continues to display the maturity of a 12-year-old). There are two reasons for this: 1) as debates rage about everything from civil rights to healthcare to gun control, with both sides of each argument interpreting these seminal (heh heh…I said it again) documents differently, I want to know as much as I can about how and why the documents were written as they were (spoiler alert: the Founding Fathers did NOT have all the answers and, in fact, intentionally created an adaptable framework that could be modified over time as the world changed…so no, they did NOT necessarily intend for us all to walk around toting semi-automatic rifles and popping them off in schools and movie theaters, nor did they themselves buy into the notion of “original intent”…but that’s neither here nor there); and 2) because I find the process of watching highly intelligent, well-educated people attack a problem for which there is no precedential solution fascinating.

Rather than courting controversy by delving more deeply into point #1 above, it’s #2 that I want to focus on in discussing yet another Joe Ellis masterpiece. The Quartet is a thoroughly engaging exploration of how four key figures—George Washington, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison—skillfully and deftly maneuvered a squabbling collection of dysfunctional colonies into ultimately becoming the United States as we know it.

What makes these cats so compelling, one—particularly one who frequently fell asleep during history class—might ask? THEY DON’T EVEN HAVE THEIR OWN YOUTUBE CHANNEL.
Well, as a way of translating their appeal for a modern audience, let’s think about them as a superhero team—the Foundtastic Four, if you will.

GEORGE WASHINGTON



Strengths: commanding presence, really good at riding horses, badass aquiline profile, ability to make you feel like a jerk for complaining about your pounding headache when he talks about people dying of frostbite and starvation at Valley Forge

Weaknesses: inability to tell lies, crunchy foods (hard to chew with those wooden teeth), obsession with posterity, sense of humor surgically removed at birth

There’s a reason George Washington’s name is synonymous with the United States. Everyone knows about the (apocryphal) cherry tree, crossing the Delaware, Father of our Country, blah blah blah. But, you know what really made Washington a badass? The fact that it’s far less likely that this intrepid quartet, nor indeed anyone, would have succeeded in creating a more stable union after the defeat of the British if this ONE SINGLE MAN hadn’t lent his name to the cause and consented to the presidency that was forced upon him afterward. If Superman, Optimus Prime, and an Eagle Scout had weird three-way sex, and if cross-species/robo-human same-sex procreation was possible, George Washington is what would pop out of one very uncomfortably small hole. Think about this: the guy could essentially have become a king, or at least a military dictator—the American Napoleon. He didn’t. He willingly and happily gave up that power. In the course of human history, how many people in that position have done that? I can only think of two: George Washington and me (you all have no idea how much you owe me). So, if this was a superhero team, G-Dub would clearly be the leader.

JOHN JAY



Strengths: eminent reasonableness, sanguine disposition, politeness, international diplomacy

Weaknesses: a really wussy list of strengths, probably pretty useless in a bar fight

When you study the revolutionary period in school, you hear a few names a lot: Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson. You don’t often hear about John Jay, and, yet, his skill in international diplomacy and vision of the transformative social and economic impact of westward expansion made him as integral a part of the Revolution as anyone (except, perhaps, for Old Wooden Teeth). Even John Adams, a man so miserly with praise that he wouldn’t give credit to his mother’s birth canal for facilitating his passage into the world, noted that Jay’s work hammering out treaties abroad was essential to winning the war.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON



Strengths: flamboyant personality, incisive wit, vast intellect, fiscal genius, willingness to duel anyone who wrongs him

Weaknesses: kind of an asshole, inability to not get shot and killed when dueling anyone who wrongs him

Of the four featured players in this book, Hamilton would be most at home in today’s trenchant political miasma. He would own Twitter and dominate the 24-hour news cycle with his caustic wit and willingness to speak his mind. You could think of him as a hyper-intelligent, extremely capable, funny, actually-good-with-money version of Donald Trump. The key driver behind the Federalist Papers, Hamilton had a pen as sharp as his bayonet and did double duty as an officer in Washington’s army and a member of the Continental Congress. And then he got himself killed in a duel with Aaron Burr. Oh, for the days when our politicians resolved disputes via duels, back when men were men, and men were morons. (I guess some things never change.)

JAMES MADISON



Strengths: brilliant politician, groundbreaking political theorist, obsessive-compulsive preparer, master of backroom political machinations, Virginian

Weaknesses: sickly constitution, diminutive stature, rumored romancer of Japanese body pillows (unconfirmed)

Madison is another guy who tends to get overlooked when we’re being taught about Paul Revere’s midnight ride, Ben Franklin’s homespun wit, and Thomas Jefferson’s eloquent pen (or, rather, Jefferson’s eloquence…I’ve heard the pen itself was a little terse and standoffish). Yet, it was Madison, with his vision and manipulation of the political chessboard, that was, perhaps, more responsible than anyone for setting the stage for the Constitution to be written and ensuring its ratification afterward.

If you haven’t experienced the wonder and joy of Joseph Ellis, I might suggest starting with Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. But, any Revolutionary War aficionado will want to check this book out. Ellis is a master stylist who distills massive quantities of information into salient, cogent arguments as well as any historian I’ve ever read.

In other words, this is good stuff.

[robin friedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Joseph Ellis And The Making Of A Nation

Joseph Ellis' new book, "The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783 -- 1789" examines the United States' movement from independence to nationhood following the Revolutionary War. Ellis, retired as Ford Foundation Professor of History at Mount Holyoke College, has written many works about early American history and has received both the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize.

Ellis' short but broad, thoughtful, and provocative book argues that the United States did not become a nation upon winning independence but became instead a group of loosely-connected separate states. Ellis maintains that most people at the time lacked even a concept of national identity beyond the provincial boundaries of their communities. They thought they had fought a hard war to free themselves from the distant centralizing government of Great Britain. With the ineffective Articles of Confederation, the thirteen states appeared headed for separation and quarrels, similar to the nations of Europe.

Ellis maintains that while the first American Revolution might be viewed from the ground up, the second worked "from the top down". He finds that four individuals, the "Quartet" of his title, were primarily responsible: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. The first three names are unsurprising. Ellis clearly regards Washington is the essential member of the group and as the leader of both the first and second American revolutions. He gives Washington more credit than he sometimes receives for his intellectual foresight in an early writing about the deficiency of the Articles of Confederation and the need for a central government. Ellis sees Madison more as a highly savvy politician and lawyer than as an original thinker. The partial surprise on Ellis' the list is John Jay who tends to be less well--known than he deserves. Jay negotiated the treaty of Paris and worked early and diplomatically, including with opponents, for the cause of nationhood. Other leaders who play supporting roles in Ellis' account include financier Robert Morris, Thomas Jefferson, and Gouverneur Morris, the drafter of the Constitution.

Ellis' reading of the second American revolution is avowedly elitist. He argues that most people had no interest in nationhood because a broad national vision would be inconsistent in some ways with their limited goals such as avoiding taxation and living beyond their means. Ellis recognizes the controversial nature of his perspective. He writes in the book's Preface:

"All democratic cultures find such explanations offensive because they violate the hallowed conviction that, at least in the long run, popular majorities can best decide the direction that history should take. However true that conviction might be over the full span of American history, and the claim is contestable, it does not work for the 1780s, which just might be the most conspicuous and consequential example of the way in which small groups of prominent leaders, in disregard of popular opinion, carried the American story in a new direction."

Ellis takes the reader through the Confederation years, the preliminaries to the Constitutional Convention, the Convention itself,, and the proceedings in the states for the ratification of the Constitution. The book concludes with the enactment of the Bill of Rights. Ellis does not attribute superhuman wisdom to the founders but he also avoids the current tendency to belittle their accomplishments through an anachronistic importation of today's values into the late 18th Century. Among other things, his book discusses briefly but well the dilemma the founders faced over slavery. The book stresses the value of ideas and thinking, compromise, practicality, commitment, and humility in the second American revolution and the founding of the national government and its shifting contours of Federalism.

This book has a great deal to teach and provides ample material for reflection. It also made me want to learn more about George Washington by reading the Library of America volume of his writings.

Robin Friedman

[Richard Derus]

ME: *contemplates retail therapy of buying The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789 for only $2.99 on my Kindle*
ME: quit hyperventilating it'll still be there when you have more money
ME: *clicks through to Ammy before the waffling is even over*
AMAZON: Your Cost: $0.73 after book credits
ME: *stares suspiciously at goddesses*
ME: okay what horror do I have to endure to earn this?

[Ned · Rating 4 out of 5]

Winning independence from Great Britain was only step one, and probably less significant than the creation of our system of government. The war had brought the colonies to a common cause but afterwards the debt was huge (I was shocked to learn it was $40MM) with no means to collect taxes (they were voluntary by the articles of confederation). Our young country didn’t even consider itself a nation, until 4 men took leadership (Hamilton, Madison, Jay and [reluctantly] Washington). Forming the United States was nearly inconceivable to the common man, and far from the mind of the politicians of the day. In fact, most were strongly against anything that had the whiff of executive power, in the wake of King George’s legacy. This is the story of the beginning of congress, and the creation of the 3 bodies of our government that are today still the envy of the world. It was not divinely ordained, nor shrouded in the mist of providence, it was born of old-style political maneuvering and fierce debate and argument. It was every bit as personal, human and petty as we see today. The argument of federal vs state vs individual power is built into our constitution, so we shouldn’t be surprised it is still alive and well. What is surprising is the durability of our system. This author feels that the founders themselves would likely be amazed that it is still intact.

Ellis is a superb writer, and takes full advantage of new sources and has read broadly on source documents. His prose is spare, and he honestly portrays the dissension in thought. Mostly he sticks to the facts and actual content in the letters of these four men. Ellis shares the outcome, then reminds the reader with repetition of details as to how the matters were settled and came to be. As such, this does not read like a textbook, but like riveting prose. What I found interesting is that the brilliance of Hamilton and Madison was so far ahead of the rest of the officials and public, that they had to slow down and wait for others to catch up. Madison felt he had failed in the first closed debates, but in hindsight realized that if he had forced a debate with all the delegates that the constitution would likely not have been ratified. It could have failed if he had his way. Madison, the true architect (poorly spoken, diminutive) convinced his three colleagues that a powerful federal government was the only way to proceed, yet ultimately saw the wisdom in compromise and ambiguity in powers between the executive and the states. The politics are fascinating.

All these men agreed that a true democracy would be fatal, and that a republic was necessary such that elected representatives could properly filter ideas. This was the genius, where the platform (popularly elected) allowed the “people” to choose their leaders, but avoid mob rule. This resonates today with the discussion about the Electoral College, instead of choosing by popular vote. John Jay negotiated our treaty with Great Britain and Ellis asserts that getting the entire territory to the Mississippi was as critical to our future as winning independence. This was before we had a concept of our geography, and west of the Mississippi was France’s and south was owned by Spain. Interestingly, the question of slavery would likely have sabotaged the possibility of a United States, so it was mostly not talked about and our great sin was kicked down the road another 75 years.

History could have turned out very differently – we could have become more like Europe with the states warring and competing for resources. With a combined national interest, these four men intoned, we could become recognized worldwide and leverage power for all. Our natural enemies (Great Britain and Spain in particular) were laying in wait for us to become disorganized and certain colonies come back to them for their support. We needed a treasury to have credit worldwide and instill confidence as a nation.

The power of Virginia and New York, in particular, was such that they did not want unification. They had to be sold, and convinced, often through back channels. Jefferson was away in France as an ambassador, and was pro-Virginia, not at all aligned with his protégé Madison. Washington was the de facto leader and had to be begged to come out of retirement and battle for his legacy – he was the only one with enough respect to pull that off.

In the end, we barely became a nation and this would have changed world history forever. Thanks to Ellis for a fascinating and entertaining read. It is highly relevant today, as I hope our system and the checks and balances will preserve the dream of individual liberty regardless of who we put in the white house.

[Quo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having already read & enjoyed American Sphinx which focused on Thomas Jefferson and also Founding Brothers, I found The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789 even more compelling.



On occasion, reading about the Founding Fathers and the early days of the American Republic can seem like a rehash of random details one was forced to memorize in secondary school.

However, Joseph Ellis seems to raise these same details to a much more meaningful level, blending the necessary facts with an admixture of aspects & attributes that color the personalities of those who forged the way to a more cohesive group of states, a collection of post-colonial entities that the author contends initially resembled highly individualized mini-republics rather than an actual nation of component territories.

Edward R. Murrow once used what he called a "compression of voices" to cause history to come alive in his "I Can Hear It Now" series of recordings. I listened to these voices and the records that conveyed them at great length when I was quite young. It is much more difficult to enliven a period of American history where there are no residual imprints of voices of the likes of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay & James Madison, among others.



That said, Joseph Ellis does a wonderful job of bringing these figures to life in his latest book. I found the background stories fascinating, including how John Jay was enlisted to broker a deal with France for southern territory to the Mississippi River, vastly enlarging the country.

Additionally, he reveals the importance of Robert Morris, a benevolent, self-made man who befriended Hamilton, though he was young enough to have been his son but with Morris believing in the latter's vision and at least partially funding the back-pay of the Continental Army following the American War of Revolution, at a point when this nation was less than solvent.



Early on, it was realized that the Articles of Confederation were deeply flawed, thus preventing any semblance of a unified country. However, James Madison & Henry Knox very skillfully convince Washington, who was determined to remain at Mount Vernon, to attend the 1787 gathering in Philadelphia, aimed at replacing the Articles of Confederation & thus strengthening the bond among the states. Apparently, only the presence of Washington could add sufficient gravity & importance to the assembly for the required number of delegates to appear.

And to provide an example of a behind the curtains commentary on one of the major players, it was suggested that "Madison's style was not to have one", with another colleague remarking: "Never have I seen so much mind in so little matter." It is mentioned that temperamentally, Madison sought caution over daring, as personified by Hamilton and unlike Hamilton, Madison thought politically vs. economically. (Alexander Hamilton was the first Secretary of the Treasury.)



A sense of continuity with the Spirit of 1776 was preserved by employing the same city, building & room for the Constitutional Convention as where the Declaration of Independence was drafted. However, there were two "ghosts" present at the Constitutional Convention, the first being any hint of a return to monarchy and the second, the divisive issue of slavery.

It was said that slavery as a "cancerous tumor" was so deeply embedded within the American Body Politic that it could not be removed without killing the patient. Thus, the most salient approach to the issue was silence. And according to Ellis, so important was the loyalty of most delegates to their respective states that many Virginians for example, saw the representatives of other states as "foreigners".



The author sees the Bill of Rights as America's Magna Carta and James Madison, who was its father, viewed himself not as a political philosopher but as a political strategist, looking upon the Bill of Rights as an essential epilogue to the American Constitution, one that concluded a brilliant campaign to adjust the meaning of the American Revolution to a truly national scale.

To provide a further bit of flavor to The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, here is a just sample from one of its primary participants, Benjamin Franklin:

I confess that I do not entirely approve this constitution at present, but sir, I am not sure that I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or by fuller consideration, to change opinions on important subjects, which I once felt right, but found to be otherwise.

It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. I doubt too whether any other convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better constitution. Thus I consent sir, to this constitution because I expect no better and am not sure that it is not the best.

In summary, Joseph Ellis contends that the 1776 Revolution did not create a nation or a republic, something that was not in fact fully achieved until 1865 and that a quartet of 4 prominent political figures in 1787-88 set an agenda for intended nationhood vs. the individual "nation states" as envisioned with the original Articles of Confederation. Also, the American Constitution would never have been approved had slavery been outlawed.

Lastly, Ellis sees the delegates to the Constitutional Convention as motivated by an innate but pragmatic sense of nationalism vs. an economic motivation or being present under a kind of "Divine Inspiration" as some authors have contended when referencing the Constitutional Convention. This book was a delightfully rendered treatment of a critical moment in the evolution of what became the United States.

*Within my review are images of the author, Joseph Ellis; the "Quartet": George Washington (at Mount Rushmore), Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 2 out of 5]

This might, in reality, be worth a third star, but it's getting so many five star reviews that I had to downrate it.

Ellis is writing primarily pablum when he's not outrightly wrong.

And, he is outrightly wrong on a couple of major issues, right at the start.

First, while Charles Beard and his progressive historian followers may have overstated the importance of class issues, whether in the American Revolution or the Constitutional Revolution, even more, they weren't all wrong, contra Ellis' claims. Indeed, there's been a resurgence in a more moderated version of Beard's thesis.

Related to that, Ellis presents a false dichotomy that the Constitutional Revolution can either be about confederationists vs nationalists OR democrats vs aristocrats, but not both. And, if there's a "totally wrong," it's that false dichotomy.

Second, Ellis gets the issue of slavery all wrong.

First of all, at the Constitutional Convention, nobody was arguing for abolition; in fact, nobody was even arguing for immediate cessation of slave importation. The only argument was if slaves counted as people for census purposes (while not counting for people otherwise, or not. THAT WAS IT.

Secondly, Ellis ignores several new books that point out how deeply slavery was already (a half-decade before the cotton gin) engrained in the American economy.Gerald Horne's "The Counter-Revolution of 1776" is a great starting point.

Thirdly, he ignores that people like one of his Quartet, Hamilton, and another founding father, Franklin, were both actually involved with abolition efforts.

The third main issue, as other reviewers note, is to essentially dismiss the whole mindset behind Lincoln's "fourscore and seven years" at Gettysburg, rather than noting that that was a deliberate stake in the ground — an assertion that, contra Ellis, the United States did begin in 1776.

Ellis, IMO, goes further downhill with each new book; with this one, he accelerates his rate of decline.

[Rosalyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh it was a privilege to read this book, just as much it is a privilege to have such forefathers who had the foresight to intelligently, fairly and succinctly outline our country's supreme law of the land, first of its kind, and predicting and anticipating for its exponential growth, "allow for latitude with which future generations could make their own decisions".

Ellis expertly condenses the few strenuous years immediately following 1776, in which after bravely and resolutely marching towards Independence and having achieved it, no one seemed to have a plan for what came after. Ellis breaks down point by point the political landscape of the time, the reasoning behind it, and as is the Socratic way, necessity bred invention; our Quartet stepped up to the challenge of creating a unifying document to bind our nation states together forever more.

I enjoyed this book for its conciseness, for a U.S. history newbie like me, it was very easy to follow, and Ellis' outlines and arguments made sense, and were methodical. I would highly recommend for anyone wanting to dive deeper into this time period, and is a definite favorite read of 2023 so far.

edited 23may25, minor spelling n grammatical errors

[Jay Schutt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Academically written and somewhat of a difficult read, this book gives you a behind the scenes look at how some courageous and foresightful men created the constitution that brought the 13 colonies together after the American revolution.
It wasn't clear-cut that the 13 colonies would stay united as one nation. They could have become 13 separate countries,or at best, sectional nations of New England, Mid-Atlantic and South, but Madison, Washington, Hamilton and Jay along with others all contributed in different ways to hold everyone together and form the greatest nation in the world.

[Kirk · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The Constitution was intended less to resolve arguments than to make argument itself the solution. For judicial devotees of "originalism" or "original intent," this should be a disarming insight, since it made the Constitution the foundation for an ever-shifting political dialogue that, like history itself, was an argument without end. Madison's "original intention" was to make all "original intentions" infinitely negotiable in the future." Pg 172

[Sean · Rating 5 out of 5]

A slim and engaging look at how the sausage of the Constitution was made. Ellis focuses on the four prime movers of the constitutional project -- Washington, Madison, Jay, and Hamilton -- who, along with a handful of other statesmen were responsible for the adoption of the new constitution. Not hagiographical, the book shows how very messy the process was, and how it might easily have failed. It's difficult to remember, but many Americans were deeply opposed to anything more than the weakest of federal governments, believing that the Revolution was fought to free them from a powerful tyranny. They were in no rush to create a new one. They also tended to be rather parochial, feeling themselves citizens of their respective states. An American identity had yet to be formed. For many, then, the rather pathetic federal government created by the Articles of Confederation was a feature, not a bug.

That being the case, how did our quartet ensure that their vision of a stronger federal government prevail? Hard work, superior organization, skilled use of procedure, and conviction born from their experience dealing with the Confederation Congress during the war. At times, the opposition seems to have been asleep. "Indeed, the majority vote on the core plank of the Virginia Plan was really another coup of sorts, since only seven states were present for the vote - none of the New England states and yet arrived - and based on subsequent voting patterns of the absent delegations, it seems unlikely that the Morris resolution would have garnered a majority if all the delegates had been in attendance. For that matter, there was never a moment during the entire summer when all fifty-five delegates were present. Given our sense that this was almost assuredly the most consequential conclave in American history, it strains credibility to realize that the Constitutional Convention was an ever-shifting, highly transitory body of men with different degrees of commitment to the enterprise. One of the intangible advantages that nationalists enjoyed in this swirling context was that, thanks largely to Madison, they were better organized and - though this is impossible to prove - more invested in the outcome."

* Another passage that neatly summarizes how the nationalists won the day against tremendous odds. "To say, then, that ratification represented a clear statement about the will of the American people in 1787-1788 would be grossly misleading. What ratification really represented was the triumph of superior organization, more talented leadership, and a political process that had been designed from the start to define the options narrowly (i.e., up or down), and the successful outcome broadly (i.e., nine states). And despite their built-in advantages, it was still a close call. A shift of six votes in Virginia would have probably produced a shock wave that left four states -- Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island -- out of the union. Ande even though nine state had ratified, so that the Constitution was legally adopted, it is difficult to imagine an American nation surviving in such a geographically splintered condition."

* Being written in the 18th century, the document was informed by a rather less enthusiastic view of democracy then modern Americans might have. "There was in Madison's critical assessment of the state governments a discernible antidemocratic ethos rooted in the conviction that political popularity generated a toxic chemistry of appeasement and demagoguery that privileged popular whim and short-term interests at the expense of the long-term public interest. Fifty years later such a posture would be regarded as unacceptably elitist. But at the time, Madison felt no need to apologize for his critique, which derived its credibility not from some theoretical aversion to the will of teh majority, but from a critical assessment of the popularly elected state governments during and after the war. He harbored an eighteenth-century sense that unbridled democracy was incompatible with the political health of a republic."

* One of the Constitution's deepest flaws from a modern perspective is the treatment of slavery. It was also a flaw from an 18th century perspective, but one for which no solution suggested itself. "The other ghost at the banquet was slavery, which was simultaneously omnipresent and unmentionable. Lincoln subsequently claimed that the decision to avoid the word slavery in the founding document accurately reflected the widespread recognition that the 'peculiar institution' was fundamentally incompatible with the values on which the American Revolution was based, so that the bulk of the delegates realized that any explicit mention of the offensive term would, over time, prove embarrassing.
This was true enough, but the more palpable and pressing truth in the summer of 1787 was that slavery was deeply embedded in the economies of all states south of the Potomac and that no political plan that questioned that reality had any prospect of winning approval. Much like the big-state--small-state conflict, then, a sectional split was, from the beginning, built into the very structure of the convention, and some kind of political compromise was inevitable if the Constitution were to stand any chance of passage and ratification."

*Post-ratification, Madison opposed the addition to a bill of rights to the Constitution, but came to embrace it as a means of taking the wind out of his opponent's sails, some of whom wanted to call a second constitutional convention. This might seem surprising to modern Americans, who hold the Bill of Rights in nearly as high esteem as the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution itself. "In truth, [Madison] still did not share Jefferson's faith in the efficacy of written lists of rights, and he believed that the greatest protection of individual rights was already embedded in the political framework created by the Constitution. But the political reasons for going forward were now clearer than ever: his Virginia constituents wanted amendments; a bill of right would undermine the subversive second convention movement; and reluctant ratifiers in six states would learn that he was listening. As he put it to Jefferson, such an act of conciliation would 'extinguish opposition to the system, or at least break the force of it by detaching the deluded opponents from their designing leaders.' In short, he vied the movement for a bill of rights not as an opportunity to glimpse the abiding truths, but as the final step in the ratification process."
As Ellis notes: "Over the ensuing decades and centuries... the Bill of Rights has ascended to an elevated region in the American imagination. But in its own time, and in Madison's mind, it was only an essential epilogue that concluded a brilliant campaign to adjust the meaning of the American Revolution to a national scale."

* Some of the reviews on Goodreads have complained that Ellis wears his judicial/constitutional philosophy on his sleeve, and that this ruined the book for them. Ellis doesn't hide his views -- see below -- but to the extent that they appear in the book, I don't see why anyone would find them off-putting since they appear in the context of historical argumentation. For example, in a discussion of the background to the Second Amendment, Ellis writes that Madison drafted the amendment based on suggestions submitted by five states that called for defense to be provided by state militia rather than a permanent standing army, a standing army being a dagger pointed at the heart of the new republic. In a footnote, he makes his views clear: "The ongoing debate over the right to bear arms in our own time is obviously a deeply divisive issue that generates much shouting, foot-stomping, and even death threats. My point... is that for judicial devotees of the "original intent" doctrine, Madison's motives in 1789 are clear beyond any reasonable doubt. To wit, the right to bear arms derived from the need to make state militias the core pillar of national defense. In order to avoid reaching that conclusion, the majority opinion in Heller, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, is an elegant example of legalistic legerdemain masquerading as erudition. Madison is rolling over in his grave." If you're an Originalist, maybe this will annoy you, but you now have the benefit of knowing where Ellis is coming from. Besides, most of the book has nothing to do with issues of modern interpretation.

[Scott]

Historians are constantly asked what the Founding Fathers would say about this or that contemporary issue. What would Washington think about the war on terrorism? What would Jefferson say about Black Lives Matter? What does the Constitution tell us about the rights of gun ownership in an age of assault weaponry?

Joseph Ellis denies that such questions can even be asked, that doing so is “like trying to plant cut flowers.” In fact, Ellis argues that the only thing we can trust the Founders would say if they were alive today is “I can’t believe that the Constitution we wrote in 1787 is still in place.”

“The Quartet” tells the story of how the Constitution came to be: how the Constitutional Convention was called, what took place in Philadelphia during those summer months of 1787, and how it was ratified by the states. It’s focus is the political maneuvering and forward thinking of the four men--Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay--who made the Constitution a reality when, in fact, the majority of the country was against it.

The most surprising thing I learned was that most people during the revolutionary period could not think nationally. It’s hard to understand this since mass media and the internet have made it nearly impossible to think locally anymore. Really, when’s the last time you went to a city council meeting? But back then, a person lived his or her entire life within a 30-mile radius. They could not think of a “nation.” They thought local. To most people, the idea of a central, national government sounded like monarchy, the very government they fought to free themselves from during the Revolution.

“The Quartet” also works nicely as a mini-biography of the four main actors. John Jay is particularly compelling--I didn’t know much about him before, but it’s impossible to not respect this kind of guy:

“His peers viewed him as a man of principle who could be trusted even by those who disagreed with his principles. His massive probity, combined with his persistent geniality, made him impossible to hate...Permanently poised, always the calm center of the storm, when a controversial issue arose, he always seemed to have thought it through more clearly and deeply than anyone else, so that his opinion had the matter-of-fact quality that made dissent seem impolite” (70).

Although Ellis argues that we cannot call the Founders back from the dead to comment on our contemporary issues, we can look to them to understand why they wrote what they did into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The chapter on how Madison wrote the Bill of Rights is especially illuminating. Ellis’s footnote to his discussion of the writing of the Second Amendment is too good to not quote:

“The ongoing debate over the right to bear arms in our own time is obviously a deeply divisive issue...My point here is that for judicial devotees of the ‘original intent’ doctrine, Madison’s motives in 1789 are clear beyond any reasonable doubt...the right to bear arms derived from the need to make state militias the core pillar of national defense. In order to avoid reaching the same conclusion, the majority opinion in Heller [v. District of Columbia], written by Justice Antonin Scalia, is an elegant example of legalistic legerdemain masquerading as erudition. Madison is rolling over in his grave” (pg. 276, footnote 37).

This book isn’t for readers who know nothing about the revolutionary period. But a general history background, a scan of a few Wikipedia articles, and a passing interest in modern politics is enough to enjoy and get a lot out of this book. One-fifth of the 290 pages are footnotes and back matter, so it’s actually not a very long read. Learning about the actual original intent of the Founders (and discovering that “The Founders” is an imaginary but useful construct to represent a bunch of smart guys who disagreed all the time) will help give you a broader view of modern politics and an appreciation of the Constitution not as something handed down from Jehovah above, but a compromise solution that everyone at the time considered temporary and that nobody was truly happy with.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating work on the origins of the American Constitution. Ellis, who has authored other excellent historical analyses, contends that four people are critical to understanding why we have a the Constitution that we now have: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Two others contributed greatly as well: Gouverneur Morris and James Wilson.

This book explores how the quartet, upset with the poor performance of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, labored to create a new government, with a more energetic national structure that would address the ills under the Articles. For instance, under the Articles, the national government could request--but not demand or enforce--fiscal support from the different states. Many states simply ignored this, meaning that the national government never had the funding needed.

Many seem to think that George Washington was somewhat of a figurehead for others, such as Hamilton and Madison. This--and many other books--surely should end that canard. Washington has been depicted by many historians as an active player in the move toward a new national government system.

The book does a nice job on a number of fronts. One, it highlights to active role of the quartet. Two, it gives a sense of the politics of the Constitution that is well done (well done by others, too). Three, it shows that the Founders were not demigods--but active and calculating politicians.

On the other hand, some cavils. At one point, the author dismisses the fear of one of the quartet that, under the rules, a vice presidential candidate might get more electoral votes than a presidential candidate (in this case--Washington versus John Adams). The election of 1800 shows that this was a well founded fear, as VP candidate Aaron Burr was in a tie with the presidential candidate--Thomas Jefferson. Second, limiting the key figures to just the quartet (and their allies) understates the relevance of others in the process, such as Roger Sherman and Robert Morris. Three, Ellis does a nice job of demolishing critics such as Charles Beard. But Beard's view was in a shambles by the 1960s. Others, such as Jackson Turner Main, had critiques of the economic background that probably warranted more consideration in this volume. Forrest McDonald, from a different perspective, probably should be acknowledged more as well.

At any rate, this is a fine volume and warrants attention by readers. They will learn a great deal about the origins of the United States under the Constitution here.

[Cami · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The Constitution was intended less to resolve arguments than to make argument itself the solution.”

Essentially, this is a sequel to David McCulloch’s 1776. It works from the premise that before, during, and after the revolution, the states were not united and more like the European Union model. It took the thought and persuasion of Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay to show the need for a stronger federal government and republic.

It is a strong narrative describing how George Washington, John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton answered the question “Are we a nation of states what's the state of our nation?” Unlike similar history books, this was the perfect length and amount of detail.

“[The Constitution] has endured not because it embodies timeless truths, but because it manages to combine the two time-bound truths of its own time, namely that any legitimate government must rest on a popular foundation and that popular majorities cannot be trusted to act responsibly; a paradox that has aged remarkably well. It was not their hubris, but their humility that made the difference.”

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

George Washington, aghast at the failure of Congress to properly feed and fund his ill-equipped army during the fight with the British, lamented, “We have become a many headed monster, a heterogeneous mass that never will nor can steer to the same point.” Loosely affiliated under the Articles of Confederation, the 13 states each pursued their own agendas.

Pulitzer winning historian Joseph J. Ellis tells the story how this heterogeneous mass was made to steer to the same point. Ellis reveals how four men George Washington, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison conceived and promoted a new political framework built on the Constitution. Ellis shows how during the years 1783 to 1789 these four men called for the constitutional convention, set the agenda, orchestrated the debates and drafted the Bill of Rights.
Some historians have viewed the Constitution as a betrayal of the American Revolution. Ellis, however, reminds us that democracy was viewed skeptically in the 18th century; he prefers to see the effects of the quartet as “a quite brilliant rescue” of revolutionary principles.

The book is well written and researched. Ellis has a way of taking a lot of information and turning it into easy readable prose. This is a book to keep in your reference library. I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. Robertson Dean narrated the book.

[Mary · Rating 5 out of 5]

How ironic to have read Joseph Ellis' book over the 4th of July weekend since his major premise is that, on July 4, 1776 and for more than a decade thereafter, there was no "United States" in any meaningful sense. Rather, the thirteen newly independent colonies, focused mainly on their own local concerns, were only united in their opposition to the idea of a strong federal government. I have to wonder what the remarkable "Quartet" of men who worked to replace the failed Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution would think of the widening divides between the blue and the red states that our country is experiencing today.

[Laurie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yes. This is my 10th Revolutionary period book I've read since the new year (yeah, I get on a kick sometimes) and I've been enjoying it all. The part I have found most fascinating through it all is the actual creation of the government. The sitting down, bashing it (and each other) out, and trying to create this never before seen government (yes, there have been republics, but not like this, and all previous eventually failed), and all the compromise and wrangling that had to go into it well beyond what we can even comprehend. And that this creation was so orchestrated by the few, yet knowing that the masses likely just wanted to be let alone to get on with life, leave them out of politics, but all the while this momentous thing was happening. ANYWAY - This book is ALL about that.
Ellis has given an excellent account of this nation creation, with a really excellent analysis of the thoughts/feelings/motivations surrounding it from so many sides. He also covers the concept of "what would the founding fathers think of xyz today?" and how that thought process doesn't really work. “like trying to plant cut flowers.” That realistically, the one thing they'd be amazed at is that the constitution they wrote was still in use! He covers the serious moral compromises that had to be made, and also that they didn't want the future to be stuck on notions of "original intent."
I don't think I'd recommend this as someone's first read into the era, but for those who have a little bit more than the avg Joe's knowledge about the period, it's a great read, and great for lovers of history.

[David Huff · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a short, but well-written account of a very specific period in American History -- the so called "Second American Revolution" of 1783-1789, the period between the soon to be superseded Articles of Confederation, and the final ratifying of the U. S. Constitution. The tensions and concerns among the Federalists and anti-Federalists are explained very clearly, and Ellis' writing really helps the reader to step into the mindset that the various states and citizens had concerning the need for, and the fears of, a national Constitution and a Federal government.

Ellis explores the contributions made by each of 4 important leaders, in particular, toward the eventual drafting and ratification of the Constitution. George Washington, whose gravitas and influence were critical in persuading others of the importance of replacing the Articles with something more suitable for the new nation. John Jay, whose steady optimism and foreign policy expertise were essential. Alexander Hamilton, the most ardent Federalist, with financial expertise and incredible boldness. And, James Madison, who brought much intellectual firepower and political savvy to the cause.

Reading this book also helped me understand more about the iconic Federalist papers, which in their day were simply persuasive journalism pieces, written under tight deadlines, essentially to convince the State of New York (obstinate toward the proposed Constitution) to ratify it. These 85 essays were authored by Hamilton (51), Madison (29), and Jay (5).

Overall a great read, and very informative. Really captures the atmosphere, the contention, the political maneuvering, and the uncertainly felt by many of the states about handing power over to a new central government far removed from their local sphere, after having so recently thrown off the yoke of King George III. It will give you a renewed appreciation for the origins of, and the durability of, our Constitution.

[Shane · Rating 4 out of 5]

"They all wished to be remembered, but they did not want to be embalmed."

Ellis' thesis here is that after the first American Revolution (The Revolutionary War) a second one was needed. If the first revolution achieved independence from Great Britain, the second would change THESE United States into THE United States.

This book argues that this second, more important, revolution was largely the work of four visionary founding fathers: Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, James Madison, and John Jay.

With the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln, no American historical figures receive more attention than the founding fathers, so it is remarkable when a historian has something new to say about them. Ellis argues his point well here and synthesizes his information into a fresh point of view. Excellent book.

[Cindy (BKind2Books) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent examination of the second founding of America - while the Revolutionary War established independence from England, it took years to establish America as a NATION and not just as a loose confederation of states. Without the vision and foresight of these four men (and the input of others described within these pages), the outcome for this country would have been something more on the model of Europe with nations of Virginia or New York jockeying for position and wealth in the New World. The world might have looked much different today had it not been for the personal courage and convictions of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, and especially George Washington, the political and military 'rock star' of his age.

Facts/Quotes to remember:

...Nationhood was never a goal of the War for Independence, and all the political institutions necessary for a viable American nation-state were thoroughly stigmatized in the most heartfelt convictions of revolutionary ideology. The only thing holding the American colonies together until 1776 was their membership in the British empire. The only thing holding them together after 1776 was their common resolve to leave that empire.

From the beginning the war for Washington was an all or nothing wager. There were, to be sure, enormous political considerations at stake. He announced at the start that he regarded the Continental Army as subservient to civilian control as embodied in the Continental Congress...There were also pressing strategic questions about how to conduct the war. It took him more than a year to gain control over his own aggressive instincts which nearly proved a fatal liability in the New York campaign. Eventually he realized that a defensive strategy called a war of posts was the preferred course, even though it defied every fiber of his being. His seminal strategic insight, which seems obvious in retrospect, was that he did not need to win the war - the British needed to win. He would win by not losing...Survival became his central mission, more important than besting the British Army on the battlefield where he was often outmaneuvered. Indeed, no successful American general ever lost so many battles. His greatest gift was resilience rather than brilliance which just happened to be the quality of mind and heart that the American cause required.

..the arrival of the provisional treaty ending the war in April 1783 made the Continental Army superfluous and the sooner it disappeared, the better. Congress eventually voted to provide full pay for five years for officers in lieu of half pay for life, but doing so was a purely rhetorical exercise since there was no money in the federal coffers to pay anyone. Even that meaningless commitment generated widespread criticism especially in New England where returning officers were greeted with newspaper editorials describing them as "blood-beaked vultures feeding at the public trough." At least in retrospect the dissolution of the Continental Army in the spring of 1783 was one of the most poignant scenes in American history as the men who had stayed the course and won the war were ushered off without pay, with paper pensions, and only grudging recognition of their service. Washington could only weep. "To be disbanded, like a set of beggars, needy, distressed, and without prospect will drive every man of honor and sensibility to the extreme horrors of despair."

Ironically to the extent that the delegates of Philadelphia succeeded, their success was dependent on violating all of our contemporary convictions about transparency and diversity which is one reason why their success could never be duplicated in our time.

As Madison now realized the Constitution created a federal structure that moved the American republic toward nationhood while retaining an abiding place for local and state allegiances. In that sense, it was a second American Revolution that took the form of an American evolution that allowed the citizenry to adapt gradually to its national implications. In the long run, and this was probably Madison's most creative insight, the multiple ambiguities embedded in the Constitution made in an inherently living document for it was designed not to offer clear answers to the sovereignty question, or for that matter to the scope of executive or judicial authority, but instead to provide a political arena in which arguments about those contested issues could continue in a deliberative fashion. The Constitution was intended less to resolve arguments than to make argument itself the solution...Madison's original intention was to make all original intentions infinitely negotiable in the future.

...the structure of the government proposed in the Constitution was designed to sift popular opinion through multiple layers of deliberation in order to distill the long term interests of the American public.

...but on this earth rather than in the heavens, four men made history happen in a series of political decisions and actions that, in terms of their consequences, have no equal in American history.

Jefferson's problem, as Madison saw it, was that he believed that the primary threat to personal rights came from government. That might be true in Europe, but in our governments, the real power lies in the majority of the community, so the real threat came from "acts in which the government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents." As a result, Madison concluded that a Bill of Rights, however strongly marked on paper, will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public. He did not foresee the active role of the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

...in Madison's formulation, the right to bear arms was not inherent, but derivative, depending on service in the militia. The recent Supreme Court decision, Heller v. District of Columbia 2008, that found the right to bear arms an inherent and nearly unlimited right, is clearly at odds with Madison's original intentions.

They straddled an aristocratic world that was dying and a democratic world that was just emerging, theoretically an awkward posture that they managed to make into a graceful synthesis they called a republic. The Constitution they created and bequeathed to us was necessarily a product of that bimodal moment and mentality, and most of the men featured in this story would be astonished to learn that it abides, with amendments, over two centuries later. It has endured not because it embodies timeless truths that the founders fathomed as tongues of fire danced over their heads, but because it manages to combine the two timebound truths of its own time, namely that any legitimate government must rest on a popular foundation and that popular majorities cannot be trusted to act responsibly, a paradox that has aged remarkably well. Not their hubris, but their humility, has made the lasting difference. They knew they did not have all the answers...their genius was to answer the political challenges of their own moment decisively, meaning that the confederation must be replaced by the nation, but also to provide the political platform wide enough to allow for considerable latitude within which future generations could make their own decisions. Like wise parents, they allowed their children, which is to say us, to maximize our own moments for ourselves within the capacious republican framework they designed.

Jefferson on the adaptability of the Constitution: "...laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him as a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regime of their barbarous ancestors.

[Fred · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Goodreads summary is spot on, so I don't have much more to add except to say this is a short but very readable book by a trusted historian of the Colonial Era. It is a fascinating tale of the struggle to create a nation, a huge republic covering a dizzying variety of lands and concerns. It would hard enough to conceive of a constitution for such a vast representative democracy, but it was even harder when you consider that almost no one in the colonies wanted to be a nation. They wanted freedom from England but not necessarily creation of a centralized government. Were it not for the singular vision of these four men and a few others who played a part, the confederation of colonies that defeated Great Britain might never have become the United States of America.

[Ron · Rating 2 out of 5]

“Americans needed to think continentally.” A. Hamilton

Revisionist history at is best … and worst. Making use of newly available correspondence and biographies of his principles, Elis reconstructs the efforts leading up to the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia and the battle to ratify the new charter. However, his uneven handling of its modern meaning exposes his biases.

“It is indispensable you should lend yourself to its [the government’s] first operation.” A. Hamilton to G. Washington, 1788

Writing history is tricky. The historian must present the truth in a way that the reader can understand, even though the world view and values of their time may differ. Even if sources are cited, the reader seldom has access to them. He must trust the integrity of the writer. And if internal evidence betrays bias or false reporting, then the reader doesn’t know what to trust and therefore trusts none. (Winning journalism prizes indicates popularity, not integrity.)

“His virtue, his patriotism, his firmness would never yield to any dishonorable plans, [Washington] would sooner suffer himself to be cut to pieces.” A. Hamilton, Feb 1783

Ellis’ rewriting history is exemplified by his references to the faith of George Washington. Whatever may be claimed others, Washington was a devout, conservative Christian. He went so far as to avoid the term “God” as potentially improper. “Providence” was the term of address such men used for the deity. Yet Ellis would have us believe, “all believed that, while they themselves were not gods, the gods were on their side.” Oh, no. Not one of this quartet, not even a cryto-Unitarian like Jefferson, believed there was more than one god.

“The Citizens of America … are, from this period, to be considered as Actors on a most conspicuous Theatre, which seems to be particularly designed by Providence for the display of human greatness and felicity.” G. Washington.

Ellis’ agenda, that the constitution says whatever we wish it to say, is undercut by his analysis of what became the Second Amendment. “It is clear that Madison’s intention in drafting his proposed amendment was …” In so doing He resorts to the same strict constructionism for which he chides others.

“For reasons that have baffled historians ever since, by 1791 Madison has switched sides.” Name two baffled historians. As Ellis himself relates, Madison was intellectually and politically close to Jefferson. In the Federalist schism between Hamilton and Jefferson, Madison stayed loyal.

“Madison realized … the federal government must become ‘us’ rather than ‘them.’”

Paradoxically, if Madison’s plan had prevailed in Philadelphia, the constitution would not have been adopted. Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, bitter foes in politics, opposed the aggregation of power which the proposed constitution represented for the same reason: that an imperial government far from the people would eventually rule rather than govern.

“You make the citizens of this country to become the subjects of one consolidated empire in America.” Patrick Henry

Several helpful revisions: Spotlights John Jay’s talent and contributions. Alerts us that many founders, especially Madison and Hamilton, sensed “that unbridled democracy was incompatible with the political health of the republic.” He broadens his beam to shine on contributors such as Robert Morris, Benjamin Franklin, and Gouverneur Morris. Few realize that Thomas Jefferson in Paris at the time contributed little to the effort. That the “patriotic nonsense” surrounding the convention debunked by twentieth century Progressives, only to replace it with “quasi-Marxist nonsense.”

Patrick “Henry had without doubt the greatest power to persuade, [but] Madison had the greatest power to convince.” John Marshall

The inclusion of the complete texts of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution is appropriate and helpful. Interesting. Enjoyable. But not trustworthy. Seek that elsewhere.

“The American Revolution now meant not just independence but nationhood.”

[Alan Tomkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book details the transition of the United States from a confederation of sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, to a single nation-sized republic under the Constitution. This was a huge transformation that, viewed through the lens of history, was obviously necessary, but which at the time did not seem so to the majority of Americans...who, by the way, generally thought of themselves as Virginians or New Yorkers or South Carolinians, and not really as Americans. Residents of other states were widely viewed almost as foreigners, and not as fellow citizens. A minority of prominent Americans saw clearly the ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation and the powerless Confederation Congress. This book is how four of them--George Washington, James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton--worked against the odds to promote a nationalist vision to replace the Articles with an empowered national government that derived its power from the American people at large, as opposed to an intentionally weak and virtually powerless national legislature that purported to represent the states, but in reality could not discharge any of its national responsibilities, such as funding the Continental Army or paying America's foreign debt. Washington in particular, who had given so much and led the armed struggle for Independence from Great Britain, felt that all he had fought and struggled for was in danger of falling into ruin. The Revolution would have been for nought if the states were to fall into disunion or a bickering, warring North American version of Europe. This quartet of men feared that without a vigorous national government, our great political experiment would fail, which just about all of Europe was convinced would happen. The American states would be at the mercy of Britain, Spain, and each other. But the state governments were loathe to cede political power and viewed the establishment of a federal government with suspicion bordering on paranoia. Having fought to be free of parliament and King George III, they were generally hostile to the idea of a strong national government that might try to usurp their liberties.
This book spans the years from the Revolutionary War up through the ratification of the Constitution and the inauguration of the new Federal Government in 1789, and explains clearly the improbable course of how the Constitution and our current form of government came about.
The author is one of America's foremost historians and scholars of early American government. If you want to really know the minds and intentions of the founding fathers who set up our system of government, you may confidently reach for this book as a definitive text. It is a very intellectual book, but it is not difficult reading; and I found it fascinating. I was captivated by the political drama and maneuvering. It moved right along, never dry, always interesting and educational. I highly recommend this book, and I look forward to reading Ellis' history of the first decade of our national government, Founding Brothers, which continues our nation's story through the 1790s.

[Brian Willis · Rating 4 out of 5]

On July 4, 1776, 'Merica got freeeeedom, right? Wrong. In this lucid, compelling, and illuminating focus on the six years between the Treaty of Paris and the adoption of the Constitution, Ellis does what he does best: closely examines key figures and moments in the nations' founding to explain how we became a nation. In this case, four major American figures guided a nation of agrarian interests into a collective national interest by exploding the fractured Articles of Confederation and resynthesizing the American Revolution into a United States with a central government.

As much as contemporary politicians and activists claim that the initial interest of the Revolution was a nation without a central government, the majority of personalities whom constituted what we call "the Founding Fathers" realized that without some type of central governing force our fledgling country would never leave the nest. Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay built a central government that assumed critical governing powers such as taxation, militarization, and mitigation of factors that led constituents to failure in a mercantile economy. Always cogent and compelling, Ellis triumphs again here, especially in the closing moments when he refutes the argument of "original intent" judicial activists who claim that "if it isn't mentioned in the [230 year old] Constitution, then it wasn't guaranteed as a right". In fact, Madison in particular, the actual writer of the Bill of Rights meant the Constitution to be a dynamic and evolving document to re-examine as society developed.

His mentor Jefferson's own words close this book:

"laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered...institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times".

This book examines the first advancement, the movement from confederated but separate states into a a United singular nation. Essential reading for early American history and Constitutional enthusiasts.

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am a huge fan of the American Revolution but I can be picky about the books I read regarding it. I've read too many books that are factually correct but dry as bones. Ellis, however, doesn't fall into that category - his writing is simultaneously witty and profound, while always conveying the information he intends to in a clear and easy to understand way. It was very interesting to read a book that focused so much on the aftermath of the war rather than the war itself, and Ellis makes pages of political theory, philosophy, and strategy entertaining and intriguing. I also admit to not knowing as much about Jay as the other three major players in this book, and I don't know as much as I'd like to about him. I found that this book was a good introduction to his role and importance, highlighting what makes him stand out from the other founding fathers while also not forgetting to give an equal spotlight to his three contemporaries. Overall, I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in the time period and events of the time, as well as people who are less invested or perhaps only beginning to show an interest in the Revolutionary War as it gives a comprehensive overview of some of the major players that a biography on only a single founding father would not provide.

[BigHeadWalt · Rating 1 out of 5]

I forgot why I stopped reading Joseph Ellis books, then reading this one brought it all back to me.
The book is an easy read, but he cannot keep his political comments out of the book and just provide a compelling history.
One page he writes how one cannot and one must not judge the founders with a modern eye and a few pages later he includes a passage on how the recent Heller Supreme Court case regarding the second ammendment was judged incorrectly and finishes the book writing how the Constitution should be a living document...

I picked up the book with reservations regarding Ellis, but hoping for more information regarding John Jay and received little more information on John Jay and more evidence as to why one should avoid books by Ellis unless you are interested in his biased view of history

[Kenneth Wade · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting topic, good information, but at times it is not well organized and at other times it gets dull, making it easy to zone out.

3.25 out of 5 stars

[Tony · Rating 4 out of 5]

Due to certain troubling political events at the end of 2016, I became interested in learning more about the establishment of our country and the events that led to the Constitution. I knew very little about the period (except broad strokes) and was especially interested about the swirling debate on “original intent” as it related to the Constitution.

That general interest led me to tackle a Revolutionary War history to celebrate the Fourth of July in 2018 (I’ve tried a similar reading approach around Christmas time, with mixed results —I have more luck with Christmas movies than books). That June-July I read Revolutionary Summer, also by Ellis. It was a good first one to tackle as it had a focus on the summer of 1776, the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, and the nearly catastrophic Battle of New York. It was a fast paced, not overly detailed read - a good summer book, for sure.

The Quartet is also by Ellis and I targeted it for this year after taking two Fourths of July (2019 and 2020) to finish Jack Rakove’s Revolutionaries. Rakove’s book was very good, but much longer than Ellis’ Revolutionary Summer. While much more detailed, it also lacked some of the narrative momentum as each chapter was focused on an individual “founder.” Fortunately, this also lent itself nicely to being spilt up over two summers. (Reading the Alexander Hamilton and Henry Laurens chapters made me try Hamilton on Disney+, which launched a summer of ear worms for me).

Like Revolutionary Summer, The Quartet is also a relatively breezy read but helped me dig into some of the Constitutional issues I’ve been wondering about. Again, it also lacks some of the detail I’m hoping to find in other books on the topic, but it does a good job of sticking to its central premise and establishing the basic narrative, characters, and their political philosophies. Definitely would recommend.

[Carol Storm · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good book, but it tries to do too many things. There are good mini-biographies of the four men behind the Constitutional Convention, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. And there are some fascinating stories about what went on behind the scenes at the Convention. And there are some great stories about why the Articles of Confederation made it impossible for the new nation to act quickly and effectively during times of crisis. But none of this comes together in a single, compelling narrative. Joseph J. Ellis is more interested in legal niceties than in popular movements or great moral questions. And there's hardly any mention of slavery, Native Americans, or the rights of women.

[Sean O · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this overview of how the Constitution came to be. Ellis suggests it required a second American Revolution, led by this quartet.

I thought it was good and expanded on a key section of Chernow’s Hamilton.

[Ashley · Rating 5 out of 5]

These men and others were inspired and helped by "divine providence" to create and ratify the Constitution. They could not have done it without God's help. That is my own opinion, but necessarily the authors since he only mentioned near the end that there are letters that these men equated to their success to divine providence.

I did like his explanation of the great compromise topic of slavery.The southern states would never have agreed to ratify to Constitution and abolish slavery. It may seem like the founders helped prolong slavery, but the Constitution actually paved the way for the ability to abolish it and not allow it to expand outward to the west of the states.

I don't agree with his total progressive view of the Constitution stated near the end, though I do love that 'we the people' added amendments. We do need those bill of rights!

This was a good over view of the preparation for the convention, a bit of the convention, and the ratifying process after.