What do you think?
Rate this book
American Inheritance: Liberty and Slavery in the Birth of a Nation, 1765-1795
A New York Times Book Review Editors' Choice
From a Pulitzer Prize winner, a powerful history that reveals how the twin strands of liberty and slavery were joined in the nation’s founding. New attention from historians and journalists is raising pointed questions about the founding period: was the American revolution waged to preserve slavery, and was the Constitution a pact with slavery or a landmark in the antislavery movement? Leaders of the founding who called for American liberty are scrutinized for enslaving Black people themselves: George Washington consistently refused to recognize the freedom of those who escaped his Mount Vernon plantation. And we have long needed a history of the founding that fully includes Black Americans in the Revolutionary protests, the war, and the debates over slavery and freedom that followed. We now have that history in Edward J. Larson’s insightful synthesis of the founding. With slavery thriving in Britain’s Caribbean empire and practiced in all of the American colonies, the independence movement’s calls for liberty proved narrow, though some Black observers and others made their full implications clear. In the war, both sides employed strategies to draw needed support from free and enslaved Blacks, whose responses varied by local conditions. By the time of the Constitutional Convention, a widening sectional divide shaped the fateful compromises over slavery that would prove disastrous in the coming decades. Larson’s narrative delivers poignant moments that deepen our understanding: we witness New York’s tumultuous welcome of Washington as liberator through the eyes of Daniel Payne, a Black man who had escaped enslavement at Mount Vernon two years before. Indeed, throughout Larson’s brilliant history it is the voices of Black Americans that prove the most convincing of all on the urgency of liberty. 8 pages of illustrations
From a Pulitzer Prize winner, a powerful history that reveals how the twin strands of liberty and slavery were joined in the nation’s founding. New attention from historians and journalists is raising pointed questions about the founding period: was the American revolution waged to preserve slavery, and was the Constitution a pact with slavery or a landmark in the antislavery movement? Leaders of the founding who called for American liberty are scrutinized for enslaving Black people themselves: George Washington consistently refused to recognize the freedom of those who escaped his Mount Vernon plantation. And we have long needed a history of the founding that fully includes Black Americans in the Revolutionary protests, the war, and the debates over slavery and freedom that followed. We now have that history in Edward J. Larson’s insightful synthesis of the founding. With slavery thriving in Britain’s Caribbean empire and practiced in all of the American colonies, the independence movement’s calls for liberty proved narrow, though some Black observers and others made their full implications clear. In the war, both sides employed strategies to draw needed support from free and enslaved Blacks, whose responses varied by local conditions. By the time of the Constitutional Convention, a widening sectional divide shaped the fateful compromises over slavery that would prove disastrous in the coming decades. Larson’s narrative delivers poignant moments that deepen our understanding: we witness New York’s tumultuous welcome of Washington as liberator through the eyes of Daniel Payne, a Black man who had escaped enslavement at Mount Vernon two years before. Indeed, throughout Larson’s brilliant history it is the voices of Black Americans that prove the most convincing of all on the urgency of liberty. 8 pages of illustrations
368 pages, Hardcover
Published January 17, 2023
53 people are currently reading
673 people want to read
About the author
Edward J. Larson
40 books172 followersEdward J. Larson is the author of many acclaimed works in American history, including the Pulitzer Prize–winning history of the Scopes Trial, Summer for the Gods. He is University Professor of History and Hugh and Hazel Darling Chair in Law at Pepperdine University, and lives with his family near Los Angeles.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
Read
January 22, 2023Slavery was born of racism. Poor whites worked alongside enslaved Blacks in early Virginia and “there are hints that the two despised groups initially saw each other as sharing the same predicament,” the eminent historian Edmund Morgan wrote in his 1975 book, American Slavery American Freedom . “If freemen with disappointed hopes should make common cause with slaves of desperate hopes,” he noted, colonial elites had reason to fear for their property, power, and position.
“The answer to the problem,” Morgan asserted, “was racism, to separate dangerous free whites from dangerous slave blacks by a screen of racial contempt.” Enactment of racist slave codes and legal limits on all Blacks “successfully dissociated them from whites,” he argued, and consolidated Blacks “in a single pariah group.” In short, Morgan wrote, the Virginia “assembly deliberately did what it could to foster the contempt of whites for blacks.”
“The answer to the problem,” Morgan asserted, “was racism, to separate dangerous free whites from dangerous slave blacks by a screen of racial contempt.” Enactment of racist slave codes and legal limits on all Blacks “successfully dissociated them from whites,” he argued, and consolidated Blacks “in a single pariah group.” In short, Morgan wrote, the Virginia “assembly deliberately did what it could to foster the contempt of whites for blacks.”
January 23, 2023
I really wanted to read this book. Really. the topic is interesting, worth reading and.... but the thing is virtually unreadable, with turgid, uninteresting prose, interminable run on sentences and poor organization of ideas. I don't have the time or inclination to slog through bad writing. I put it down after about 100 pages.
The author clearly did his research, but this reads like term papers I did 50 years ago. I'm not proud of them.
Mr. Larson hire an editor, for god's sake, and I'll go back and try this again. The topic is clearly worthy, the information merits attention and I WANT to learn. This book, though, doesn't do the trick.
I gave it two stars because our national conversation about slavery and race needs real study and this is an attempt to chronicle it. It deserves one.
The author clearly did his research, but this reads like term papers I did 50 years ago. I'm not proud of them.
Mr. Larson hire an editor, for god's sake, and I'll go back and try this again. The topic is clearly worthy, the information merits attention and I WANT to learn. This book, though, doesn't do the trick.
I gave it two stars because our national conversation about slavery and race needs real study and this is an attempt to chronicle it. It deserves one.
October 17, 2023
An accessible, well-written and well-researched work.
The narrative is engaging and insightful. Larson looks at the debates about slavery during the Revolution, a topic he calls a “partisan minefield,” showing how some colonists saw no contradiction between liberty for themselves and slavery for others, while others saw the institution as incompatible with the Revolution. American abolitionists in their own day used the rhetoric of liberty to point out colonial hypocrisy and to urge an end to slavery, while other Americans used the same rhetoric to defend the system.
Larson notes that British policies were often referred to as “slavery” by colonists. Larson also shows how British actions against slavery, such as the 1772 Somerset case and Lord Dunmore’s promise of freedom to escaped slaves in 1775 helped turn American colonists against Britain. British offers of freedom throughout the war resulted in the first great emancipation of black slaves in America. The book also notes how British colonists in the Caribbean decided to stay loyal to Britain during the war in part due to fears of a slave revolt, and also due to the importance of the slave-based sugar economy there (an economy that the British and their European enemies viewed as much more important than the colonies on the Atlantic coast) Britain’s fears of a Caribbean slave revolt always made them cautious about enlisting black soldiers.
At the war’s end, the slavery issue threatened the unity of the new nation the founders were devising. Larson also looks at the experiences of escaped slaves, such as those of Washington, who desperately tried to recover them. Larson also notes how readily American colonists adopted the metaphor of slavery to protest imperial policies. Slavery would also cause tension during the Constitutional Convention, during ratification, and well into the sessions of America’s first Congress.
The book reads very smoothly and keeps the reader engaged throughout. The only quibble I could find was that at one point the French consul in New York is called a “counsel.”
A clear and readable work.
The narrative is engaging and insightful. Larson looks at the debates about slavery during the Revolution, a topic he calls a “partisan minefield,” showing how some colonists saw no contradiction between liberty for themselves and slavery for others, while others saw the institution as incompatible with the Revolution. American abolitionists in their own day used the rhetoric of liberty to point out colonial hypocrisy and to urge an end to slavery, while other Americans used the same rhetoric to defend the system.
Larson notes that British policies were often referred to as “slavery” by colonists. Larson also shows how British actions against slavery, such as the 1772 Somerset case and Lord Dunmore’s promise of freedom to escaped slaves in 1775 helped turn American colonists against Britain. British offers of freedom throughout the war resulted in the first great emancipation of black slaves in America. The book also notes how British colonists in the Caribbean decided to stay loyal to Britain during the war in part due to fears of a slave revolt, and also due to the importance of the slave-based sugar economy there (an economy that the British and their European enemies viewed as much more important than the colonies on the Atlantic coast) Britain’s fears of a Caribbean slave revolt always made them cautious about enlisting black soldiers.
At the war’s end, the slavery issue threatened the unity of the new nation the founders were devising. Larson also looks at the experiences of escaped slaves, such as those of Washington, who desperately tried to recover them. Larson also notes how readily American colonists adopted the metaphor of slavery to protest imperial policies. Slavery would also cause tension during the Constitutional Convention, during ratification, and well into the sessions of America’s first Congress.
The book reads very smoothly and keeps the reader engaged throughout. The only quibble I could find was that at one point the French consul in New York is called a “counsel.”
A clear and readable work.
February 19, 2023
A deep dive into the role slavery played in the lead up to, the founding of, and the development of the United States. Most enlightening is the chapter called "The Compromised Convention," which details the fundamental role of southern protection of slaveholder rights to hold hostage to the creation of a workable general government. A must read in order to understand the basis for our nation's founding.
David J. Kent
Author of Lincoln: The Fire of Genius
President, Lincoln Group of DC
David J. Kent
Author of Lincoln: The Fire of Genius
President, Lincoln Group of DC
February 1, 2024
I found this to be a very interesting book on the relationship between slavery and the creation of the United States of America.
The evolving role of black people during this time is wildly uneven, with black Americans taking key roles in the American Revolution and events around the founding of America, but also having the rights of slaveholders expanded simultaneously.
The evolving role of black people during this time is wildly uneven, with black Americans taking key roles in the American Revolution and events around the founding of America, but also having the rights of slaveholders expanded simultaneously.
January 11, 2024
The principles informing the revolutionary break of the colonies from England deeply centered around Enlightment sensibilities of liberty as a natural right inherent to all humans. The imposition of taxes on the colonies by a parliament that allowed no representation from the colonies was galling to the sentiments of American intellectual class. Governments derived their authority only through the consent of the governed, that submission to rule stems only from voluntary acceptance legitamate grants of authority. To be subjected to imposition of laws without a voice in the process was akin to enslavement. The colonists frequently used the metaphor of slavery to express their views on the violation of their natural rights in the relationship with the mother country.
For most colonists, however, this metaphor about their enslavement was blind to their own practice of slavery, so prominent an underpinning of the social and economic constructs of their polities. Every colony permitted slavery of fellow humans kidnapped from their homes and treated as property holding none of the natural rights they held as inviolable to themselves. There were chinks in the armor of this hypocrisy. Some of the leading figures would articulate the incongruity of the natural rights of man with slavery. Jefferson, notably, wrote that slavery was at odds with the concepts of liberty they were arguing was due to them. One solution he posed was, if the slaves were to be freed, they must be geographically exiled out of the presence of whites. Washington, while leading the fight for liberty never emancipated a single one of his 300 slaves, and agressively pursued his slaves who became fugitives. There was limited involvement of enslaved persons in the conflict against England, but many more took to opportunity to escape to British lines. Under the rules of war, property that was confiscated in furtherance of war aims was oblidged to be returned to its owners after peace. Slaveholders demanded the return of their slaves but the British refused and under the aegis of the British and many were relocated to Canada.
The Constitution for the newly-formed national government reveals the cognitive dissonance that stoked the fires on slavery that grew for decades to follow. Since represention in Congress was to be based (in part) on population would enslaved people be counted? Some held that since they were considered property why should they count any more than cattle or horses? Others said they should be counted but reasoned that since their labor was less productive than whites their numbers should be discounted, resulting in the 3/5 rule in determing political representation. The framers, particularly Madison, were careful not to use the word "slavery" anywhere in the Constitution, referring to "persons" bound to service. The Atlantic slave trade was to be banned after a decade, this in order to allow the growing colonies to catch up with their richer neighbor states. (Interestingly, support for the ban on Atlantic slave trade in the richer southern states was linked to the risk of decreasing the value of their slaves by flooding the market with new arrivals.) The Constitution contains an express provision to enable the pursuit of fugitive slaves, culminating decades later in the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 which was a tipping point toward greater sectional discord.
Lurking in the background was whether slavery could exist in newly formed territories and states as the country expanded westward. The Somerset judicial ruling in England posited that slavery, being inimical to natural human rights, could only exist where positive laws allowed it. The issue that would grow over the upcoming decades was who had authority to devise and implement such "positive" law. Since the national government controlled the territories was this the national legislature's call? Or, could the people residing in the territories decide which way to go? Whether or how slavery might be introduced in territories newly formed states turned out to be a major factor in the dissolution of the union.
Against this backdrop of ambivalence about slavery in the new nation, there were trends emerging that would increase the divisions between the northern and southern states. Slavery was waning in the north with states implementing emancipation plans. The rise of views on the immorality of slavery began to emerge in the 1820's in the morally fervant abolition movement.
The question of whether the Constitution supported slavery is not completely clear; it certainly, at least, tolerated it. The uneasiness on the perpetuation of slavery would percolate over the ensuing decades until a full boil in 1860.
For most colonists, however, this metaphor about their enslavement was blind to their own practice of slavery, so prominent an underpinning of the social and economic constructs of their polities. Every colony permitted slavery of fellow humans kidnapped from their homes and treated as property holding none of the natural rights they held as inviolable to themselves. There were chinks in the armor of this hypocrisy. Some of the leading figures would articulate the incongruity of the natural rights of man with slavery. Jefferson, notably, wrote that slavery was at odds with the concepts of liberty they were arguing was due to them. One solution he posed was, if the slaves were to be freed, they must be geographically exiled out of the presence of whites. Washington, while leading the fight for liberty never emancipated a single one of his 300 slaves, and agressively pursued his slaves who became fugitives. There was limited involvement of enslaved persons in the conflict against England, but many more took to opportunity to escape to British lines. Under the rules of war, property that was confiscated in furtherance of war aims was oblidged to be returned to its owners after peace. Slaveholders demanded the return of their slaves but the British refused and under the aegis of the British and many were relocated to Canada.
The Constitution for the newly-formed national government reveals the cognitive dissonance that stoked the fires on slavery that grew for decades to follow. Since represention in Congress was to be based (in part) on population would enslaved people be counted? Some held that since they were considered property why should they count any more than cattle or horses? Others said they should be counted but reasoned that since their labor was less productive than whites their numbers should be discounted, resulting in the 3/5 rule in determing political representation. The framers, particularly Madison, were careful not to use the word "slavery" anywhere in the Constitution, referring to "persons" bound to service. The Atlantic slave trade was to be banned after a decade, this in order to allow the growing colonies to catch up with their richer neighbor states. (Interestingly, support for the ban on Atlantic slave trade in the richer southern states was linked to the risk of decreasing the value of their slaves by flooding the market with new arrivals.) The Constitution contains an express provision to enable the pursuit of fugitive slaves, culminating decades later in the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 which was a tipping point toward greater sectional discord.
Lurking in the background was whether slavery could exist in newly formed territories and states as the country expanded westward. The Somerset judicial ruling in England posited that slavery, being inimical to natural human rights, could only exist where positive laws allowed it. The issue that would grow over the upcoming decades was who had authority to devise and implement such "positive" law. Since the national government controlled the territories was this the national legislature's call? Or, could the people residing in the territories decide which way to go? Whether or how slavery might be introduced in territories newly formed states turned out to be a major factor in the dissolution of the union.
Against this backdrop of ambivalence about slavery in the new nation, there were trends emerging that would increase the divisions between the northern and southern states. Slavery was waning in the north with states implementing emancipation plans. The rise of views on the immorality of slavery began to emerge in the 1820's in the morally fervant abolition movement.
The question of whether the Constitution supported slavery is not completely clear; it certainly, at least, tolerated it. The uneasiness on the perpetuation of slavery would percolate over the ensuing decades until a full boil in 1860.
March 28, 2023
This is an interesting book that looks at the role of slavery in the colonies/new nation during and after the Revolution - and how all that talk of freedom affected the institution of slavery.
In the Boston Massacre, much of the popular narrative soon erased the role of black Bostonians. They don't show up in Paul Revere's famous depiction. They did show up John Adams courtroom defense of the British soldiers, where he used racial perceptions to defend the soldiers against their dangerous attackers. Mostly, people just inovked the rhetoric of slavery when arguing for their freedom. After all, they could walk around and see physical embodiments of what it meant to lack freedom. There is a nice look at the UK's Somerset decision, which argued that a society needed laws in place to uphold the institution of slavery, and a place that lacked such laws couldn't have slaves. Thus a slave in the UK could be free but the UK could still have slavery in its colonies (where such codes existed). That said, Massachusetts and another New England colony (forgot which one, sorry), did gave slave some basic legal rights, including access to courts.
War breaks out and northern states start talking more about ending slavery. Pennsylvania and sorta-state Vermont take action. Blacks serve in the army, because we need soldiers, dang it. Rhode Island had an especially high level of black soldiers.
Slavery became an issue in the new nation. Southern states insisted on having slavery decided by the states. People could interpret the Articles of Confederation differently in the North & South, but the government was so dang weak either way. With the Constitution, the South fought harder on their points than the increasingly anti-slavery north. Basically, the North wanted union more than anything else and some southerners were going to make union conditional on preserving slavery, so they go their way in the Constitution. You get the 3/5 clause, a fugitive slave clause, and the Atlantic slave trade can't be banned for 20 years.
Incredible fact I didn't know: 200,000 slaves entered American in those 20 years, nearly as many as the entire colonial period. They call to GA, SC, and NC - the only states that allowed the importation of slavery.
George Washington had a slave runaway while he was president in Philly. He never stopped trying to get her back, even considering a kidnapping (she lived in New Hampshire). Yikes.
Very good book, but it does get bogged down in debates over the Constitution and its ratification. (Protections on slavery helped get NC to come around, like the 10th Amendment). Side note: Patrick Henry opened condemned the Constitution for not doing enough to protect slavery.
In the Boston Massacre, much of the popular narrative soon erased the role of black Bostonians. They don't show up in Paul Revere's famous depiction. They did show up John Adams courtroom defense of the British soldiers, where he used racial perceptions to defend the soldiers against their dangerous attackers. Mostly, people just inovked the rhetoric of slavery when arguing for their freedom. After all, they could walk around and see physical embodiments of what it meant to lack freedom. There is a nice look at the UK's Somerset decision, which argued that a society needed laws in place to uphold the institution of slavery, and a place that lacked such laws couldn't have slaves. Thus a slave in the UK could be free but the UK could still have slavery in its colonies (where such codes existed). That said, Massachusetts and another New England colony (forgot which one, sorry), did gave slave some basic legal rights, including access to courts.
War breaks out and northern states start talking more about ending slavery. Pennsylvania and sorta-state Vermont take action. Blacks serve in the army, because we need soldiers, dang it. Rhode Island had an especially high level of black soldiers.
Slavery became an issue in the new nation. Southern states insisted on having slavery decided by the states. People could interpret the Articles of Confederation differently in the North & South, but the government was so dang weak either way. With the Constitution, the South fought harder on their points than the increasingly anti-slavery north. Basically, the North wanted union more than anything else and some southerners were going to make union conditional on preserving slavery, so they go their way in the Constitution. You get the 3/5 clause, a fugitive slave clause, and the Atlantic slave trade can't be banned for 20 years.
Incredible fact I didn't know: 200,000 slaves entered American in those 20 years, nearly as many as the entire colonial period. They call to GA, SC, and NC - the only states that allowed the importation of slavery.
George Washington had a slave runaway while he was president in Philly. He never stopped trying to get her back, even considering a kidnapping (she lived in New Hampshire). Yikes.
Very good book, but it does get bogged down in debates over the Constitution and its ratification. (Protections on slavery helped get NC to come around, like the 10th Amendment). Side note: Patrick Henry opened condemned the Constitution for not doing enough to protect slavery.
March 29, 2023
It's hard to disagree with the recent two-star review that described this book as having "turgid, uninteresting prose, interminable run on sentences and poor organization of ideas." But I still give it four stars because it's worth the slog to study a summary of just how thoroughly the Founders accepted the notion that Black Americans were not really human and not really part of society. I don't think that that is either a Blinding Flash of the Obvious or an attack on the legitimacy of the United States. But woven into the turgid prose are striking and memorable examples of how thoroughly eliminated Black people were from the design and construction of this country, in particular our Constitution. "Virtually unreadable" is an overstatement, but it is quite a slog, mainly in the middle third of the book. I still say it's worth it. P.S. Can W. W. Norton & Company really not afford to hire more editing firepower? The editor, whom the author thanks by name in the acknowledgement, may be a latter-day Maxwell Perkins, for all I know, but if he is, I wish he had invested about ten times as much effort on this book compared to what he did.
October 22, 2023
It took me a while to getting around to reading this, because a lot of other books I wanted to read more kept coming in and fortunately, no one had this book on hold. Overall, this was an interesting look at how the rhetoric of liberty and slavery, two deeply rich words, played out in the American independence struggle.
If you know me, you know I don't particularly care about the American Revolution as a historical timepoint. I find it too packed up with hagiography and nationalism to appreciate. I felt Larson did a good job, however, unpacking a lot of that and showing the contradictory and fascinating logics portrayed by the Founding Fathers, various writers and thinkers, and both enslaved and free Black folks in America.
I feel this a really useful book for like a liberal mom or dad who is curious and willing to question some of the propaganda they've been taught their whole lives. Could be the seed of some deeper inquiry. A decent book, even if I still don't really care for the time period.
If you know me, you know I don't particularly care about the American Revolution as a historical timepoint. I find it too packed up with hagiography and nationalism to appreciate. I felt Larson did a good job, however, unpacking a lot of that and showing the contradictory and fascinating logics portrayed by the Founding Fathers, various writers and thinkers, and both enslaved and free Black folks in America.
I feel this a really useful book for like a liberal mom or dad who is curious and willing to question some of the propaganda they've been taught their whole lives. Could be the seed of some deeper inquiry. A decent book, even if I still don't really care for the time period.
July 3, 2023
As a litigator of constitutional law and student of history, I knew the lofty principles of the American Revolution had been compromised and made hypocritical by our constitution's accomodation of the south's need to preserve its "peculiar institution" ... slavery. Until Mr. Larson's book, however, I had not known how extensive that compromise is evident in so much of our founding document's DNA. Tragically, as a result, this conflict between liberty and slavery remains a part of America's DNA to this day. Indeed, to supposedly protect "freedom" the Supreme Court's most recent project is to replace the civil rights gains of the 20th Century with the discriminatory practices, instead of the righteous aspirations, of our 18th Century founders. Constitutional "originalism," not long ago believed to be on the ash heap of history, is now the guiding principle of six justices that deem it superior to decades of their judicial predecessors' precedent. Our slaveholding founders would be proud.
November 23, 2023
I think the reason I was most interested in this is because part of my research interests is the grammar, vocabulary, and other linguistic aspects of speech/text around enslavement and other difficult history topics. A huge part of this book is how patriots during the American Revolution used the language of enslavement vis a vis England while defining liberty for themselves in a way that continued to endorse their keeping of enslaved people. It's interesting, but it's dense. I wish I had the book instead of listening to the audiobook. The structure, at times, is a little weird and I wasn't sure exactly where in time and/or place we were. Still, as someone who has read a lot about this topic, it is an interesting angle and worth it if you have an academic interest in it.
March 22, 2024
This is a detailed look at how the birth of liberty and formation of the United States from the original 13 colonies was intertwined with decisions that also perpetuated chattel slavery. In an intensely personal work of scholarship, Larson's research shows how the founders of our country were able to use the rhetoric of tyranny and slavery to justify freeing themselves from British rule, while at the same time ignoring or rationalizing the kidnapping and perpetual enslavement of Africans and their descendants. Diving into the period between the start of the Revolution and the passage of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it is an excellent companion to the 1619 Project and irrefutably demonstrates the dual nature of America - liberty for some yoked to slavery for others.
Read
September 26, 2023I really appreciated the approach Larson took with this book. In it, he tells the largely familiar story of the American founding, but contextualizes it through the lense of slavery. Although slavery was far from the only factor or consideration when deciding the declare independence or establish a government, it would be unwise to attempt to explain the events of that period without considering it's impact.
I was disappointed that the author made the error of conflating the number of amendments that Madison proposed for a bill of rights (12), with the number of amendments that were actually approved at that time (10).
Overall, a very interesting and well written book.
I was disappointed that the author made the error of conflating the number of amendments that Madison proposed for a bill of rights (12), with the number of amendments that were actually approved at that time (10).
Overall, a very interesting and well written book.
March 5, 2024
Larson does a nice job highlighting the contentious debates over slavery and liberty by both proslavery and antislavery advocates during the birth of the nation. While a consensus to establish the Union prevailed over concerns about the institution of slavery, both sides continued the fight for the future until the Civil War ultimately settled the matter. Overall, Larson’s book provides a balanced account to the complex struggle over liberty and slavery during the founding era and as such, is a valuable addition to the historiography.
February 24, 2023
American Inheritance is an excellent overview of slavery and freedom during the revolutionary era. However, there is one large blind spot in the author’s thesis. To learn more, see http://researchingtheamericanrevoluti...
February 12, 2023
Thought provoking review of the compromises, sometimes contradictory, that were necessary to build the foundations of our country. While providing context for racial issues that unfortunately persist today, it is important to avoid looking at those decisions from today’s perspective.
October 23, 2023
A look at the role of slavery and the enslaved from 1765-1795 during the prerevolutionary period through the Revolutionary to the end of President Washington's presidency. How liberty and slavery worked together and the problems that resulted.
July 11, 2024
This is a solid history addressing how the founding fathers avoided thinking about the contradictions of their claims for liberty and continued slavery in America. The book was at its best when it pointed out the times that people pointed out the hypocrisy.
April 5, 2023
Read this book if you are curious about the roots of slavery in our political system. Well written and researched.
May 4, 2023
A more balanced view compared with "The 1619 Project"
May 16, 2023
I am so interested in this topic and have read several books on the subject that were very detailed but interesting. If found this book almost impossible to read.
June 14, 2024
very informative
I was very interested in the history of slavery in the United States. I appreciated the original documentation and insights into our founding fathers.
I was very interested in the history of slavery in the United States. I appreciated the original documentation and insights into our founding fathers.
October 6, 2025
Boring but informative
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews