The Founding Step-Brother. A lackluster hagiography.
Poston's 2021 exceedingly brief biography of James Monroe suffers from a desire to shoehorn Monroe into the Founder's generation when he really wasn't coupled with an attempt to justify EVERY decision Monroe made as being one in support of "Republicanism" (regardless of its wisdom or efficacy).
First off, this is a SHORT book. Barely over 200 pages, it's less a biography than a thumbnail sketch of America's 5th president. That would be fine if it took a thematic approach closer to Ellis' character sketches of Washington or Jefferson. But we don't have that here - instead, We get 200+ pages of "Wasn't Monroe awesome?" Which very quickly brings the reader to the conclusion that no, he wasn't.
First off, Poston tries too hard to include Monroe in the Founding Fathers generation when he simply wasn't. He was too young and not involved in the formative events of the Revolution or Constitutional Convention to be of that era. Was he "Founder adjacent?" Certainly. But he was not a Founder in any real sense of the word. Secondly, Poston tries too hard to elevate Monroe's intellectualism well beyond the bounds of credulity.
The major problem with Poston's work is its premise. Positioning Monroe as a "Republican Champion" forces Poston to justify every action (or inaction) by Monroe as one that "advances republicanism." The major problem is that neither Poston nor Monroe ever really define Republicanism in any meaningful way.
At best, Monroe is a watered-down Jeffersonian/Madison republican but one who was never able to adequately articulate what that MEANT. So, in practice, what we get is anything that Monroe did/supported = Republicanism vs. what he didn't do/support = monarchism. It's unsatisfying/frustrating, to say the least. That inevitably makes it easier to justify every Monroe decision, but it feels so forced as to be almost laughable.
So whether it's Monroe taking a supremely naive view of the French Revolution as ambassador to France to the point that he's recalled and, even per Poston's admission, subverting America's interests in support of broader "republican" principles, or totally contravening those republican principles in furtherance of Federal power (only once he's in the seat, 'natch) -- what we get it is less a commendable bio of a Founding era figure than a middling hagiography that attempts to justify every decision through the amorphous lens of "Republicanism."
Ultimately, what we get is a very abbreviated look at Monroe's life devoid of any criticism or critical assessment of his intellectual development, decisions, worldview, or policies. While I can appreciate an attempt to reassess a past president, this attempt fails because it's less a reassessment than it is a full-on resurrection.