What do you think?
Rate this book
The Birth of the Republic, 1763-89
In one remarkable quarter-century, thirteen quarrelsome colonies were transformed into a nation. Edmund S. Morgan's classic account of the Revolutionary period shows how the challenge of British taxation started the Americans on a search for constitutional principles to protect their freedom and eventually led to the Revolution.
Morgan demonstrates that these principles were not abstract doctrines of political theory but grew instead out of the immediate needs and experiences of the colonists. They were held with passionate conviction, and incorporated, finally, into the constitutions of the new American states and of the United States.
Though the basic theme of the book and his assessment of what the Revolution achieved remain the same, Morgan has updated the revised edition of The Birth of the Republic (1977) to include some textual and stylistic changes as well as a substantial revision of the Bibliographic Note.
Morgan demonstrates that these principles were not abstract doctrines of political theory but grew instead out of the immediate needs and experiences of the colonists. They were held with passionate conviction, and incorporated, finally, into the constitutions of the new American states and of the United States.
Though the basic theme of the book and his assessment of what the Revolution achieved remain the same, Morgan has updated the revised edition of The Birth of the Republic (1977) to include some textual and stylistic changes as well as a substantial revision of the Bibliographic Note.
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1956
70 people are currently reading
724 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
September 29, 2009
I love this book for all the wrong reasons.
In my very humble opinion, this is bad history. Morgan does little to hide his bias - if anything, he seems to revel in it with passages like, "They [the commissioners sent to Boston to enforce the Navigation Acts:] were a rapacious band of bureaucrats who brought to their task an irrepressible greed and a vindictive malice that could not fail to aggravate the antagonism not only against themselves but also against the Parliament that sent them. Customs officers in America had always been a bad lot." p. 37. Where historians usually go to extraordinary lengths to avoid any overt slant (usually they tuck it in between the lines, with judicious choices in quotes or sources), Morgan instead heaps it on like a 5-year-old given free reign at an ice cream parlor.
And that's why I love this book. It's as if after so many years of being the careful historian, Morgan finally couldn't swallow anymore, and instead wrote a book with so much opinion that it nearly screams 'don't take me seriously.' Morgan also delivered a book that is fun which, in serious historiography, is an adjective seldom if ever used.
In my very humble opinion, this is bad history. Morgan does little to hide his bias - if anything, he seems to revel in it with passages like, "They [the commissioners sent to Boston to enforce the Navigation Acts:] were a rapacious band of bureaucrats who brought to their task an irrepressible greed and a vindictive malice that could not fail to aggravate the antagonism not only against themselves but also against the Parliament that sent them. Customs officers in America had always been a bad lot." p. 37. Where historians usually go to extraordinary lengths to avoid any overt slant (usually they tuck it in between the lines, with judicious choices in quotes or sources), Morgan instead heaps it on like a 5-year-old given free reign at an ice cream parlor.
And that's why I love this book. It's as if after so many years of being the careful historian, Morgan finally couldn't swallow anymore, and instead wrote a book with so much opinion that it nearly screams 'don't take me seriously.' Morgan also delivered a book that is fun which, in serious historiography, is an adjective seldom if ever used.
January 2, 2025
This was one of the best scholarly accounts of the American Revolution. And I've read quite a few!
Not only was it just-the-right-amount-of-thorough-information, this author's writing style made the vivid details read like a suspenseful story. He did a great job of relaying the feelings of the British, the loyalists, and the patriots.
Well done.
The audiobook is fabulous as a companion as you read along. Ebook is currently on Kindle Unlimited.
✨📚☕💙☕📚✨More in-depth reviews in my monthly wrap-up Youtube videos.
Not only was it just-the-right-amount-of-thorough-information, this author's writing style made the vivid details read like a suspenseful story. He did a great job of relaying the feelings of the British, the loyalists, and the patriots.
Well done.
The audiobook is fabulous as a companion as you read along. Ebook is currently on Kindle Unlimited.
✨📚☕💙☕📚✨More in-depth reviews in my monthly wrap-up Youtube videos.
July 23, 2025
A very brief but fun recap of the American Revolution. While it doesn't go into crazy detail, it explains enough to understand and in a way where anyone can understand it. In the meantime it also has enough depth where I learned some new stuff and it provided me with enough rabbit holes to go down. Just a fun and informative read.
I think Morgan does an EXCELLENT job in the first few chapters explaining the origins of the Revolution. He talks about the thoughts and philosophies that inspired the Revolution and provides us with compelling reasons as to why they took root with the American colonists and resonated with their background. I also thought Morgan did a particularly good job at shining a light on the Anti-Federalist movement which opposed the constitution.
If you are interested in the war aspect of the revolution and the history of military engagements and actions this book is not for you. You get one chapter on the war and it quickly touches on major battles. This is politics and social-cultural history. Which i dont mind. Political/Intellectual history is my jam and so much of the popular narrative of the revolution centers around the war (see 1776).
My one knock against this book is i feel Edmund Morgan gives entirety too much credit to the Articles of Confederation. He applauds the Articles era government with ending the Revolution and securing independence. The Articles were ratified the same year fighting stopped, 1781. I'd feel far more comfortable giving that credit to Washington, Greene, or even Reachambeau before the Articles Congress.
Over all a fun read!
I think Morgan does an EXCELLENT job in the first few chapters explaining the origins of the Revolution. He talks about the thoughts and philosophies that inspired the Revolution and provides us with compelling reasons as to why they took root with the American colonists and resonated with their background. I also thought Morgan did a particularly good job at shining a light on the Anti-Federalist movement which opposed the constitution.
If you are interested in the war aspect of the revolution and the history of military engagements and actions this book is not for you. You get one chapter on the war and it quickly touches on major battles. This is politics and social-cultural history. Which i dont mind. Political/Intellectual history is my jam and so much of the popular narrative of the revolution centers around the war (see 1776).
My one knock against this book is i feel Edmund Morgan gives entirety too much credit to the Articles of Confederation. He applauds the Articles era government with ending the Revolution and securing independence. The Articles were ratified the same year fighting stopped, 1781. I'd feel far more comfortable giving that credit to Washington, Greene, or even Reachambeau before the Articles Congress.
Over all a fun read!
November 9, 2018
A delightful and concise history of the Revolutionary War and what preceded and followed it. I particularly enjoyed the unique word choices that Morgan employed, which gave his prose a pleasant, sometimes humorous lit, as well as his balanced handling of varying viewpoints. Because of the brevity of the covering of events, this would be a great starting point for anyone looking for a better idea of what happened between 1763 and 1789 before diving into other, more in-depth books.
August 10, 2017
A classic history of the American Revolutionary Era. I think this book would be more appreciated by someone being introduced to the time period, but even as someone who has read a great deal about the Revolution, I appreciated this book and its perspective. It does an excellent job telling the big picture story, while providing the important facts that make the time period such a great story.
December 26, 2016
Morgan has a long and distinguished pedigree as an American historian. This book is one of his earliest works and it isn't his best. It's a light, quick read about the preludes to the Revolutionary War, the war itself, the adoption of the Articles of Confederation and ultimately the creation of the national, federal government with the politically-charged ratification of the Constitution.
It's a lively read for the big easy picture of the chronology of birth of the republic.
However, Morgan collapses and obscures too much detail in the interest of brevity. He bravely and vainly insists, to the point of very annoying repetition, that the "principle of human equality" was a defining bulwark of the formation of our national government and national consciousness. Repeatedly, he offers details about events and protagonists that give the lie to his misguided anchoring of the "human equality" concept.
In the hands of a wise professor, this could be a useful reference book to set the stage for discussion of the events of 1763-1789.
It is a dangerously and deceptively simplified book for a general readership.
It's a repeatedly annoying book for a student with at least a generally informed familiarity with the events of 18763-1789, which played out in a less "principled" scenario than the one glossily described by Prof. Morgan.
More reviews on my website:
http://richardsubber.com/
It's a lively read for the big easy picture of the chronology of birth of the republic.
However, Morgan collapses and obscures too much detail in the interest of brevity. He bravely and vainly insists, to the point of very annoying repetition, that the "principle of human equality" was a defining bulwark of the formation of our national government and national consciousness. Repeatedly, he offers details about events and protagonists that give the lie to his misguided anchoring of the "human equality" concept.
In the hands of a wise professor, this could be a useful reference book to set the stage for discussion of the events of 1763-1789.
It is a dangerously and deceptively simplified book for a general readership.
It's a repeatedly annoying book for a student with at least a generally informed familiarity with the events of 18763-1789, which played out in a less "principled" scenario than the one glossily described by Prof. Morgan.
More reviews on my website:
http://richardsubber.com/
July 5, 2009
In addition to a cursory overview of the American Revolution, Morgan attempts to awkwardly impose some theories of his about the motivations of the founders, namely that they were driven by an ideological vision of freedom. But time and again he lists reasons why they might have been motivated by self-interest but merely waves them away without offering any sort of argument for his thesis. In the end, it was shallow both in terms of history and analysis.
Read as a summer reading assignment in advance of my first year of law school.
Read as a summer reading assignment in advance of my first year of law school.
April 20, 2018
A light and easy read which means less focused on the details and subtleties and more in the grand narrative style. This book is written for a general audience as one interpretation of the events of the founding which stresses the principle of equality as the driving force behind it all. The book doesn’t actually succeed in establishing this due to its brevity but it gives enough food to carry the ideas in the back of one’s mind while continuing the exploration of the events and meaning of the revolutionary era.
February 6, 2021
Occasionally I dip back into U.S. history, particularly its foundational period in the late eighteenth century, to maintain some perspective on contemporary political and legal matters. This, as I recall, was one of several histories by the author, left long unread on the bookshelf in the living room.
February 27, 2017
Morgan's book is a fine introductory text on early American history for high schoolers and perhaps college freshmen. Those of us who have a basic understanding of the period he writes about will be disappointed. It lacks nuance and a detailed discussion of the political, social, and economic context of the pre- and post-Revolutionary era.
May 8, 2021
Edmund S. Morgan's history of the early American republic is different from other histories I have read of the period in that it goes into many of the specific arguments each side—British and colonial—were making. Throughout the 1760s, for instance, British officials made claims that the colonists were "virtually represented," the same as non-landholding Englishmen who also couldn't vote for members of the House of Commons. In response, leading colonists developed the argument that Parliament "could legislate, but it could not tax," seeing as how the House of Commons was the only legislative body that could mandate taxes from its constituents, which the colonists were not.
The book also excels in showing how easily communication between country and colonies got confused. Instead of reinforcing the distinction between legislation and taxation when visiting England, Benjamin Franklin softened the colonists' main objection to Parliament, claiming that taxes on individuals were the real problem. So the Townshend Acts, which came next, applied import duties instead, and only further stoked the flames of hostility in their ignorant repetition of British authority.
Morgan can be quite reasonable in many cases when explaining the seemingly conflicted motivations of the colonists. He makes it clear that for as bold and courageous as they may have been, they were not saints. But, as he says, this is no reason to dismiss them as wallowing purely in self-promotion: "We will see no incongruity in their coupling of principle and self-interest if we will remember that constitutional principles have been created and continue to exist for the protection of the people who live under them. They are seldom referred to unless people fear or feel harm from their violation, and then the greater the harm the greater the clamor."
His arguments are weaker when they attempt to portray slaveholders in a more sympathetic light. Even if they harbored some inhibitions about the evil institution, or allowed manumission, or brought an end to the slave trade, this was not enough. By allowing their economic concerns to win out over humanity, they still fall squarely on the wrong side of history.
The book also excels in showing how easily communication between country and colonies got confused. Instead of reinforcing the distinction between legislation and taxation when visiting England, Benjamin Franklin softened the colonists' main objection to Parliament, claiming that taxes on individuals were the real problem. So the Townshend Acts, which came next, applied import duties instead, and only further stoked the flames of hostility in their ignorant repetition of British authority.
Morgan can be quite reasonable in many cases when explaining the seemingly conflicted motivations of the colonists. He makes it clear that for as bold and courageous as they may have been, they were not saints. But, as he says, this is no reason to dismiss them as wallowing purely in self-promotion: "We will see no incongruity in their coupling of principle and self-interest if we will remember that constitutional principles have been created and continue to exist for the protection of the people who live under them. They are seldom referred to unless people fear or feel harm from their violation, and then the greater the harm the greater the clamor."
His arguments are weaker when they attempt to portray slaveholders in a more sympathetic light. Even if they harbored some inhibitions about the evil institution, or allowed manumission, or brought an end to the slave trade, this was not enough. By allowing their economic concerns to win out over humanity, they still fall squarely on the wrong side of history.
June 28, 2020
Em "The Birth of The Republic, 1763-89", o historiador Edmund Morgan traz a melhor síntese até hoje disponível sobre a Revolução Americana e o nascimento dos Estados Unidos enquanto Estado-nação.
Escrita de forma simples e para o público em geral, a obra de Morgan é tida como um clássico da historiografia americana, sobretudo no período relativo à Revolução Americana. Ao contrário da definição de "livro clássico" dada por Mark Twain (para quem um "livro clássico" é aquele que todos conhecem e comentam, mas que ninguém realmente lê), o livro de Morgan consta de todas bibliografias de cursos em ciências sociais relacionadas à história e à ciência política, sendo efetivamente lido, debatido e trabalhado.
De minha parte, havia lido trechos do livro na disciplina que cursei sobre "American Revolution" no mestrado em Michigan. Por ora, a leitura da íntegra do livro demonstra a capacidade de síntese e de concatenação de ideias de Morgan. O grande mérito da obra reside no fato de que Morgan constrói a narrativa da Revolução como a busca de igualdade dos colonos em relação aos "Englishmen" e suas prerrogativas enquanto tais.
O período revolucionário finda com a adoção da Constituição e, nesse ponto, com evidentes temperamentos ao ideal originário de igualdade ("all men are created equal"). É que, ainda que represente o movimento mais republicano e democrático da história até então, a Revolução houve por relegar a um segundo plano a promessa igualitária a escravos, índios e mulheres. De toda forma - e como bem explica Morgan -, isso não afeta o mérito da Revolução, que deixou aberto o caminho para que tais ideias fossem buscados no futuro.
Escrita de forma simples e para o público em geral, a obra de Morgan é tida como um clássico da historiografia americana, sobretudo no período relativo à Revolução Americana. Ao contrário da definição de "livro clássico" dada por Mark Twain (para quem um "livro clássico" é aquele que todos conhecem e comentam, mas que ninguém realmente lê), o livro de Morgan consta de todas bibliografias de cursos em ciências sociais relacionadas à história e à ciência política, sendo efetivamente lido, debatido e trabalhado.
De minha parte, havia lido trechos do livro na disciplina que cursei sobre "American Revolution" no mestrado em Michigan. Por ora, a leitura da íntegra do livro demonstra a capacidade de síntese e de concatenação de ideias de Morgan. O grande mérito da obra reside no fato de que Morgan constrói a narrativa da Revolução como a busca de igualdade dos colonos em relação aos "Englishmen" e suas prerrogativas enquanto tais.
O período revolucionário finda com a adoção da Constituição e, nesse ponto, com evidentes temperamentos ao ideal originário de igualdade ("all men are created equal"). É que, ainda que represente o movimento mais republicano e democrático da história até então, a Revolução houve por relegar a um segundo plano a promessa igualitária a escravos, índios e mulheres. De toda forma - e como bem explica Morgan -, isso não afeta o mérito da Revolução, que deixou aberto o caminho para que tais ideias fossem buscados no futuro.
May 4, 2021
Great short history of the America's founding: what issues were really at stake in the fight for independence, what the founding principles of the country are, and how the Constitution came into existence.
July 13, 2024
Really glad to finally read more than a little essay by Morgan: this little book is quite useful as a summary, having been updated. This Fourth edition gets my attention: in addition to the author's updates, there is a fine new bibliographic essay.
Recommended.
Recommended.
October 1, 2025
A very fun, informative, and short book. Really helpful in understanding the intellectual history behind the revolution, and also explained well the 6 years between the war and the ratification of the Constitution better than I have ever been able to understand.
January 15, 2026
Very good introductory book on the lead up to American independence, and the first few years before the adoption of the constitution. Very good at orientating a non-American who knows nothing about these things.
August 23, 2020
Decent, if dry, short overview.
October 21, 2020
A very nice and concise history of the American Revolution and very beginning of the United States. A little dry and sometimes a slog (not helped by the small font) but overall an educational book.
October 18, 2022
If I could give this 0 stars I would. To be fair, I was forced to read it, but taking quizzes on this book was unpleasant 😭
March 19, 2023
Not too impressed, although Morgan definitely has a very engaging prose style. But at the same time, he did condense a lot of history down to like 170 pages.
May 6, 2023
Great book about the revolution and beginning years of the nation.
August 3, 2025
really fun, easy read
October 13, 2021
A good overview of the events. I found it rather intriguing that the author included facts about the western states sending delegates, which I didn't know previously. I thought their involvement was interesting, as they were so new in settling, and also that they created controversy when they tried to escape before ratification of the constitution.
May 20, 2024
The late American Historian Edmund S. Morgan first published The Birth of the Republic, 1763-1789 in 1956. I read the fourth edition which was published in 2013 by the University of Chicago Press. Considering that the book was first published in 1956 and that book is short, the book covers women, Native Americans, and Black Americans in a fair bit of detail. In the “Foreword to the Fourth Edition” (Morgan ix), the Historian Joseph J. Ellis writes this book, The Birth of the Republic, 1763-1789 changed how the era of American Revolution was studied by historians moving away from the class conflict view of the American Revolution that was dominant in American scholarship of the American Revolution in early 20th Century that sometimes viewed the American Revolution in more critical light (Morgan x). Morgan saw the American Revolution as a success in terms of upholding “liberal political principle” (Morgan x). Morgan was able to portray in writing this book while in the words of Elis “without the romantic haze and myth-making agenda of 19th Century American historians such as George Bancroft” (Morgan x). Ellis writes in the early 21st century, none of Morgan’s ideas in The Birth of the Republic seemed that radical. Ellis is right since 1956 Morgan’s view of the Revolutionary era is the standard version of the American Revolution. Morgan does a good job of acknowledging that women, Native Americans, and African Americans did not see the positive effects of the American Revolution during the era. Morgan is a character in his book. The book is short and readable. Morgan’s Birth of the Republic is worth reading if one wants to read an influential and readable work in the field of history studying the American Revolution.
July 28, 2020
Definitely not an easy read, short book though. I wouldn’t recommend this to someone brand new to American history you will need to know governmental terminology and a little basic America history to absorb this book, I referenced crash course a few times. This book is definitely a good investment, I am considering purchasing it myself. This book breaks down a lot of nuances to the way the foundering fathers thought like for example how some of them were against slavery but they knew they would be able to sustain their new country if they abolished it.
900-999-geography-history
December 5, 2019973.3
September 22, 2021
Well written account of 1786-89, the years I was reading for. The phasing and deep dive into history clarified the time and the struggle the Framers encountered and solved.
September 30, 2014
4.5 stars.
A fine book by one of America's most distinguished historians. The author's contention is that in the period from 1763 to 1789 principle (the growing awareness of the principle of human equality, for example) was aligned with self-interest (the centrality of property rights) to provide the incentive for declaring independence, successfully waging the war, and coming together as one nation. Certainly, this is hardly a radical notion, but his discussion of it is illuminating. Morgan is somewhat revisionist in his assertion that the period under the Articles of Confederation was not the complete failure it has generally been seen as, but his justification for that assertion is not convincing. (Less than one full paragraph on Shay's Rebellion?)
A fine book by one of America's most distinguished historians. The author's contention is that in the period from 1763 to 1789 principle (the growing awareness of the principle of human equality, for example) was aligned with self-interest (the centrality of property rights) to provide the incentive for declaring independence, successfully waging the war, and coming together as one nation. Certainly, this is hardly a radical notion, but his discussion of it is illuminating. Morgan is somewhat revisionist in his assertion that the period under the Articles of Confederation was not the complete failure it has generally been seen as, but his justification for that assertion is not convincing. (Less than one full paragraph on Shay's Rebellion?)
July 18, 2014
Don't let the brevity of this book fool you - it packs plenty in its slender confines. Morgan makes a persuasive case for principle more than any other motive inspired our Founding Fathers. Along the way he knocks some shibboleths from the founding. The internal/external tax distinction? Well the colonies never really subscribed to it. The abysmal failure of the Articles of Confederation? Well not totally anyway. Ok, perhaps it isn't the most scintillating but for an academic work it moves briskly and doesn't waste any time. Not a bad place to start if you want to understand where we came from.
May 26, 2016
Picked up a heavily marked copy for $1 at a thrift store and read it while travelling through the US. For a European with only scattered knowledge about the precise order of events this booklet is a good introduction. I don't think it is meant to be more than that. However, at several points throughout the book Morgan offers his own reinterpretation of the revolution while presenting it as the consensus view, which it isn't always.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews