What do you think?
Rate this book
Founding Feuds: The Rivalries, Clashes, and Conflicts That Forged a Nation
The fascinating untold stories of America's founding fathers! The Founding Fathers have been hailed for centuries as shining examples of men who put aside their own agendas to found a nation. But behind the scenes, there were more petty fights and fraught relationships than signatures on the Declaration of Independence. From the violent brawl between Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon in the halls of Congress, to George Washington's battle against his slave Harry Washington, these less-discussed clashes bring to light the unpredictable and volatile nature of a constantly changing nation. Additionally, this gripping narrative delves deeper into the famous feuds, such as the fatal duel of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, and the many rivalries of Thomas Jefferson (which were as often personal as political.) America's great forbearers fought with each other as bitterly as our politicians do today. Founding Feuds reveals the true natures of the Founding Fathers and how their infighting shaped our nation as much as their cooperation, in fact sometimes even for the better.
238 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2016
About the author
Paul Aron
45 books17 followersPaul Aron is senior editor at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Previously he was a reporter for The Virginia Gazette and executive editor at Simon & Schuster.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
January 21, 2016
The Old Republican Party is already ruined, past redemption. --John Randolph
Early American history is filled with strongly opinionated people. One doesn't recreated civilization according to radical, new ideals without a little discord. Liberty is fought for, continually. The choice of feuds included give a brief overview, but the way they intersect provides a matrix of political thought being argued and how the results affected the union.
This is book is entertaining and compelling. It entices the reader to investigate the feuds further. To explore more of what interests them. For me, first on the docket will be understanding now Adams and Jefferson managed to reconcile. But, it won't be the last.
This book is Founding Feuds, not Founding Fathers' Feuds so there are some interesting match ups in philosophical differences. Many of the names are famous, but there are some lesser knowns that are fascinating. It covers issues from the Revolution to the Constitution to slavery to the battle over state versus federal rights; things we are still influenced and affected by today.
This book gives the reader a broad grasp of points of contention, if you want the deep notes you'll find yourself wanting to branch out for more. So, it's a trap. You're going to want to read more after reading this because unless you find history boring, and then why would you be reading this book, you're going to be struck by one of these feuds and say, "I gotta know more."
Favorite, cackle-worthy quote:
Unlike Jefferson, Burr "holds to no pernicious theories," Sedgwick wrote. "His very selfishness prevents his entertaining any mischievous predilections.
~Copy provided by NetGalley~
<<>>--<<>>--<<>>--<<>>--<<>>--<<>>--<<>>--<<>>
Because I'm bored with our present politics, I'm digging into this delight. The Founding Fathers would have made all our present politicians cry, and makes Trump's shenanigans look like Kindergarten playtime.
Honestly, I'm in it for my homeboy:
Alexander Hamilton. And whichever numbnuts thought of taking Hamilton off the ten dollar bill needs to be smacked upside the head with an AP US History text. Seriously, take anyone off their bill before you take the father of the US Treasury off! FFS.
I got the ARC!!! *Snoopy dance*
March 14, 2017
Otherwise entitled "Everyone hates Jefferson and Jefferson hates you"
I loved loved loved this short narrative of the cat fights that were all the rage of D.C. Around the time of the revolution. Each chapter is another feud (Thomas Jefferson often playing a part), told in a detailed story format with quotes from involved personalities. I listened to this but if I see this out anywhere I'm snapping it up!
2017 Lenten Buddy Reading Challenge book #24
I loved loved loved this short narrative of the cat fights that were all the rage of D.C. Around the time of the revolution. Each chapter is another feud (Thomas Jefferson often playing a part), told in a detailed story format with quotes from involved personalities. I listened to this but if I see this out anywhere I'm snapping it up!
2017 Lenten Buddy Reading Challenge book #24
November 16, 2017
More of a 3.5, but I'll round up since it brought to light a few I hadn't known about & had some different perspectives on others. Overall, it did its job of highlighting just how turbulent US politics has always been. What we despair over today is just business as usual. Our Founding Fathers weren't of one mind & fought each other as bitterly &, in some cases, even more harshly than the British.
On the plus side, there are a couple of dozen feuds that cover most of the big players & often show them in less than a perfect light. That's important. We tend to get fed a whitewashed version of these men & women that turn them into demi-gods. They weren't. Many did great deeds, but were as just as greatly flawed. Others were demonized while some were pretty demonic.
There was a lot of repetition. Each chapter is complete within itself, as if they were originally published that way & no editing was done to make them flow together as a whole. As someone listening to the entire book, that kind of sucked. If I was reading this in print occasionally or listening to it as series of podcasts, that would have been easier to deal with.
While Aron did a fairly good job describing the culture of the times in many cases, I was very disappointed that he left out how often the early Congress challenged each other to a duel. It was a thing, quite common, but rarely went anywhere. Hamilton was or had been involved in a dozen or more challenges that are long forgotten. Burr just happened to be a little more pissed off & meaner than most so things went further than expected.
Washington, Jefferson, Adams, & Paine were covered the most. He really captured their complex lives well in these few snapshots. Highly recommended. It's short &, while not complete, does add a dimension to our whitewashed history.
On the plus side, there are a couple of dozen feuds that cover most of the big players & often show them in less than a perfect light. That's important. We tend to get fed a whitewashed version of these men & women that turn them into demi-gods. They weren't. Many did great deeds, but were as just as greatly flawed. Others were demonized while some were pretty demonic.
There was a lot of repetition. Each chapter is complete within itself, as if they were originally published that way & no editing was done to make them flow together as a whole. As someone listening to the entire book, that kind of sucked. If I was reading this in print occasionally or listening to it as series of podcasts, that would have been easier to deal with.
While Aron did a fairly good job describing the culture of the times in many cases, I was very disappointed that he left out how often the early Congress challenged each other to a duel. It was a thing, quite common, but rarely went anywhere. Hamilton was or had been involved in a dozen or more challenges that are long forgotten. Burr just happened to be a little more pissed off & meaner than most so things went further than expected.
Washington, Jefferson, Adams, & Paine were covered the most. He really captured their complex lives well in these few snapshots. Highly recommended. It's short &, while not complete, does add a dimension to our whitewashed history.
February 14, 2017
A brief collection of arguments between Founding Fathers. It's 3-4 lesser known histories mixed with 10 famous ones. If you're a Revolutionary War buff, I doubt you'd find anything new here. If you're a casual reader of our founding, like myself, you'll most likely find something new.
Sidenote: I did enjoy all the quotes. Nothing is as funny to me as hearing someone castigate something in old English. It sounds too ridiculous to be taken seriously and yet you can tell the speaker was quite ardent in his rebuff.
Sidenote: I did enjoy all the quotes. Nothing is as funny to me as hearing someone castigate something in old English. It sounds too ridiculous to be taken seriously and yet you can tell the speaker was quite ardent in his rebuff.
March 30, 2016
This year I have been trying to read more books about the POTUS. No particular reason, it's just something I've always felt I wanted to know more about, but never did any self-learning on the subject since it tends to be so dry.
Being honest, this is the kind of writing that turned me off of it for so many years. Even though the subject of the book itself should be really interesting (feuds amongst the founding fathers, comeon!), the writing is very dry and failed to keep me interested.
However, if you are someone who can read books with pages of quotes and mater-of-fact writing, then you will probably enjoy this one. It wasn't in a style I was able to enjoy, but there really are a lot of interesting stories here. And the book is pretty short so it's not like a textbook that drags on and on. The information is laid out in a succinct way, though that could be part of the problem.
Copy courtesy of Sourcebooks, via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
Being honest, this is the kind of writing that turned me off of it for so many years. Even though the subject of the book itself should be really interesting (feuds amongst the founding fathers, comeon!), the writing is very dry and failed to keep me interested.
However, if you are someone who can read books with pages of quotes and mater-of-fact writing, then you will probably enjoy this one. It wasn't in a style I was able to enjoy, but there really are a lot of interesting stories here. And the book is pretty short so it's not like a textbook that drags on and on. The information is laid out in a succinct way, though that could be part of the problem.
Copy courtesy of Sourcebooks, via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
August 12, 2024
On the plus side Founding Feuds is a breezy account of the animosities between founders of the United States and others in their orbit involving issues important to the shaping of the country. Unfortunately the book too often is marred by misleading superficiality and inaccurate revisionism in pursuit of its premise that such deep divides are healthy for democracy. The author too lightly dismisses the insurrectionism of Shay’s rebellion as merely an expression of “we the people,” downplays and largely ignores Hamilton’s contributions to our government institutions and financial well being while casting doubt on Aaron Burr’s amoral and opportunistic misdeeds, and worst of all seems to attribute Chief Justice Marshall’s indispensable jurisprudence simply to his dislike of Thomas Jefferson. This is flawed history in service of a narrative that disserves both the past and the present.
May 30, 2016
I received a free Kindle copy of this book courtesy of Net Galley and Sourcebooks, the publisher. This was with the expectation that I would post a review on Net Galley, Goodreads, Amazon and my review blog. I also posted it to my Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google Plus pages.
I requested this book as I have a great interest in our country and in particular the early formative years. This is the first book by Paul Aron that I have read.
This is an interesting and quick read that addresses many of the minor and major clashes between many of our founding fathers and others who played less spectacular roles in our early history (such as Harry Washington). Most of the disagreements addressed in the book have been covered in books that provided more background and substance that this one does, but it is meant to simply be an overview and not a comprehensive review of each dispute. What I found most interesting was some the subjects covered were new to me and I have read extensively on this time period.
I recommend this book for anyone looking for an overview of the early tension that existed in the formative days of our country.
I requested this book as I have a great interest in our country and in particular the early formative years. This is the first book by Paul Aron that I have read.
This is an interesting and quick read that addresses many of the minor and major clashes between many of our founding fathers and others who played less spectacular roles in our early history (such as Harry Washington). Most of the disagreements addressed in the book have been covered in books that provided more background and substance that this one does, but it is meant to simply be an overview and not a comprehensive review of each dispute. What I found most interesting was some the subjects covered were new to me and I have read extensively on this time period.
I recommend this book for anyone looking for an overview of the early tension that existed in the formative days of our country.
June 5, 2016
An interesting introduction to so many feudS that I didn't know has existed. Some of these men really really hated each other, so it is a surprise that our nation survived.
I received this as an ARC via netgalley in exchange for an honest review. Full review to come.
++++++++++
Full review is posted on my blog at http://allthebookblognamesaretaken
and
www.facebook.com/AllTheBookBlogNamesA...
I received this as an ARC via netgalley in exchange for an honest review. Full review to come.
++++++++++
Full review is posted on my blog at http://allthebookblognamesaretaken
and
www.facebook.com/AllTheBookBlogNamesA...
August 10, 2017
It is fairly inevitable given the great deal of attention that is given to our nation's Founding Fathers [1] that someone would seek to look at their feuds and quarrels as being a source of our nation's strength rather than a sign of the common fallen nature that they shared along with us. As a person who has been prone to my share of feuds and quarrels with other people, the subject of the book was definitely one that I could relate to, without question. The author, moreover, does a good job at framing the reason for the conflicts, and the fact that the conflicts show a greater richness about the humanity of the Founding Fathers than might otherwise have been the case. The way that they treated rivals and people with whom they disagreed had a lot to do with the sorts of qualities that they embodied as well as the national culture that they helped to form. In looking at the disagreements of the Founding Fathers, in other words, we help to see the conflicts that shaped our own conflict-ridden age, something most of us could better understand.
The roughly 150 pages of text (another 50 some pages are in footnotes documenting the conflicts) look at a series of feuds and quarrels that reveal something fundamental about the Founding Fathers. Let us examine these quarrels in turn. Silas Deane and Arthur Lee were two colleagues in the early efforts at diplomacy with France that fell out. George Washington sought to recover without success his brave and spirited runaway slave Henry, who died mysteriously somewhere in Africa. Benjamin Lincoln and Daniel Shays found themselves on opposite sides of a populist quarrel over Massachusetts debts to Revolutionary debtholders. Patrick Henry opposed James Madison over the Constitution in Virginia. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson sparred over the destiny of the United States in Washington's first-term cabinet. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson quarreled in the immensely partisan struggles of the late 1790's. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton then quarreled over their mutual personality differences and mutual mistrust. Thomas Paine and George Washington quarreled over Washington's chilly reserve in the face of Paine's problems as a result of his radicalism abroad. Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon had a brawl with weapons in Congress over the partisan politics of the 1790's. William Cobbett and Thomas Paine had a newspaper war over their political disagreements. Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton long sparred in New York politics before their quarrels ended in a deadly and infamous duel. Not too many years later, the simmering quarrel between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr ended up in a trial for treason. Equally unsurprising, this trial was the occasion for a longstanding political quarrel between Virginian relatives Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall over their differences in worldview. Thomas Jefferson's political pragmatism in the presidency then led him to fall out with antifederalist cousin John Randolph, who formed the Tertium Quids in response. Then Thomas Jefferson had the temerity to quarrel with freed slave poet Phillis Wheatley, whose elegant neoclassical poetry contradicted his own racist views of black artistic and creative capabilities. The book then closes with John Adams quarreling with amateur historian Mercy Otis Warren over his historical reputation, a fitting way to close a book about quarrels and historical reputations.
This is a short book but the quarrels it discusses are worth remembering even though many of them will be familiar to those who read a lot about the period of the early American republic. Some people were pretty famous haters--John Adams was a prickly and sensitive person and so he had quarrels with many people but was also willing to let bygones be bygones at least some of the time. Thomas Jefferson was a pretty notorious hater, for all of his historical importance, largely because he appeared to have problems whenever he was not in control and other people were constantly showing themselves to be beyond his power of domination. The case of George Washington is a rather sympathetic one, at least to this soul of restraint, in that Washington's reserve led him to have fewer outright feuds and quarrels than most people had his icy reserve was not one that captures our own hearts. Perhaps we need others to be humans and cannot bear to see others as marble heroes. Our age is one that must tear down every image except our idolatrous self-image it seems.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
The roughly 150 pages of text (another 50 some pages are in footnotes documenting the conflicts) look at a series of feuds and quarrels that reveal something fundamental about the Founding Fathers. Let us examine these quarrels in turn. Silas Deane and Arthur Lee were two colleagues in the early efforts at diplomacy with France that fell out. George Washington sought to recover without success his brave and spirited runaway slave Henry, who died mysteriously somewhere in Africa. Benjamin Lincoln and Daniel Shays found themselves on opposite sides of a populist quarrel over Massachusetts debts to Revolutionary debtholders. Patrick Henry opposed James Madison over the Constitution in Virginia. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson sparred over the destiny of the United States in Washington's first-term cabinet. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson quarreled in the immensely partisan struggles of the late 1790's. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton then quarreled over their mutual personality differences and mutual mistrust. Thomas Paine and George Washington quarreled over Washington's chilly reserve in the face of Paine's problems as a result of his radicalism abroad. Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon had a brawl with weapons in Congress over the partisan politics of the 1790's. William Cobbett and Thomas Paine had a newspaper war over their political disagreements. Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton long sparred in New York politics before their quarrels ended in a deadly and infamous duel. Not too many years later, the simmering quarrel between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr ended up in a trial for treason. Equally unsurprising, this trial was the occasion for a longstanding political quarrel between Virginian relatives Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall over their differences in worldview. Thomas Jefferson's political pragmatism in the presidency then led him to fall out with antifederalist cousin John Randolph, who formed the Tertium Quids in response. Then Thomas Jefferson had the temerity to quarrel with freed slave poet Phillis Wheatley, whose elegant neoclassical poetry contradicted his own racist views of black artistic and creative capabilities. The book then closes with John Adams quarreling with amateur historian Mercy Otis Warren over his historical reputation, a fitting way to close a book about quarrels and historical reputations.
This is a short book but the quarrels it discusses are worth remembering even though many of them will be familiar to those who read a lot about the period of the early American republic. Some people were pretty famous haters--John Adams was a prickly and sensitive person and so he had quarrels with many people but was also willing to let bygones be bygones at least some of the time. Thomas Jefferson was a pretty notorious hater, for all of his historical importance, largely because he appeared to have problems whenever he was not in control and other people were constantly showing themselves to be beyond his power of domination. The case of George Washington is a rather sympathetic one, at least to this soul of restraint, in that Washington's reserve led him to have fewer outright feuds and quarrels than most people had his icy reserve was not one that captures our own hearts. Perhaps we need others to be humans and cannot bear to see others as marble heroes. Our age is one that must tear down every image except our idolatrous self-image it seems.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
March 16, 2018
I believe we have a tendency to look back on history as being a simpler time when people seemed a bit more civilized and cultured, and they had a bigger and broader picture in mind with more of an ability to set aside personal differences and viewpoints, compromise, and work together.
This book largely shatters that view.
Once the rule of Britain was removed, the personal and political differences of those who helped bring about independence not only came to the surface, but in some ways attained a level that we would even be appalled by today.
Founders such as Thomas Paine, who wrote the pamphlet "Common Sense" which turned the opinions of several Founding Fathers, including that of Washington, would later feel personally betrayed by Washington when he did nothing to bail him out of a Parisian jailhouse for not advocating too radical French Revolution, and publicly referred to "The Father of America" as being a hypocrite. But there were other founders who felt betrayed as well by those they once considered allies, if not in the very least amicable.
Among those who drew the most criticism was Thomas Jefferson. No one would deny that he wrote one of the most brilliant documents in all of history in "The Declaration of Independence", but was at the same time considered a coward when he not only did not join in the fight against the British, but ran away from Richmond, Virginia while serving as governor, as well as his own home in Monticello, when British forces came through. And later on, while he would advocate for a Federal government limited in its powers by the consent of the governed and by the Constitution, he would make a large land purchase known as "The Louisiana Purchase", and violate the principles by which he himself had helped secure the Constitutional Republic.
There were founding fathers who appeared to embrace a form of monarchy (known as Federalists), and included in their ranks John Adams. Republicans (not like the Republicans of today) wanted rule by the consent of the governed. It was splits like these that led to the Presidential election of 1800, which really was one of the most vitriolic and contentious in all of American history.
What really awakened me though in reading this was just how "uncivilized" political differences and those who espoused them had taken deep root within the earliest days of our government. Two stories are told that highlight this.
One is that of Roger Griswold, a congressman from Connecticut, and the prototypical Federalist of his day. Aristocratic, well educated at Yale, he was the "poster boy" for the attacks of the Republicans, most vocally by Matthew Lyon, congressman from Vermont. Lyon was an Irish born immigrant, farmer, and newspaper publisher who quite publicly stated that Griswold did nothing to represent the people of Connecticut, but rather let his own ambition lead him. An exchange of words followed, with a later occurrence where Griswold began beating Lyon with his cane in full view of the Speaker of the House until Lyon was able to find some fireplace tongs and fight back.
Perhaps though the most famous (and bloody) feuds occurred between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. The irony was at least once, possibly twice, Burr had saved Hamilton's life, and both had been friends. But Hamilton's opinion of Burr changed and he would later view him as an unprincipled political opportunist. It all came to a head when, according to the rules of the day, Jefferson had selected Burr as his running mate to be vice President, yet the 12th Amendment had yet to be drafted. So while the people wanted Jefferson to be the President, if Burr actually received more electoral votes than Jefferson (despite being the VP candidate), he could be voted in as President.
As it turned out both Jefferson and Burr tied with 73 electoral votes, causing the tiebreaker to go to the house, which was controlled by Federalists at the time. The House was not friendly to either Jefferson or Burr, but Hamilton, a war hero and Washington's most trusted advisor, though no friend to Jefferson, stated that though he disagreed with Jefferson's principles, he at least had them whereas Burr had none. Many claim this is what swayed the vote to go to Jefferson. Burr, so outraged by the betrayal of a man he had saved and had considered a friend, later challenged Hamilton to a duel, which led to his death a day afterward.
It's stories like these that are conveyed in this book that caused me to stop and pause and realize that there was hardly ever a time in our history where the United States, and the men who created her, were ever truly united. If the politics of today get you longing for days past, this read will inform you that even the good ol' days weren't so good.
This book largely shatters that view.
Once the rule of Britain was removed, the personal and political differences of those who helped bring about independence not only came to the surface, but in some ways attained a level that we would even be appalled by today.
Founders such as Thomas Paine, who wrote the pamphlet "Common Sense" which turned the opinions of several Founding Fathers, including that of Washington, would later feel personally betrayed by Washington when he did nothing to bail him out of a Parisian jailhouse for not advocating too radical French Revolution, and publicly referred to "The Father of America" as being a hypocrite. But there were other founders who felt betrayed as well by those they once considered allies, if not in the very least amicable.
Among those who drew the most criticism was Thomas Jefferson. No one would deny that he wrote one of the most brilliant documents in all of history in "The Declaration of Independence", but was at the same time considered a coward when he not only did not join in the fight against the British, but ran away from Richmond, Virginia while serving as governor, as well as his own home in Monticello, when British forces came through. And later on, while he would advocate for a Federal government limited in its powers by the consent of the governed and by the Constitution, he would make a large land purchase known as "The Louisiana Purchase", and violate the principles by which he himself had helped secure the Constitutional Republic.
There were founding fathers who appeared to embrace a form of monarchy (known as Federalists), and included in their ranks John Adams. Republicans (not like the Republicans of today) wanted rule by the consent of the governed. It was splits like these that led to the Presidential election of 1800, which really was one of the most vitriolic and contentious in all of American history.
What really awakened me though in reading this was just how "uncivilized" political differences and those who espoused them had taken deep root within the earliest days of our government. Two stories are told that highlight this.
One is that of Roger Griswold, a congressman from Connecticut, and the prototypical Federalist of his day. Aristocratic, well educated at Yale, he was the "poster boy" for the attacks of the Republicans, most vocally by Matthew Lyon, congressman from Vermont. Lyon was an Irish born immigrant, farmer, and newspaper publisher who quite publicly stated that Griswold did nothing to represent the people of Connecticut, but rather let his own ambition lead him. An exchange of words followed, with a later occurrence where Griswold began beating Lyon with his cane in full view of the Speaker of the House until Lyon was able to find some fireplace tongs and fight back.
Perhaps though the most famous (and bloody) feuds occurred between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. The irony was at least once, possibly twice, Burr had saved Hamilton's life, and both had been friends. But Hamilton's opinion of Burr changed and he would later view him as an unprincipled political opportunist. It all came to a head when, according to the rules of the day, Jefferson had selected Burr as his running mate to be vice President, yet the 12th Amendment had yet to be drafted. So while the people wanted Jefferson to be the President, if Burr actually received more electoral votes than Jefferson (despite being the VP candidate), he could be voted in as President.
As it turned out both Jefferson and Burr tied with 73 electoral votes, causing the tiebreaker to go to the house, which was controlled by Federalists at the time. The House was not friendly to either Jefferson or Burr, but Hamilton, a war hero and Washington's most trusted advisor, though no friend to Jefferson, stated that though he disagreed with Jefferson's principles, he at least had them whereas Burr had none. Many claim this is what swayed the vote to go to Jefferson. Burr, so outraged by the betrayal of a man he had saved and had considered a friend, later challenged Hamilton to a duel, which led to his death a day afterward.
It's stories like these that are conveyed in this book that caused me to stop and pause and realize that there was hardly ever a time in our history where the United States, and the men who created her, were ever truly united. If the politics of today get you longing for days past, this read will inform you that even the good ol' days weren't so good.
October 2, 2017
So… “Hamilton” is a thing. You can’t get much more all-American than George Washington. Jefferson created the basis for the laws we still follow today. And there are a handful of other Founding Fathers we learn about in elementary school, and then probably forget unless somebody asks us “who is on the $1 bill?” or their birthday means we get a day off from work or school.
But do you know what we don’t learn about the Founding Fathers in elementary school?
That they kinda hated each other with an awesome sort of passion.
I sort of knew this, especially since Alexander Hamilton was the sort of guy who would duel and be killed by Aaron Burr, the Vice President!
There is so much more to the feuds of the Founding Fathers, though. So very much more. And Paul Aron lays it all out brilliantly in FOUNDING FEUDS.
27173064
If you ever need a good, old-timey insult to fling at somebody during a political debate (and who doesn’t need an insult in a political debate?), look no further than the Founding Fathers. After all, Aron cites William Cobbett saying of Thomas Paine (English and European, but also greatly influencing the creation of America was we know it):
How Tom gets a living now, or what brothel he inhabits, I know not. Whether his carcass is at last to be suffered to rot on the earth, or to be dried in the air, is of very little consequence… Like Judas he will be remembered by posterity; men will learn to express all that is base, malignant, treacherous, unnatural and blasphemous, by the singly monosyllable, Paine.
And they were friends! (Sometimes.)
But that’s just a taste.
It’s really not surprising that they showed and shared such a deep-rooted dislike for and distrust of one another. Their egos and senses of self had to be huge to think they could start a revolution and found a country. No way they could all peacefully co-exist without proverbial, and sometimes literal, bloodshed.
So if you need a break from the political bickering that’s currently and always ongoing, I could not recommend something more than I can recommend this book. The vaunted Founding Fathers argued in a much classier way, and they weren’t afraid to mince their words. It’s great!
(I received a copy of FOUNDING FEUDS through NetGalley and SOURCEBOOKS in exchange for an honest & original review. All thoughts are my own.)
But do you know what we don’t learn about the Founding Fathers in elementary school?
That they kinda hated each other with an awesome sort of passion.
I sort of knew this, especially since Alexander Hamilton was the sort of guy who would duel and be killed by Aaron Burr, the Vice President!
There is so much more to the feuds of the Founding Fathers, though. So very much more. And Paul Aron lays it all out brilliantly in FOUNDING FEUDS.
27173064
If you ever need a good, old-timey insult to fling at somebody during a political debate (and who doesn’t need an insult in a political debate?), look no further than the Founding Fathers. After all, Aron cites William Cobbett saying of Thomas Paine (English and European, but also greatly influencing the creation of America was we know it):
How Tom gets a living now, or what brothel he inhabits, I know not. Whether his carcass is at last to be suffered to rot on the earth, or to be dried in the air, is of very little consequence… Like Judas he will be remembered by posterity; men will learn to express all that is base, malignant, treacherous, unnatural and blasphemous, by the singly monosyllable, Paine.
And they were friends! (Sometimes.)
But that’s just a taste.
It’s really not surprising that they showed and shared such a deep-rooted dislike for and distrust of one another. Their egos and senses of self had to be huge to think they could start a revolution and found a country. No way they could all peacefully co-exist without proverbial, and sometimes literal, bloodshed.
So if you need a break from the political bickering that’s currently and always ongoing, I could not recommend something more than I can recommend this book. The vaunted Founding Fathers argued in a much classier way, and they weren’t afraid to mince their words. It’s great!
(I received a copy of FOUNDING FEUDS through NetGalley and SOURCEBOOKS in exchange for an honest & original review. All thoughts are my own.)
January 27, 2022
Well researched and well written information on the not so smooth relationships of many of our founding fathers. We tend to hear how wonderful our country is and assume that the early politicians and statesmen of the 18th and early 19th century was all handshakes and nods and signing documents that everyone agreed with. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was a lot of quarrelling and hand wringing, and name calling. Not to mention a few duels to the death and some that could have been. This is a good read, especially those who think our current divide between parties is unequalled. I recommend this book for anyone interested in some of the key players who shaped our great republic.
June 6, 2017
The best part of the book was the end where the author states that if we reminisce that the 18th and 19th century was a time when everyone agreed, we are wrong. Divergent viewpoints only serve to strengthen and build much like exercise builds strong bodies. Agreement tends to lead to stagnation. A nation can be unified even with strongly held opposing viewpoints, in fact, those are vital to the strength of a nation.
The feuds were interesting, but the take-away was that the more things change, the more they stay the same. People are the same in all ages. Circumstances change, but for the most part, people stay the same.
The feuds were interesting, but the take-away was that the more things change, the more they stay the same. People are the same in all ages. Circumstances change, but for the most part, people stay the same.
August 17, 2021
An interesting breakdown of late 1700s gossip. In short, everyone argued about everything, with varying levels of personal animosity thrown in. My only gripe is that the author chose to have each feud in its own sections rather than intersperse them, say, chronologically. This has the benefit of keeping the focus clear; however, the drawback is that there is some repeating information and possible connections between the various feuds are harder to identify. 3.5 stars
October 7, 2021
Sometimes it seems a miracle that our country came into existence.
Jefferson seemed to be so vain and so two faced on slavery. He even denied that Phyllis Wheatly, an educated slave could write the poetry that she did write just because she was black.
John Adams was so jealous of protecting his place in history that he wrote letters protesting the writing of his once friend Mercy Warren because she didn't give him enough credit.
Many other feuds are written about.
Jefferson seemed to be so vain and so two faced on slavery. He even denied that Phyllis Wheatly, an educated slave could write the poetry that she did write just because she was black.
John Adams was so jealous of protecting his place in history that he wrote letters protesting the writing of his once friend Mercy Warren because she didn't give him enough credit.
Many other feuds are written about.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 5, 2018
Thomas Jefferson was a dick.
I'm glad the author mentioned several times about the hypocrisy of the founding fathers principles when it came to African Americans and women.
Really interesting read. Really takes down the flowery image of a small rag tag nation working together as one. Great 4th of July Read.
I'm glad the author mentioned several times about the hypocrisy of the founding fathers principles when it came to African Americans and women.
Really interesting read. Really takes down the flowery image of a small rag tag nation working together as one. Great 4th of July Read.
May 7, 2022
A fantastic, intriguing, quick read that delves into the lesser known and less idolized history of our nation's founders. The book shows how their flaws, not just their strengths, contributed to how our nation was forged, particularly regarding their relationships with each other and their views on women and Black people (free and enslaved).
August 14, 2017
Entertaining, enlightening and enjoyable. Featuring sixteen "feuds" of varying degrees of intensity and animosity among our founding fathers (with no less than six of them involving the not-so-saintly and very prickly Thomas Jefferson!), the book is easy to read feud-by-feud. Highly recommended.
October 20, 2018
The book was mostly just quotes. Who was for something; who was against something; and who had something to say about whom.
December 22, 2020
So interesting. Chapters can be read individually based on interests. Great for fans of Hamilton who love the drama of the feuds!
July 15, 2023
I wish this book had gone into a bit more detail and possibly included some more "feuds." It was informative, and was interesting, but I just wanted more detail.
August 6, 2023
This was a very interesting book filled with many stories I didn’t know. A quick listen that worth the time!
January 24, 2025
I loved this book more than Thomas Jefferson loved feuding with people
January 4, 2026
More of a 3.5. The “yes, Jefferson really was an onionskin” epilogue is gold. Solid commute listen.
March 17, 2017
This is the type of book which spawns more and more reading and research (if you want to follow through wth it all!). Scratches the surface of many early political debates and snafus - time to read more about each president and from there .....?
March 3, 2017
The authors premise is a good one. Politics and conflicts were as bad with our Founding Fathers as it is today. He hits you with some stories you know and some you don't. I found Harry Washington, Thomas Paine and others to be fascinating. This is good material which is well researched. My only complaint is that it is short.
June 13, 2016
One comes away from "Founding Feuds: The Rivalries, Clashes, and Conflicts That Forged a Nation," almost with the belief that our typically-sainted Founding Fathers were really nothing more than a bunch of cantankerous, ambitious self-aggrandizers who were easy to take offense and ever-ready to aim their acid tongues at their opponents, not caring even if their vitriol spilled over into character assassination.
Of course, if anyone has read David Mccullough's celebrated biography of John Adams or Ron Chernow's equally honored biography of Alexander Hamilton, he would know that both of them could be difficult men. But Thomas Paine? George Washington? Thomas Jefferson???
Indeed, of all portrayed in the book, Jefferson probably comes off looking the worst, if for no other reason that in the popular mind the author of the Declaration of Independence is thought to have himself been the living embodiment of all the ideals contained therein--fairness, equality, the elevation of the common man. No, it turns out, Jefferson was no saint. He was just a man--a man very good at passive-aggression, and sometimes not even very passive.
By the length and detail of the footnotes, "Founding Feuds" is a well-researched book. Its drawback is that it focuses on such a number of conflicts that arose among the leaders of our early republic that the author cannot give much more of snapshot of any one of them. Certainly, he cannot fill in all the complexities of relationship that finally led Aaron Burr to duel Alexander Hamilton, as Chernow does in his biography; nor can he detail the immense complexities of the Adam-Jefferson "first friends, then enemies, then reconciled friends again" relationship.
But Paul Aron states up-front that he has an agenda in presenting this book. If those of us today are discouraged by the extreme negativity and personal attacks exhibited in contemporary discourse, we should be aware that nothing new is happening here. The broadsides that were published by one antagonist against another in America's beginnings as a nation were as nasty as any we see today--it's just that two hundred years ago, communications were poor and few saw what was written in the papers of the times. What effect might there have been if Hamilton had had Facebook, or if Jefferson could tweet?
And the fact of the matter is that, as much as our political forefathers could show the heat of their anger and brandish a cutting word, their cantankerousness and their ambition is not what simply defined them. They fought as hard as they did for their viewpoints as they contested with their contemporaries because, in the end, they cared for their country and what it might become. Jefferson, for instance, championed rule by the people, while Adams saw the need to maintain order. America lives between the tensions of its competing ideals, and the fact that each ideal had its champions--as loudly as they sometimes disagreed--made the country stronger because of it.
Of course, if anyone has read David Mccullough's celebrated biography of John Adams or Ron Chernow's equally honored biography of Alexander Hamilton, he would know that both of them could be difficult men. But Thomas Paine? George Washington? Thomas Jefferson???
Indeed, of all portrayed in the book, Jefferson probably comes off looking the worst, if for no other reason that in the popular mind the author of the Declaration of Independence is thought to have himself been the living embodiment of all the ideals contained therein--fairness, equality, the elevation of the common man. No, it turns out, Jefferson was no saint. He was just a man--a man very good at passive-aggression, and sometimes not even very passive.
By the length and detail of the footnotes, "Founding Feuds" is a well-researched book. Its drawback is that it focuses on such a number of conflicts that arose among the leaders of our early republic that the author cannot give much more of snapshot of any one of them. Certainly, he cannot fill in all the complexities of relationship that finally led Aaron Burr to duel Alexander Hamilton, as Chernow does in his biography; nor can he detail the immense complexities of the Adam-Jefferson "first friends, then enemies, then reconciled friends again" relationship.
But Paul Aron states up-front that he has an agenda in presenting this book. If those of us today are discouraged by the extreme negativity and personal attacks exhibited in contemporary discourse, we should be aware that nothing new is happening here. The broadsides that were published by one antagonist against another in America's beginnings as a nation were as nasty as any we see today--it's just that two hundred years ago, communications were poor and few saw what was written in the papers of the times. What effect might there have been if Hamilton had had Facebook, or if Jefferson could tweet?
And the fact of the matter is that, as much as our political forefathers could show the heat of their anger and brandish a cutting word, their cantankerousness and their ambition is not what simply defined them. They fought as hard as they did for their viewpoints as they contested with their contemporaries because, in the end, they cared for their country and what it might become. Jefferson, for instance, championed rule by the people, while Adams saw the need to maintain order. America lives between the tensions of its competing ideals, and the fact that each ideal had its champions--as loudly as they sometimes disagreed--made the country stronger because of it.
June 7, 2016
I was allowed to read a copy of this book before the publication for an honest review:
I enjoyed the style of this book. It reminded me of Ben Thompson's Badass series. The author gives you enough of a taste of the topic to wet your appetite but not so much that you are overloaded. It took me quite a while to make my way through the book because I kept getting distracted by different feuds and having to stop reading and do some research to find more information. Those are the best type of nonfiction books in my opinion.
Paul Aron did a great job of making each section feel important. Every feud he mentioned was not more important than another. Some had more information, but I felt that the reason behind this was that there was more information readily available for those particular sections.
For anyone who is interested in the more 'personal' side of American History this book is a must. So many history books are dry and just spew facts at the reader. It's worse that sitting in a high school classroom. Founding Feuds had the right amount of author voice to make it a thoroughly enjoyable read.
I enjoyed the style of this book. It reminded me of Ben Thompson's Badass series. The author gives you enough of a taste of the topic to wet your appetite but not so much that you are overloaded. It took me quite a while to make my way through the book because I kept getting distracted by different feuds and having to stop reading and do some research to find more information. Those are the best type of nonfiction books in my opinion.
Paul Aron did a great job of making each section feel important. Every feud he mentioned was not more important than another. Some had more information, but I felt that the reason behind this was that there was more information readily available for those particular sections.
For anyone who is interested in the more 'personal' side of American History this book is a must. So many history books are dry and just spew facts at the reader. It's worse that sitting in a high school classroom. Founding Feuds had the right amount of author voice to make it a thoroughly enjoyable read.
January 27, 2016
A fun and quick overview of the drama behind the scenes of America's foundation. Although the book focuses on the (often petty) disagreements between the founding fathers themselves, there are also fascinating appearances by Washington's slave, Harry; African-American poet Phillis Wheatley; and writer Mercy Otis Warren. Aron achieves that rare perfect balance between bogging down readers with heavy political discussions and providing just enough intriguing details to encourage readers to carry out further research on whatever piques their interest.
February 5, 2016
Overall a good book, though the formatting was a bit goofed up on my kindle. I love anything historical though and I found this to be an insightful, entertaining read in which I learned a lot. I love this time period and any books to do with it. Well done, well researched. I would recommend it. 4 out of 5 stars.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews