Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815

The Oxford History of the United States #4

by Gordon S. Wood

The Oxford History of the United States is by far the most respected multi-volume history of our nation. The series includes three Pulitzer Prize winners, two New York Times bestsellers, and winners of the Bancroft and Parkman Prizes. Now, in the newest volume in the series, one of America's most esteemed historians, Gordon S. Wood, offers a brilliant account of the early American Republic, ranging from 1789 and the beginning of the national government to the end of the War of 1812.
As Wood reveals, the period was marked by tumultuous change in all aspects of American life--in politics, society, economy, and culture. The men who founded the new government had high hopes for the future, but few of their hopes and dreams worked out quite as they expected. They hated political parties but parties nonetheless emerged. Some wanted the United States to become a great fiscal-military state like those of Britain and France; others wanted the country to remain a rural agricultural state very different from the European states. Instead, by 1815 the United States became something neither group anticipated. Many leaders expected American culture to flourish and surpass that of Europe; instead it became popularized and vulgarized. The leaders also hope to see the end of slavery; instead, despite the release of many slaves and the end of slavery in the North, slavery was stronger in 1815 than it had been in 1789. Many wanted to avoid entanglements with Europe, but instead the country became involved in Europe's wars and ended up waging another war with the former mother country. Still, with a new generation emerging by 1815, most Americans were confident and optimistic about the future of their country.
Named a New York Times Notable Book, Empire of Liberty offers a marvelous account of this pivotal era when America took its first unsteady steps as a new and rapidly expanding nation.

Genres: History, American History, Nonfiction, Politics, American, American Revolution, United States

801 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 28, 2009

About the author

Gordon Stewart Wood is an American historian and professor at Brown University. He is a recipient of the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for History for The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1992). His book The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (1969) won the 1970 Bancroft Prize. In 2010, he was awarded the National Humanities Medal by President Barack Obama.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The Revolutionary leaders were faced with the awesome task of creating out of their British heritage their own separate national identity. They had an opportunity to realize an ideal world, to put the broadminded and tolerant principles of the Enlightenment into practice, to become a homogenous, compassionate, and cosmopolitan people, and to create the kind of free and ordered society and illustrious culture that people since the Greeks and the Romans had yearned for. But little worked out quite as the Founders expected. Not only did their belief in the Revolution’s enlightened and liberty-loving principles…contain within itself the source of its own disillusionment, but their high-minded promise to end slavery and respect the rights of the native peoples were no match for the surging demographic forces accelerated by the Revolution. By 1815 the classical Enlightenment in America was over…and many of the ideals of the Revolution…had been modified or perverted…”
- Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815


Historian Gordon S. Wood has forged an estimable career. He has two degrees from Harvard. He has been a Pulitzer Prize finalist. He’s written a bunch of books, edited a few more, and has rocked CSPAN on more than one occasion.

But perhaps the height of his fame came in the Oscar-winning film Good Will Hunting. In that movie’s most famous scene, a genius-janitor played by Matt Damon gets into an intellectual argument with a pretentious Harvard man employing the most grad-student pony tail in history. The student, smugly trying to impress Minnie Driver, begins to lecture Will about “economic modalities” in the southern economies before the American Revolution.

Cutting him off, Will savagely sneers: “Of course that’s your contention. You’re a first year grad student. You just got finished reading some Marxian historian…You’re going to be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you’re going to be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That’s going to last until next year. You’re going to be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talking about, you know, the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.”

I thought about Wood’s fleeting brush with pop cultural celebrity as I slogged through Empire of Liberty. Specifically, I considered the aptness of choosing Wood as an exemplar of academic esoterica. This book is good. It is full of useful information and lucid thoughts. It is also an endurance test, with little effort given to narrating dramatic moments or defining characters. You can learn a lot, but the mind sometimes starts to wander.

***

Empire of Liberty belongs to the utterly estimable Oxford History of the United States. Covering America between 1789 and 1815, it slots after Robert Middlekauff’s Glorious Cause and right before James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom.

While readable, it also has the whiff of the textbook about it. This has been written by a serious man, and seems to be aimed at serious students. It reminded me of a period in my life when I went on a serious health kick. I exercised all the time, avoided fast food, and ate Kashi cereal for breakfast. It took a lot effort, and the Kashi was disgusting, but it was good for me.

That’s what I kept telling myself as I read Empire of Liberty: this is good for me.

***

In some ways, Empire of Liberty is boxed-in by the time period it spans. Obviously, there were many important, destiny-altering events occurring in the young, still-forming United States. But these aren’t the “cinematic” moments that quicken your pulse. The decisive battles of the Revolution were over, and the bloody clashes of the Civil War era were yet to come. The War of 1812 gets its due at the end, but that end is a long way from the beginning.

For long chunks, the central conflict is between Federalists and Republicans. While this cage-match pitting proponents of a strong central government against small-government democrats is of utmost importance – even to this day – you really have to squint to see the drama in deciding whether the United States Constitution allows the Federal Government to build roads.

Like other entries in the Oxford series, Empire of Liberty tries to encompass a lot, putting an emphasis on varying themes and perspectives. It proceeds along an overall chronological arc, but with chapters that tend to focusing on a single incident, idea, or series of events.

To give a random sampling, Wood covers the impact of the French Revolution in the United States; the Crisis of 1798, when America almost went to war with France, the country that had guaranteed its independence; the rising prominence of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall, who accrued great power to his institution by deciding that the Court got to interpret the Constitution; and the overriding issue of slavery, and whether or not it would – as many Founders seemed to hope – just fade away.

***

Empire of Liberty covers the soft-clay portion of American history, when everything was new, and possible, and without precedent. It was also a period, unfortunately, when bad habits and immoral practices were imprinted on the clay, just as it began to harden.

Aside from the high dudgeon between Federalists and Republicans, there were foreign policy challenges by the Barbary Pirates, questions of imperialism vis-à-vis westward expansion, and fascinating characters like Aaron Burr, who recognized that there was a stage to be seized. Despite what I said above, there is the material for at least a few more HBO miniseries.

While Wood handles this competently, it is a bit too solemn. This is not to say there’s a problem with the writing. It is clear, it is erudite. At a fundamental level, writing is meant to communicate ideas and convey information. Wood does this. But – and you knew there was a but on its way – this could’ve used a little sizzle. It could have used a bit more of the human dimension.

Here, I pause to note that this is a matter of personal taste. For me, the presentation has always been as important as the content, for the simple reason that I’m not preparing for a test and getting graded. Instead, I’m spending my fleeting free time on the book in my hands, and I want – like a drunk Roman in the Coliseum – to be entertained.

***

Getting name checked in a film about brilliance is a pretty hardcore line on a resume. Arguably, Wood rose even higher, when the above-mentioned scene from Good Will Hunting was repurposed for It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, with known dimwit Charlie uttering the immortal line: “Does no one know who Gordon Wood is?”

Even if Charlie did not know the answer to his own question, Wood is a historian worth reading. Ultimately, I’m glad I did, even if this felt more like exercise and Kashi-eating than a fun Friday night.

[Dmitri · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The citizen must not live a mechanical or commercial life. Such a life is not noble and it mitigates against virtue. Men must have leisure to develop their virtue and for the activities of a citizen” - Aristotle (4th Century BC)

“Those few, who are attached to no particular occupation themselves, have leisure and inclination to examine the occupations of other people. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)

“A hundred despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Elective despotism was not the government we fought for.” - Thomas Jefferson (1785)

“Let me now warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party in general. This spirit is unfortunately inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, but in those of the popular form it is truly their worst enemy.” - George Washington (1796) Farewell Address

“By enlarging the empire of liberty we provide new sources of renovation should it’s principles at any time degenerate in those portions of our country which gave them birth.” - Thomas Jefferson (1805)

************

Gordon S. Wood’s ‘Empire of Liberty’ was published in 2009, a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. It is the fourth in the series, conceived in the 50’s, but available 17 years after the third. The first and the second are still forthcoming. I don’t know how it took a half century to produce this book and expected something extraordinary. It is and can also be used as a door stopper on windy days. It covers the years after the American Revolution to the end of the War of 1812, roughly following it’s predecessor, ‘Glorious Cause’ by Robert Middlekauff in the vaunted pursuits of life, liberty, happiness and private property. A high minded sense of Republican virtue aspired to the ancient Greek and Roman city-state models of moral and civic duty.

Old Guard
The book depicts tensions between Republicans who argued for separate state rights and Federalists who foresaw an increasing need for a centralized government. After the war old guard graduates of Harvard and Yale, favoring a loose confederation, were confronted by new populists from the business class seeking to hold public office. The gentlemen plantation owners in the South, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, as well as upper class lawyers John Adams and Alexander Hamilton in the North, saw danger in local legislatures led by businessmen looking after their own interests. Paper money and easy credit devalued assets and undermined the authority of the gentry by creating inflation and debtor relief.

New Guard
By the 1780’s state legislatures were seen as a much of a threat to individual liberties of elites as the British governors before them. Jefferson complained about rights infringed and James Madison joined him. Revolutionaries of the 1770’s had not foreseen an electorate restricting their individual freedoms. The thinking was only a king or president could tyrannize. Now the practice of democracy itself seemed to endanger republican ideals. Benjamin Franklin wrote that “all men were created equal in freedom, not in ability and character”. By the late 18th century a growing middle class, often wealthy, sometimes educated, challenged leadership by the gentry. In 1787 Madison began to advocate a national government to check state powers.

Constitution
The middle class attacked the Constitutional Convention as an attempt to curtail their emerging power. The aristocrats argued that only gentleman of leisure, unencumbered by selfish goals, could lead fairly. Nevertheless the Constitution was passed in 1788. Federalists Hamilton and Washington, to be elected the first President, were intent to create a unified nation and retreat from ideals of limited government. The First Congress of 1789 organized the Executive and Judiciary branches, House and Senate rules and select committees to streamline endless debates. It was decided Senators would be elected by state and Representatives by district. Madison was the leading voice in the House and Adams in the Senate, who was also Vice President.

Amendments
The first ten Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights were written by Madison, a defensive measure against the Anti-Federalists who wanted to scrap the Constitution for a more decentralized one. By reverting powers not specifically given to federal government to the states it helped diffuse their objections. Hamilton favored a President and Senate for life, but Madison was adamantly opposed. Advised by his Vice President Adams, Secretary of State Jefferson and the Treasury Secretary Hamilton, Washington embarked on a campaign to promote the Union, tour the states and plan a monumental capital. Many House Representatives felt the Executive branch too monarchical in style. In some ways it was modeled after the British system.

Monarchists
Adams, who would be the 2nd President, saw no problem in hereditary positions and found them a mark of a developed nation the US should become. This put him into conflict with the majority of Republican politicians, but he was not alone. Monarchy was supported by some Senators but were fought by Jefferson and Madison, future 3rd & 4th presidents. While the Senate confirmed cabinet members the President was empowered to fire them without Senate consent, insisted on by Madison to insure executive power. Departments of War, State and Justice were tiny under Washington. Hamilton’s Treasury was powerful and reported directly to Congress. He studied Britain’s success in banks, stock and debt markets, and military matters.

Money
In a brilliant first year Hamilton authored plans to create the national bank, mint, customs and tax agencies, buy state war debts, reissue them as federal bonds and stimulate industry. He and the Federalists didn’t anticipate the large role small business would play in future economic expansion, instead focusing on the traditional top down relations of the great patrons to working classes. They turned their attentions to building an army to protect territory in the north from the British and in the south from the Spanish. To raise money Federalists tried to auction individual plots to settlers. This didn’t work and vast areas were sold to wealthy speculators whose goals were to become landed gentry and gain entry into national politics.

Land
Due to squatters and swindlers, Indians were pushed farther west each year. Georgia was ceded by natives for rights to Alabama and Mississippi. As soon as Washington signed the treaty illegal sales of land began there too. Army reprisals for raids led to buildup of troops, bonding western settlers to the government, but excise taxes on whisky, tobacco and sugar drew comparisons to British levies. Faced with an insurrection 15,000 troops were sent to Pennsylvania to demonstrate the government’s resolve. Political infighting continued between the Republicans led by Jefferson, and Federalists by Hamilton. The dispute between plantation owners in the south and business owners in the north threatened to split the nation.

Parties
By the time Washington gave his Farewell Address in 1796, France had its revolution, inspiring celebrations among Republicans. Washington, ‘Father of the Nation’ warned about political parties that divided the nation. Adams was elected President and Jefferson Vice President by delegates, although they were from different parties. The rift widened between Federalists who saw themselves as gentlemen, but called aristocrats by the Republicans, many of whom were wealthy landowners themselves, like Jefferson and Madison. James Monroe, another southerner who would become the 5th president, aligned himself with Republicans and against Federalist power. All three were plantation and slave owners wary of losing their rights.

Federalists
America made a trade treaty with Britain following the French Revolution, declaring their neutrality in the French Revolutionary Wars with Austria, Prussia, Spain, Italy and Britain. The US had a treaty with France for mutual defense but determined France was the aggressor. As France seized American ships, refused diplomatic missions and threatened war Republicans defected to the Federalist camp, except for Jefferson, a devoted Francophile. France annexed Belgium, Germany and installed Dutch, Swiss and Italian puppets. In fear of French attack and a Republican fifth column, the 1798 Aliens and Sedition Acts suppressed immigration, speech and voting. Madison fought Hamilton’s efforts to expand the military as unconstitutional.

Republicans
Reaction to the loss of liberties made Federalists a minority party. The threat of war with France subsided as Nelson sank the French fleet and power turned over to Jefferson in 1800. Aaron Burr was elected Vice President and killed Hamilton in a 1804 duel over a political rivalry. Jefferson pursued policies to shrink government and expand territory, in the Louisiana Purchase, Indian assimilation or removal, Lewis and Clarke expedition and international trade. Republicans remained in power with Madison succeeding to the presidency in 1809-1817. Federalists had a brief comeback in 1812 opposing the war with Britain, over maritime disputes and the Northwest Territory south of the Great Lakes, but were dissolved as a political party in 1835.

This is a straight political history. If you’re not interested in the wrangling of the early US Congress and Presidents you might avoid it. It’s not a particular pursuit of mine but it increased my knowledge of the ‘Founding Fathers’ and the social milieu they operated within. Gordon S. Wood repeats himself too often to my liking. He’s clearly an expert on this topic, and I felt like I had enrolled in a graduate course as an undergraduate. It’s also not a military history of the War of 1812, although it is covered well from a domestic perspective of the attitudes and disagreements of the Americans towards the British. It seems like a love-hate relationship, Federalists leaning toward love and the Republicans falling somewhere between fear and loathing.

[Diane S ☔ · Rating 3 out of 5]

The amount of research that went into this book is amazing as is the ability to condense it all into a readable format. Much is covered, from the putting togetherbof s new government, to the roles of blacks and women in said government. The Louisiana Purchase and the war of 1812, art and culture, knowledge and education. My rating reflects a preference of mine, I am drawn to biographies that cover one specific area, one specific person at a time. This reminded me of my American history textbook in my junior year. Plus I found it dry reading, but again just my opinion.

[H (trying to keep up with GR friends) Balikov · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have heard a lot of good things about Wood's historical perspective and this period of American history is one that I am only familiar with in its broad outlines. I have enjoyed the enlightening process. As you can see, I have been at this book for over six years. You would have to be of a different temperament than my own to be able to read it straight through in a month.

Wood is very enjoyable in bite-size portions. I have learned a lot about one of the most critical (if not THE most critical) periods in the USA's history. However, this is a history that is well beyond names and dates. For example, when John Marshall succeeds in getting his fellow justices to "speak with one voice," is it due to the triumph of logic or his interpretation of the Court's rule that the justices would only have wine at their discussions "if it were raining." Marshall would look out to the window to check and observe that in a nation as large as the USA had become, "it must be raining somewhere."

There are powerful bits on the fascination with Native Americans in this period that included a great deal of admiration. This did not, apparently, motivate Jefferson to take firm measures to protect their "hunting grounds." He seemed to favor inducing them to become farmers and not need the amount of land for a people dependent on hunting. The admiration has been often overlooked because it was less than a generation later that Andrew Jackson was driving them into exile from their ancestral lands.

Wood also points out some of the more bizarre theories of the "New World" that were put forward by leading naturalists of that period, including George Louis Leclerc. "Americans of the early Republic were informed...that the American natural environment was deleterious to all animal life. There was in fact something terribly wrong - something inherent in nature itself - that made the climate of the New World harmful to all living creatures..."

Also, in a few pages, Wood describes a bizarre "scientific" consensus of that period that has slipped from most histories. "The American continents, said Buffon, were newer than those of the Old World. They had, it seemed, only recently emerged from the flood and had not as yet properly dried out. The American air was more humid than that of the older continents." Some of what was used to bolster these theories was the observation that other animals were not as large or well developed as Old World animals. The puma was smaller than the lion; the tapir was a small version of the elephant. Even domestic animals brought to this continent did not attain the size of those in Europe, according to this theory, because of that climate.

Wood concludes: "It is difficult to appreciate the extent of European ignorance about the Western Hemisphere, even as late as the eighteenth century. Since Alexander von Humbolt had not yet made his journeys and published his findings, even educated Europeans had strange ideas about the New World."

This book provides a fascinating and thought provoking read. For a more comprehensive summary, I recommend "Hadrian's" review

[robin friedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rip Van Winkle's America

At the outset of his history of the United States between 1789 - 1815, Professor Gordon Wood aptly describes his subject as "Rip Van Winkle's America". Rip Van Winkle, of course, was the subject of a story by Washington Irving. Rip goes to sleep in his small village prior to the American Revolution and wakes up 20 years later to find a vastly changed United States, larger in size, disputatious, commercial, and substantially more democratic than had been the case when Rip began his long nap.

Rip's story captures the development of the United States as Wood portrays it. Beginning with the adoption of the Constitution, which was designed to cure the excesses of individualism and local government under the Articles of the Confederation, Wood sets a theme of the increasing democratization of the United States, as political parties come to play a central role in American life and Thomas Jefferson is elected president in 1800 on a platform of equality (for white males, in any event) and of a limited role for the central government. What Wood describes as the "middling" class as opposed to the budding aristocracy of Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and some of the other Founders, comes to set the dominant tone of American life.

Besides his use of the story of Rip Van Winkle, Wood sets the tone of his book with its title, "Empire of Liberty." Wood uses this term in a chapter titled "The Jeffersonian West" which describes the great expansion of the United States achieved by the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson himself used the term "Empire of Liberty" to describe his vision for the United States. As Wood explains the term: "`Empire" for [Jefferson] did not mean the coercive domination of alien peoples; instead, it meant a nation of citizens spread over vast tracts of land. Yet the British Empire had given enough ambiguity to the term to lend some irony to Jefferson's use of it. Thus, another theme of Wood's study, in addition to democratization, is expansion. The United States grows in both area in population. The United States gradually frees itself of domination by foreign powers, both Britain and France, to form a growing sense of itself as an independent nation. At the end of the book, following what appeared to be a lucky avoidance of disaster in the War of 1812, the United States became "A World within Themselves", to use the title of Wood's insightful concluding chapter, as Americans looked to themselves rather that to Europe as the source of trade, economic growth, and culture.

Wood's long, thorough, and comprehensive study develops his themes in a variety of ways. He offers a political history of the United States beginning with the administration of George Washington and concluding with the administration of the fourth president, James Madison, through the end of the War of 1812. The tumult of this early period frequently is overlooked by those with only a casual familiarity with American history. Political disagreements were sharp, personal, and violent. There were near-wars with both France in Britain and an actual war with Britain in 1812, which sealed the result of the first war - the American Revolution. The era included a disputed presidential election in 1800, the trial of Aaron Burr, Jefferson's first vice-president, for treason, the impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice and much else. With the possible exception of the Civil War era, the early days of the United States were the most difficult time in our history.

Wood also offers insightful chapters on the development of American law and of the doctrine of Judicial Review under the John Marshall, the Great Chief Justice. He spends substantial space on slavery, with both the North and the South tragically miscalculating how this institution would come close to destroying the nation. In several chapters, Wood explores the growth of American culture during this period, a subject frequently overlooked. And there is an important chapter on the Second Awakening and on American religion. Wood shows that the separation of government from denominations, gave religion in the United States its own non-hierarchical, individual character and strengthened it, rather than having religion become a casualty of the Enlightenment.

Wood offers stories of commercialization, ambition and drive on behalf of his "middling" class with anecdotes of people who succeeded through their own efforts and of some individuals, such as Robert Fulton whose inventiveness and ingenuity made them famous. With slavery and its treatment of the Indians, Wood shows that the United States had serious failings. But the overall tone of this book is one of optimism, exuberance and hope for the promise of America. Thomas Jefferson is the single most dominating figure in this book. For all Jefferson's faults and for all the changes in his historical reputation, Wood clearly admires Jefferson immensely. Jefferson's vision, with its goal of democratization and independence, forms the heart of Wood's picture of what the United States could become.

Wood's book is the latest in a series called the "Oxford History of the United States." Each of these volumes is written by a distinguished scholar and presents, for the specialist and the interested lay reader, important and informed studies of periods in our Nation's history. It is a rare pleasure to be able to study American history through these books and through the differing perspectives of their authors. Wood's book, with its scholarship and emphasis on the Jeffersonian vision, is an exemplary addition to this series.

Robin Friedman

[CoachJim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815
by Gordon S. Wood

If this is a period you are interested in, this book has something to offer. It covers the political, social, cultural, judicial, religious and other trends in the United States during the period following the Constitutional Convention until the end of the War of 1812. There is a chapter devoted to Slavery which I found to be an excellent discussion of the issue at this stage.

This is the second volume of the Oxford University Press History of the United States. These books have a bibliographic essay at the end instead of the traditional listing of resources. This essay lists the resources by subject making it easy to browse for books on the subjects in which you might be interested. The author mentions the books he found most valuable for the subjects and other books worth looking at.

A major theme of this book is the the distinctions between classes were becoming blurred. Unlike Europe’s rigid class structure of aristocrats and commoners, in America a “middling” class was acquiring the wealth and independence. They assumed themselves equal to the gentry.

Another theme is that America was developing an identity. Indeed the last chapter of the book discusses this in depth, but throughout the book there are references to different characteristics which distinguished America from Europe. One example was a common language. Whereas even in England where people “from Yorkshire were incomprehensible to those from Cornwall and vice versa”, “Americans could understand one another from Maine to Georgia.”

There is an interesting discussion of Jefferson’s ideas of republican enlightenment:

Eliminate monarchy and all its accouterments, many Americans believed, and war itself would be eliminated. A world of republican states would encourage a new, peace-loving diplomacy — one based on the natural concert of the commercial interests of the people of various nations. If the world’s peoples were left alone to exchange goods freely among themselves — without the corrupting interference of selfish monarchical courts, irrational dynastic rivalries, and the secret double-dealing diplomacy of the past — then, it was hoped, international politics would become republicanized, pacified, and ruled by commerce alone. (page 189-190)

A more timely discussion is of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Both the Federalists and the Republicans feared immigration for different reasons. The Federalists feared the influx of French spies and a repeat of the French Revolution. The Republicans feared that too many Europeans would have monarchical motivations, and that America might become too heterogeneous. One way to deal with these threats was to restrict immigration and the rights of aliens.

“Unfortunately, this meant challenging the revolutionary idea that America was an asylum of liberty for the oppressed of the world.” (Page 247)

These acts also belie the sentiments of George Washington who stated

“happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.” (Page 584).

I primarily read history because I enjoy reading about our history. My reading of history has been mostly of the twentieth century. My history bookshelves show that. At the end of last year, and again this had to do with our current political mess, I decided I needed to become more familiar with our earlier history. (Like our founding fathers I am suspending the problem of Slavery here.) The generation of this period were more responsible for the identity of this country than the founding fathers. Because of their enterprise, ambitions and optimism they created a land of opportunity and the myth of the American Dream.

[Aaron Million · Rating 4 out of 5]

This entry in the Oxford History of the United States series covers the time period where America began to develop into its own unique country (for good and bad). While starting out as a weak nation unsure of just who and what it was, and spending much of this period being buffeted back and forth between the predilections of both Great Britain and France, eventually it began to develop its own identity, ultimately shedding most of the British and French influences that were apparent at the beginning. Gordon S. Wood's specialty is the Founding Era and it shows here as he demonstrates an ability to sift through a wide range of issues in fluid fashion.

If there is a main theme of this book, and I believe that there is, then it is slow but steady rise of what Wood constantly refers to as "the middling sorts" or "the middling people". What he means by that is the vast majority of people in the country at the time - people who were not born to wealth or privilege; people who did not have connections that could elevate them into fame and fortune; people who did not have an easy path to success. They are what we today would call the middle class or the working class.

If there is a main character in this long book, it is Thomas Jefferson. This makes sense: at the beginning of the events in this story, Jefferson was Minister to France, returning to the U.S. for what he thought was a brief leave, only to remain in the country for the rest of his life: first as Secretary of State for George Washington, later as Vice President under John Adams, then for eight years as President, and finally handing the office over to his close friend James Madison in 1809. Jefferson not only spanned this time period, but he also touched just about aspect that Wood discusses: foreign affairs, the building up of the government, the rise of political parties, religion, philosophy, slaveholding, inventing, law. Jefferson has his fingers in everything.

For quite awhile, I thought that Wood was somewhat partial to Jefferson and tended to treat him too favorably. Passages such as this, from page 277, led me to think that: "Jefferson personified this revolutionary transformation. His ideas about liberty and democracy left such a deep imprint on the future of his country that, despite persistent attempts to discredit his reputation, as long as there is a United States he will remain the supreme spokesman for the nation's noblest ideals and highest aspirations." No doubt Jefferson was a titan during his own time, and really up until the last few decades has been rated quite highly by historians. The U.S. would not exist today without his words and political thought at the beginning. He did many good things, yet there is an ugly side to Jefferson that, at a minimum balances out those good deeds, and in a my view actually exceeds them.

So I was thinking that Wood was firmly in the Jefferson is great camp, but Wood is far too much a master of his domain to be that simple. Once he gets into an interesting discussion of slavery, he is not so charitable to Jefferson, calling him out for his hypocrisy about, on the one hand, demanding liberty and freedom for all, while on the other hand owning slaves and living in luxury atop his Virginia mountaintop. When he gets to the chapter on Jefferson's disastrous embargo act during his presidency, he paints a picture of a Chief Executive who was utterly confused as to what to do to stop British impressment of American sailors, seizures of American vessels, and pirate attacks on those ships. Without quite coming out and saying it, Wood makes the reader aware that Jefferson's presidency was a muddle of inconsistency (Jefferson ascribed to a strict constructionist view of presidential powers - until he became President himself and purchased the Louisiana territory, as an example) and laissez-faire principles that weakened the young nation and made it even more unprepared for war with Great Britain, which came after Jefferson left office.

Wood's chapter on slavery is thought-provoking. He argues that America did not start out as a racist nation. I just can't believe this, although Wood does make some good points along the way in defense of his position. On page 508 he writes: "By attacking slavery more fiercely than ever before, Revolutionary Americans freed tens of thousands of slaves. But the Revolution's libertarian and egalitarian message had perverse consequences. It forced those Southerners who chose to retain slavery to fall back on the alleged racial deficiencies of blacks as a justification for an institution that hitherto they had taken for granted and had never before needed to justify. The anti-slavery movement that arose out of the Revolution inadvertently produced racism in America." I really don't see that. In the Revolutionary War, there were disputes about whether or not free blacks could serve in the Continental Army. Britain had tried enticing the slaves in the South to switch sides, guaranteeing them freedom if they turned against the rebels. Congress passed the Three-Fifths Compromise, essentially decreeing that an enslaved person was only worth 60% of what one white male was as far as population went. Thus I cannot agree with Wood's premise here.

However, Wood does successfully argue that the South grew more entrenched and isolated over this period of time, growing ever more defensive and protective of slavery. Wood says that the Founders never intended that slavery would persist in perpetuity, and I believe this to be true. Yet many of these same Founders could not find the intestinal fortitude to combat the system that they themselves benefitted so much from. During this time, North and South - never close to begin with - began to drift further and further apart over slavery. As Wood astutely noted late in the book, Southerners eventually realized that Northerners really did want to abolish it, if not immediately then to make it so that the disgusting practice was forced to end at some point. Meanwhile, it gradually dawned on Northerners that the South had no intention of restricting slavery to the existing Southern states, let alone ending it altogether.

Wood also has good chapters on the rise of the Federalist and Republican Parties, with Alexander Hamilton and Jefferson becoming sworn enemies; the birth of the legal system in America, with John Marshall greatly expanding the powers of the Supreme Court (it seems almost incomprehensible now, but originally the Court was not specifically invested with the power of judicial review - the ability to declare laws passed by Congress unconstitutional); the expanding role of religion and evangelism in early America - this country was extremely religious from its founding and even before that, despite some Founders such as Washington and Jefferson not belonging to any specific religion; and violence amongst the populace. People were nasty to each other, just like they are now. Violence was everywhere, with dueling also still being quite common amongst "gentlemen" during this period. I did find it ironic that Wood talks about violence, but then a short time later talks about religion. To me, the two should not go together in a healthy society. Then again, society was far from healthy then, and it is far from healthy now.

Towards the end of the book, the War of 1812 is covered. Madison was really a poor President, definitely in the bottom half I think. He had a very narrow view of presidential powers that rivals Herbert Hoover's during the Great Depression. Basically, if the Constitution did not specifically say that the President could do something, Madison was probably not going to do it. He put together a weak Cabinet, approved of a foolish attempt to invade Canada, and was not helped by a Republican Congress that wanted war with Great Britain but refused to vote for increasing defenses or taxes to pay for war measures. The result was Washington D.C. getting burned and military disasters in the Midwest and Ontario Province in Canada. I thought that Wood should have focused more time on Madison's ineptness and bumbling, as well as the infighting and jealousies amongst the generals that further hurt the American cause.

This is a very good book, quite readable despite its length and breadth, and a solid entry in the series. I found it to be much superior to the chronologically previous volume covering the Revolution. While not perfect, Wood covers a lot of ground here, in many different realms, and even when I disagreed with some of his arguments, I could still see where he was coming from and respect his point of view.

Grade: A-

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 1789 the United States started what amounted to a national reboot, as a new republic created by the ratification of the Constitution began operation. This was a massive and far-reaching endeavor, one that involved the creation of new offices and branches of government, the redefinition of institutions, and a new assessment of relationships with both the thirteen states and the American people. What was at stake was nothing less than the very survival of the country as a union of states, as all of this took place under the shadow of the failure of the Articles of Confederation to provide for a government capable of tackling the challenges facing the country in the aftermath of the American Revolution, with the likely possibility that this would be the last opportunity to make union work before the country disintegrated into thirteen independent states competing with each other —or even being reabsorbed into the British empire.

This effort to launch a new republic is at the heart of Gordon Wood's history of the first two and a half decades of the United States under the federal government. As a preeminent scholar of American political thought and the revolutionary era, there are few historians better suited to the task of writing about this period of the nation's history. What he produces is a sophisticated account that explains the magnitude of the task facing the country during this period, how it was addressed by the men involved, and how their solutions provided the details lacking in the initial framework of the country. To do this, Wood starts with an extended exploration of that framework as it was perceived by the political actors of the era, reflected not just in the recent debates over the Constituton but in how they sought to turn the structure described in the document into reality. This involved filling in the details with laws passed in the new Congress; the actions and tone set by the president, George Washington (who occupied an office with no immediate parallel in the Western world); and the decisions and authority of a new body of judges, who occupied offices viewed with distrust by many people.

As political leaders worked out these details, differences emerged that reflected divergent visions of the nation. Four men in particular stand out in Wood's description of this divergence. Two of them, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, advocated a strong national government backed by a socially conservative and hierarchical society. The other two, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, soon emerged in opposition to this, arguing for a smaller government that gave more latitude for the lower classes. Around these men coalesced the first national political parties, the Federalists and the Republicans, who fought with a bitterness that reflected the fact that the very concept of political opposition had yet to be established. This gave the politics of this period (which was still very much a preserve of the elite) a uniquely sharp edge.

In the end, the Republicans got the better of the argument, largely due to the broader changes taking place throughout the country. Wood describes well the evolution of American society during this period, which created a more egalitarian country than was envisioned by most of the Federalists. Yet by controlling the federal government for the first twelve years the Federalists were able to imprint their vision upon the country in ways that subsequent Republican Congresses and administrations were unable to alter. This was due in part to Republican disagreements as to how to undo the Federalist design, and to events overseas which underscored the need for a national government capable of expanding the nation and defending its interests abroad. The War of 1812 served as the embodiment of this need, as President Madison found his ability to wage war hampered by the underdevelopment of the country and the Republican limitations on government. Nevertheless, the nation's emergence intact from the war served as an affirmation of the success of the Constitution, reflecting its success in addressing the problems of the previous quarter-century.

In describing the history of this period, Wood displays the insights gained from a lifetime of scholarly study. This comes through on every page of the text, as he fills the book with carefully argued analysis backed by a wealth of scholarship. While Wood leans a little too heavily on his strengths as a historian of political ideology, his book untangles the complex issues of a vitally important period in American history. It makes for a sterling contribution to the Oxford History of the United States series, one guaranteed to endure as the standard text on the era for decades to come.

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 5 out of 5]

After a second read-through, Gordon S. Wood's Empire of Liberty remains my favorite volume in the Oxford History of the United States. Covering the American Republic's fractious early years (1789 to 1815), it's a tour de force mixture of sociological survey, political history and penetrating analysis of a country struggling to reinvent itself as an independent power. Wood, a veteran historian on the American Revolution, spends a lot of time demarcating the differences between Federalist and Republican politicians, and how sharply (and permanently) their differing visions divided the nation's body politic. The key events and figures of this timeframe (Washington's presidency, the Alien and Sedition Acts, Jefferson's "Revolution of 1800" and the War of 1812 among them) receive due attention, worked into a framework of a country constantly defining itself. Indeed, the latter provides the book's main draw, showing how American visions of liberty transmogrified from mere independence to debates over government power, competing economic visions, western expansion, slavery and treatment of Native Americans that were never fully resolved - and how the Revolution's idealism stratified into a pragmatic, crabbed, morally flawed reality that failed to erase Americans' vision of themselves as God's chosen people.

[Jason Pettus · Rating 5 out of 5]

(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted illegally.)

It's hard to beat Oxford University Press when it comes to authoritative yet lively looks at highly detailed periods in history; and here's their latest in their modern series about the history of America, written by former Pulitzer winner Gordon S. Wood and in this case covering just the years 1789 (when our modern Constitution was written) to 1815 (the end of the War of 1812, essentially a stalemate but the conflict that proved that Europe could no longer bully the US around). And indeed, this is one of the more fascinating periods of US history to look at, precisely because most Americans know so little about it; a quiet and inconsequential span at first glance (known conventionally as the years when America simply recovered from the Revolution), in actuality it was the 25-year period that saw the formation of the first political "parties" in human history, the collapse of the country's first attempt at federal administration (the "Articles of Confederation," which at first set up the US more like the current European Union, and was a complete disaster), and the quiet campaign to purge the new national government of the very radicals who helped the revolution succeed in the first place, whether radically liberal in nature (like Thomas Paine and his French-Revolution-loving pals, who wanted to do away with capitalism and the upper-class altogether) or radically conservative (such as Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist buddies, who promptly attempted to create a nobility-based "American ruling class" the moment the revolution was over, and were eventually shunned out of existence because of traitorous activity during the War of 1812).

Along the way, then, Wood shows us in glorious detail how this was also the period that first established the myth of the "Protestant work ethic," that first exalted the middle-class into the most important slice of American society, and that incidentally first established the rift between the industrial, everyman North and the agricultural, aristocratic South that would eventually explode into the Civil War, and that still heavily defines regional relationships to this very day, all of it told through a wealth of anecdotes and literally hundreds of pieces of trivia about early American history that I never knew. It's a doorstop of a book, don't get me wrong, but well worth the armchair historian's time, and I'm now thinking seriously about tackling all the rest of the volumes in this massive series as well.

Out of 10: 9.8

[James Thane · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is the capstone of Gordon S. Wood's long career, and an outstanding addition to the Oxford History of the United States.

Wood surveys the history of the U. S. from the adoption of the Constitution through the close of the War of 1812, a time during which the survival of the new nation was by no means a sure thing. As he describes, this was a time of enormous political, social, cultural and economic change, and it's safe to say that things did not turn out the way that many of the Founders had expected or hoped they would.

Wood describes the trials and tribulations involved in implementing the Constitution that had been created in 1787, and describes how the authors of the document very quickly came to disagree about what the Contitution meant. He treats the early development of the nation's first political factions at a time when virtually all Americans deplored the idea of political parties, and describes the way in which the Jeffersonian Republicans almost inevitably triumphed over their Federalist adversaries. Wood's principal theme involves the way in which Americans rejected a culture of deference in favor of a messier, more democratic society of utlitarian strivers.

At 738 pages, this is not a quick read, but it will richly reward anyone eager for a better understanding of this critical period in the nation's development.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another solid entry in the Oxford History of the U.S.

For a further review: http://susannag.booklikes.com/post/10... .

[Brian Pate · Rating 4 out of 5]

I listened to the audiobook version on my way to and from work. (That helped me push through some of the less interesting chapters.)

After reading biographies of the first five presidents, this volume in the Oxford History of the US helped tie up the loose ends for me. Wood spent a lot of time dissecting the class distinctions of early America. His descriptions of the Federalist and Republican parties were helpful to understand the emergence of political parties in America. Chapters on slavery (14) and religion (16) were especially interesting (to me). (For example, it was interesting to learn that John Adams considered the deity of Christ to be an "awful blasphemy" [p. 577].)

One of the surprising lessons for me was how partisan early American politics was. I guess I used to view all the Founding Fathers as monolithic. They always agreed, they all behaved like gentlemen, and oh if we could only return to those good ol' days! Quite a different picture emerged as I met Federalists who believed Jefferson was an atheist, a Vice President who shot Hamilton, and other near duels that were avoided at the last minute. At least our congressmen don't beat each other up on the House floor anymore (for the most part).

I'm open to being corrected by historians, but it seems to me that our nation was built upon the best of both parties. Neither party was 100% correct; we needed healthy debate and helpful ideas from both sides. It seems like the later Republican presidents (Madison, Monroe, JQA) adopted many of the Federalist ideas to form a robust balance and healthy country.

Perhaps we could take a lesson from the early republic. Don't shoot each other (or even hit each other with canes). Listen, learn, and reward good ideas to strengthen our country.

[Mary · Rating 3 out of 5]

Only got halfway through before I had to return book to library. What I've learned so far:

* If someone says they want to return to the ways of the founding fathers, ask which one(s).

* Most complaints people make about government and politics today were being made more or less from the time the Articles of Confederation took effect.

* Many of the complaints about social groups were being made too, especially those about an educated elite, businessmen, and ordinary folks who insists on a seat at the government table.

The book is well written and easy to read - but it is long (and very heavy...), and you're likely to stop and think a bit about what you've read, so it's probably not a quick read.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gordon Wood has been working on this book for over 20 years and it shows. The sheer amount of insight, analysis and historical detail is spectacular. Every paragraph has a point. Every word counts.

I went to a round-table discussion recently where ten judges and ten lawyers (I am one of the latter) met with Gordon Wood. Wood was down-to-earth and funny.

A judge asked Wood how he was able to accomplish writing such a prodigious book. It seemed impossible to do.

Wood's modest response. "Actually it was 100 pages longer but my editor made me reduce it so it could sell for $30.00."

I had Gordon Wood as a history teacher at Brown twenty plus years ago. In my opinion, it does not get better than Gordon Wood.

[Bryn D · Rating 4 out of 5]

From the Constitution's eventual ratification to the aftermath of the War of 1812, this is an epic history of the U.S. The author, Dr. Gordon S. Wood is a respected historian and professor who is a very acomplished writer of early American history and this is no exception. At 738 pages (paperback)this is a balanced to "center-left" history book, which is a little different than what I am used to but it was well done. He is definitely a pro-Jeffersonian Republican who were opposed to the Federalists like Washington, Adams, and Hamilton and it is obvious in his writing. There was a consistant tone of Washington was a great leader, but...., or Hamilton was a real promoter of national unity, but..... In addition this book spends a lot of time on "social history" such as the status of minorities and "the little people". I like learning about how society as a whole changes over time and adapts to the changing political landscape but the focus on perspectives through the various demographics was a little over-emphasized/long winded. His tone wasn't very optimistic either. Historians, in my opinion, are better when they put aside their 21st century prejudices and biases and put things into perspective that the values of society were far different in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It doesn't justify the injustices that slaves suffered or the status of minorites, but a good author can explain the facts without asserting and thus, transferring their outrage on the reader.

It was a very good read, everybody should read it as there isn't that much out there regarding this period in American history in one book. A lot things happened in these years that still affect us today.

[Brian Willis · Rating 5 out of 5]

As with every superb entry in the Oxford US History series, as well as every superb book from Gordon Wood, this one is likely to remain the benchmark for this era for years to come.

Wood covers the nuts and bolts of the major events of the first four Presidencies: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison. That is to be expected, and they are all well covered as to the major political consequences of those decisions. The great bulk of this book, however, is dedicated to the republican revolution.

Quick reset: throw out the words Democrat and Republican as you know them today. Remove the capitalized proper noun. What did those words mean to the Founders? The idea of republicanism (small r) is the idea of democratically elected officials who speak on behalf of the citizens who place them there. The idea of democracy in America at this time is the leveling of all social distinction so that all citizens truly look of a similar social and economic class. This distinction between the two smalls - "r" and "d" - is at the heart of this book.

Jeffersonian Republicanism was a reaction to Federalism. To not muddy the waters, I won't refer to them as Republicans but as JRs. JR actually has a connection to modern conservatism but more on that later.

The importance of this book is how it exposes the initial division of American life and politics into the fractured party system which still plagues the country to this day. The Federalists (Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jay, Marshall) believed in a strong essential government to coordinate basic needs for a strong republic: centralized legal rulings, a strong military for defense, a strong chief executive, as well as the "cooling chamber" of the Senate for the popular tyranny of hot emotions in the House. The JRs established themselves as the first oppositional party in America. The Federalists would be considered "conservative" in their own day, because the more affluent members such as Washington, Adams, and Hamilton still wore and acted like landed gentry, as well as maintaining strong cultural and political ties to the British government. JRs, on the other hand, were for the complete sovereignty of the states, the abolition of all federal departments (except for the postal service - they loved that), and the stripping of ornamentation altogether for modesty. They were enamored of the French Revolution even when it became a Reign of Terror and still did not apologize for it when Napoleon became emperor for life in France. As a result, they were often called Jacobites and were considered radical or liberal for their day. This has of course flipped a bit today, and neither party lines up with modern politics at all. So neither party truly matches with the two modern dominant political parties, but I'm sure you can see some resemblances. Nonetheless, conservatives today would mostly agree with Jefferson most likely, and progressives with the Federalists.

The best parts of this book are chapters wholly dedicated to the major emergences of this period: the establishment of law as a profession that required education and specialization (indeed, the 1790s and 1800s and 1810s saw the emergence of the judiciary branch in a form that somewhat resembles what we have today), as well as other developments that burst into life over these 26 years. The JRs established public education, both at the earlier levels and on the university level. Newspapers proliferated, roads and canals connected disparate areas, primogeniture laws were scaled back and divorce started to become sometimes permissible, the separation of church and state was beginning to become a fact (despite the rise of evangelicalism during the Second Great Awakening), and opened trade borders. In fact, the JRs believed that complete free trade across the world - no rules, no regulations - would bring about world peace because everybody's ties would be so intertwined that war would be too costly. They also refused to establish a standing army or navy, believing those to be corrupt government expenditures that would lead to unnecessary wars. They refused to levy taxes and eliminated the debt accumulated to pay off the War.

Indeed, the JRs seem almost like modern day libertarians who they do resemble on many points. But they learned the hard way what such pure intentions led to. The arts were condemned as decadent and immoral, setting back American culture for decades (which is a shame because they really would have loved the Romantics). The lack of a navy left American traders open to plundering by pirates - as they were fleeced continuously in North Africa in the 1800s (nothing gets any government to spend money like national defense). The drift into what felt like to some as "anarchic" democratization led judges, particularly John Marshall, to establish judicial review of the laws established in the new country in order to protect the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

You think politics are bad now? I would place 1798-1815 as easily as bad if not worse. Negative politics was brutal and personal, with many of the Founders libeling their rivals in print. Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, not even Washington escaped brutal negative press. Heck, a sitting vice President killed a Founder in a duel. Upward mobility became a thing, which was a truly revolutionary achievement, but it also leveled society for far too many. People with no social standing condescended to revered statesmen and citizens. Those who were fortunate enough to achieve prosperity denounced the poor as "lazy" now for the first time, blaming poverty on a lack of effort. Penitentiaries were established which, no surprise, punished offenders with incarceration rather than public humiliation but also led to the institutionalization and monetization of punishment, with dismal recidivism rates.
Slavery become entrenched, particularly in the South, and the regional divide between North and South began to heighten near the end of this period. Indeed, Wood persuasively argues that the roots of the Civil War are firmly implanted by this time within American society. In fact, Americans were embarrassed by slavery, but those with deep financial incentives to sustain it now began to rationalize it with biblical and patriarchal justifications, claiming it was in the best interests of African transplants to be cultivated and civilized by their masters.

When the War of 1812 became inevitable, the extreme democratization of the JR party led it into a slow, gradual descent into obscurity. They couldn't pay for the war. The Federalists hated the war and fought against it in the press. They couldn't fight the war so they used private ships. Before entering the war, the neutrality movement within the JR party led to a complete embargo of all US goods from trading with the world. The first trade war of the US (unless you want to count the 1770s and the origins of the American Revolution as the first trade war) began when the disastrous embargo destroyed the US economy and crippled small, independent businesses. When they needed money, the US applied for loans finally but were denied because of their lack of sustained credit history, essentially determined to be bankrupt (Hamilton surely laughed from his grave). They were forced to levy taxes on a wide variety of products to pay for the war. So by 1815, the JR had reversed themselves on several key areas because of the dire necessity of war time economics.

So where did they emerge in 1815? In that year, 85% of Americans were under 40 and had been born without a monarch. Despite the great agrarian empire Jefferson hoped would sustain America, by his death America was squarely emerging into the necessities of the Industrial Age, and many Americans were finding jobs in manufacturing. The South clung to their cash crops, exporting cotton at increasing rates after this period but also entrenching the differences that led to the outbreak as well as the outcome of the Civil War. And with the emergence of something resembling a middle class, so also re-emerged social and class distinctions that were hard to shake off. America began to stratify once again, and remains stratified today.

Despite all of the above weighty issues, the majority of this 738 (main) text is a page turned. Fascinating and illuminating because Wood also comes with a subtle and provocative thesis firmly supported by his research. Probably didn't win the Pulitzer only because he already had one. If these areas sound fascinating to you, this is your book.

[Christopher Carbone · Rating 4 out of 5]

Empire of Liberty is a gripping narrative on the first 25+ years of the United States of America, the story of how the founding fathers started the nation, how the country saw itself, and how the nation was defined through constant- sometimes suffocating -contradictions.

The book begins with George Washington contemplating the Presidency and how the states contemplated giving up true Independence for interdependency; how being a state subject to a Federal Government chaffed them. As the story unfolds, the reader comes to a realization that should seem obvious, but is not through the lens of history: that our Founding Fathers were as much at odds with each other BACK THEN as we are now (to some extent). The book is a literal "page turner" as the author steps aside and lets the facts speak for themselves. How Washington seemed to be almost afraid of the public; how Adams seemed to hate them; how Hamilton seemed contemptuous of them; and how Jefferson seemed to embrace them.

The book deals frankly with many glaring contradictions: how could a nation the prized Liberty be so expansionist? How could Thomas Jefferson, a man who wanted small, limited government double the size of the nation and later effectively stop trade due to his Presidential whims? How could a nation that wanted freedom of speech pass the Alien and Sedition Acts? How could we say all men are created equal, and then dis-include women, Indians and many immigrants?

To say nothing of slavery.

The book suffers from some extensive "Jefferson Worshiping" that is hard to swallow: they gloss over the fact that he was most likely the biggest hypocrite in American political history (limited government... until HE became President; a little revolution every 10 years is a good thing... but not while HE was in power; all men are created equal... except his slaves). I wish the author had spent as much time explaining all of Jefferson's issues as he did John Adams' (my personal favorite Founding Father) and Aaron Burr's (everyone loves a good villain).

But the book does give a good explanation of the evolution of the leader's relationship with the world around them and our "freedoms." And that leads inexorably to slavery, and how, as a nation, we were utterly bound to this paradox, and how the North and the South tried to ignore it as best they could. Of the first 5 Presidents in this Nations history, 4 were slaveholders;' Jefferson and Washington were two of the wealthiest men of their day; almost all their wealth and privilege was derived from their slaves. The book seamlessly tracks the growth of slavery and how it, in effect, crippled the nation while making a very select few filthy, filthy rich. And in that line, lay the infancy of the Civil War.

But the book also chronicles the haze between Constitution and and Andrew Jackson: it leaps at Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton, their dual and their lives; it explains American views of England and France, the XYZ affair and Napoleon. The book defines what Americans thought of themselves and how we could fool others and ourselves. Ultimately, the book explains the War of 1812 and how it was actually a second American Revolution, how it kept the British, once and for all, out of US territory, and how the US never again had to deal with its own sovereignty issues.

The book does have slow parts- there is an extended portion dedicated to Art in the period, that I felt dragged and another section on invention that was disappointing. But overall, I was surprised by how well the book moved; I wish it had done more to explain the hypocrisy of Jefferson, Washington and Madison, but there was only so much to go on. I also thought that the book did a fantastic job of explaining how the North and South started to grow apart in the early 1800s and how that separation was due, almost entirely, to slavery.

Overall, this book is a must read for anyone interested in Post Revolutionary America (in effect, this review is 5 stars for them), but I also recommend it to anyone interested in how we started as a country and how we took those first steps into the world.

[Paul Donahue · Rating 5 out of 5]

So many history books are just summations of political and military events between two fixed dates. Empire of Liberty goes far beyond that structure, going as far back as the early 1700s and all the way up to the Mexican and Civil Wars to put points and stories into full context. Not just wars and politics, but economics, commerce, religion, education, family life, social changes, slavery, diplomacy, westward expansion, science, philosophy, it’s all in there. Much like the other Wood book I recently read, the common theme throughout is the change all these areas underwent from an aristocratic, dependent, agrarian, Old World society into a republican, independent, commercial New World. He also keeps the them that the republic actually created by the Revolution and Constitutional Convention was nothing at all what the founding fathers intended.

It’s also intriguing and perhaps relieving that so much of today’s concerns date back to then. People railed against Congressional salaries, intellectuals were mortified at the rise of uneducated leaders and demagogues, our government tried to subvert an inevitable war via economic sanctions. One of Wood’s particularly insightful observations is that it was not the revolutionary generation that envisioned the American dream, it was the succeeding one. Instead of a hierarchy in which the middling classes were dominated by a gentry class, many of those barriers broke down and the many sons of petty merchants, cobblers, and farmers used American’s booming commercial appetite to achieve a life of luxury—the birth of the American dream.

Jefferson and his ilk also envisioned an America where liberally enlightened intellectuals were democratically elected to run the country, trade was done only with foreign countries, scientists pondered only abstract thoughts, and slavery would phase out. Instead, middling and often uneducated people were elected to office; commerce within the states exploded; scientists thought practically and began leading the world in invention (and paved America’s path to economic dominance); and the parts of the country dependent on slavery, to the grave revulsion of others, dug their heels in until the bitter end.

[Geoffrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

A small moment in American History, but pivotal in our advancement and maturing as a nation.

Early America is a grassland filled with hope, adventure, and cruel reality that never seems to go away. In this short time period Empire of Liberty covers, we find America in a state of confused stagnation and confinement. How do we move on to the next step as a country. Between the in-fightings of the previous and new political parties that have risen and the tumultuous war of 1812, America is looking to be teetering on the verge of explosion. A lot of this book is spent exploring what America does with itself after the ferocious fight for liberty and self-governance. Expectations are set, new ground is covered, and how do you make a country work in a form of democracy that had been tested so long ago, no one was quite sure how it would work in more modern times. Interesting stuff if you care about American History.

As with the other books in the Oxford American History series, this is a history book first, and a storybook second in approach. Hard facts and information displayed in a way that is as digestible as an undercooked steak. If you want the meat it's here and ready, but if you want soft-food look elsewhere.

I enjoyed this book quite a lot as it covers a period of history that I often skip over or simply lightly touch on. The first steps of the new baby America are widely important to understanding how our country thinks and got to where we are today. That is the most important part of History for me personally. Being able to understand modern times with what came before and explain to some degree how we got here.

This book series never stops being a complete success and total fun for me to read through. So much incredible detail and information to collect and hoard; like a crazy kleptomaniac, I find myself constantly craving the next historical book and its knowledge for my bag.

No need to go into details here as I can assume the only people who will read these things are those who already have an interest in American History and are used to history books as a medium. Highly suggest it for those who are looking, it's got oodles of goodies and information and excellent work done for it.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this read. Even though the author was slightly biased towards Republicanism and very biased towards Jefferson vs the Federalist founding fathers (all you need to do is compare the adjectives he uses for Jefferson vs Washington, Adams or Hamilton), I felt that he did an excellent job of comparing the positive and negative aspects of the two dominant politcal ideologies of the era (e.g. the economic and political stability of Federalism vs. populist anarchy of Jeffersonian Republicanism and the freedom and rights of Jeffersonian Republicanism vs. the monarchism and elitism of Federalism).

The chapters in the book are essentially series of essays about some aspect of that era which incorporate examples from all over the 25 years covered in this book. At the beginning of the book, the chapters are essentially linear, but as the book progresses, they become less so. The positive aspect of this technique is that it allows for a more thorough discussion of the topic at hand (such as religion, the judiciary, or the arts). A negative aspect is that I felt like I missed large chunks of history. For example, all I got out of Adam's presidency was the Alien and Sedition Acts and the treaty with France and all I got out of Jefferson's first term was the Louisiana Purchase and its exploration.

But still, this was a great read about a very volatile time in US history.

[Richard Subber · Rating 5 out of 5]

Empire of Liberty is a finely detailed and well-informed examination of the early years of the United States.

You can trust Gordon Wood to give it all he has, and to give you a lot of new learning.

This 778-page volume is part of the Oxford History of the United States.

If you can’t read it all at once, pick it up again soon.

Read more of my book reviews and poems here:
www.richardsubber.com

[Charlotte]

I’m free. Forever

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m not sure how Gordon Wood’s Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 could be any better. It may seem strange to call a 750 page history a page-turner but it is. I couldn’t put the thing down. One is always worried when picking up a history of this length that you’ll be confronted with turgid, clunky prose and pedestrian insights, that you’ll have to slog through the thing for weeks to get through it, if you finish at all. That is most definitely not the case here. Wood’s flowing, lucid, prose-style is wonderful. He is also a masterful story-teller, his insights are fresh and fully-reasoned, and he untangles the sometimes contradictory threads of the founding era and weaves them into a comprehensible and satisfying whole. It’s as easy to read as a good novel and just as interesting. The book is a triumph of the historian’s craft.

Having spent a lifetime immersed in research of the founding era, Wood has no problem seeing the men responsible for our beginnings as men, not icons. There is no hero worship here. Wood fully represents the greatness and the genius of the founding generation that we revere today but he also shows us their flaws, their ambition, and their motivations, which were at times base. We get a full sense from Wood of the men and their era.

Washington’s importance as the indispensable founder is recognized, though not dwelled upon. Wood points out that while his two terms as president were important to the stability of the infant nation, in the long run his most important act was stepping away from the presidency. Just as when he laid down his sword after the war when he could easily have become a dictator, his retirement from the office of the presidency which he could have held for life exemplified the Roman ideal of servant government and established the precedent of the peaceful transfer of power. By these two acts, Washington became a hero of republican liberty all over the world.

Madison gets his due, which pleased me. Many don’t realize how important Mr. Madison was to the founding moment but we see it clearly in Woods’ account. Even more important was Alexander Hamilton, whose economic program allowed for the stability and remarkable growth of the early republic. He may have been the most intelligent of the founders but he was also the most reviled. Jefferson, who could hate with the best of them, never hated anyone more than Alexander Hamilton. Even Adams, a fellow Federalist, despised Hamilton, calling him “the bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar.” It had always puzzled me that Madison had split so clearly with Hamilton during the first Washington administration. The two had been allies during the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and ratification period of 1788-89, collaborating on the Federalist Papers in support of the new constitution. But within months of Washington taking office with Hamilton as his Treasure secretary, Madison became the leader of the opposition. I’d always attributed this to Jefferson inordinate influence over Madison. Jefferson had been abroad in France during the Convention period so Madison was free of his influence. Upon Jefferson return to serve as Washington’s Secretary of State, he and Madison resumed their close friendship. And I’d been of the opinion that it was solely Jefferson’s sway over his younger colleague that caused Madison’s split with Hamilton. But Wood shows that this was not the case. Certainly Madison took Jefferson’s views into account. But it was more often Madison temporizing his more radical friend than the other way around. Where it came to Hamilton, Madison’s opposition was not the result of a weakness of character that caused him to defer to Jefferson but instead one of philosophical principal. As Hamilton began introducing his economic programs Madison realized that Hamilton’s idea of a vigorous national government differed greatly from his own. Madison objected vehemently to the federal assumption of the states’ Revolutionary War debt and to the introduction of a national bank, both of which he believed would elevate the federal government far above that of the states. He objected further to Hamilton’s creation of a permanent and consolidated national debt, ala Great Britain, which in Hamilton’s view would spur economic progress. And indeed it did. While instrumental to the early republic’s economic success, these moves were the beginning of the opposition’s fear that Hamilton and his fellow Federalist were monarchists.

Perhaps the most interesting section of the book is the discussion over many chapters of the rise of the Republican party and the demise of the Federalists during the 1790s. Wood explains how the Federalists, while believing in the equality of men under the law, also believed there was a natural aristocracy among men, an aristocracy which had the right and duty to rule over the masses. Washington believed it, Hamilton believed it, Adams believed it. As the self-made men coming out of the 1790’s economic success began to proliferate, the Federalist vision came under attack. These “middling sorts” believed they had as much right to governance as the self-appointed aristocratic class, indeed even more so since they understood and could represent the interests of the common man better than the elites ever could. The Federalist were appalled by these men, considering them to be nothing more than low-lifes and demagogues with little understanding of society and how it should be governed. Each side saw the other as a threat to the liberty that had been won during the revolution. The Republicans saw the Federalists as monarchists, while the Federalists saw the Republicans as “democrats” a pejorative term at the beginning of the 1790’s. By the end of the decade the term began to loose its negative connotations as many of the new merchant class began to embrace the banner. In the end, the Federalists never had a chance. The sheer number of new men coming out of the economic success of the 1790’s overwhelmed the Federalists, who over the following twenty years became progressively extinct as a political class. This rise of Jeffersonian republicanism was nothing short of a second American revolution, one that many felt finally completed what had begun in 1776. The irony that it was Hamilton’s economic programs that gave rise to the men who would replace him and his class would not be lost on Hamilton. After Jefferson’s election in 1800 he knew his time was through and he feared that everything he and the other revolutionaries had fought for had been subverted: “This American world was not meant for me.”

Who won, in the long run? Do we now live in a Jeffersonian or a Hamiltonian world? Books could be written on this question alone and I myself could argue the question from both sides. But in the end, in regards to the leviathan federal government of modern day America (one that would most likely horrify even Hamilton and would certainly send Jefferson into fits of outrage and despair) I believe we live more in a Hamiltonian world, one in which government coercion is everywhere, in which we are ruled by a small group of elites interested primarily in their own survival. With his support for a strong and energetic executive and for the primacy of the federal government over the states, this is certainly not what Hamilton intended. But it is perhaps the inevitable result of the Hamiltonian vision. We have now what Jefferson continually warned about: the tyranny of the few over the masses. So while we live in a Hamiltonian world I believe Jefferson won the argument.

Jefferson is the winner in another sense also. As Wood points out, Jefferson:

"…personified this revolutionary transformation. His ideas about liberty and democracy left such a deep imprint on the future of his country that, despite persistent attempts to discredit his reputation, as long as their is a United States he will remain the supreme spokesman for the nation’s noblest ideals and highest aspirations."

Wood does not flinch from the fact that Jefferson, while embodying for all time our most cherished vision of ourselves, was himself a member of the elite:

"[Jefferson:] was a well-connected and highly cultivated Southern landowner who never had to scramble for his position in Virginia. The wealth and leisure that made possible his great contributions to liberty and democracy were supported by the labor of hundreds of slaves."

That Hamilton, the self-made man, would represent the rejected aristocratic vision while Jefferson, an aristocrat to his bones, would represent the adopted democratic vision, is one of the strange ironies of American history.

Also at play during the 1790’s was the effect the French revolution had on the country. I’d always known it was an issue but I didn’t realize how much until I read Wood’s book. Virtually everyone in the United States supported the French revolutionaries in 1789 believing, correctly, that their own revolution had inspired the French. However, as word spread about the appalling activities going on in France circa 1792-93, the Federalists began to have doubts about the true nature of the new French government. On the other hand, Jefferson, who was blindly pro-French, and many fellow Republicans were always ready to excuse away any French democrats atrocities under the reasoning that you need to break a few eggs in order to make an omelet. To the Federalists it appeared that France’s revolution had devolved into nothing more than anarchy and terror, and given the rise of the democratic notions of the new merchant class, feared the same might happen here at home. The issue fueled the mistrust between the two sides and colored virtually every public debate of the decade.

And this only covers half the book though the idea that Wood concentrates on in the first half – that of the Jeffersonian revolution of the common man - infuses everything that comes later, for instance the furious rush westward, one that the federal government only could hope to control:

"The carefully drawn plans of the 1780s for the orderly surveying and settlement of the West were simply overwhelmed by the massive and chaotic movement of the people….[m:]any settlers ignored land ordinances and titles, squatted on the land, and claimed preemptive rights to it. From 1800 on Congress steadily lowered the price of Western land, reduced the size of purchasable tracts, and relaxed the terms of credit for settlers in ever more desperate efforts to bring the land laws into line with the speed with which the lands were being settled."

If you ever need evidence of the American propensity for liberty and individual initiative free from government coercion, read Wood’s chapter on the push westward.

This push, however, was disastrous for the American Indian. (It would also set the stage for the argument about slavery in the Western territories, which set the stage for the Civil War.) Jefferson and other leaders of the time held what they considered to be the enlightened view on the Indian issue: the civilization and assimilation of the Indian into white society. This view:

"…gave no recognition whatsoever to the worth or integrity of the Indians’ own existing culture. In the minds of many early nineteenth-century whites, enlightened civilization was still too recent, too precarious, for them to treat it as simply an alternative culture of lifestyle. Only later, only when the Indian culture had been virtually destroyed, could white Americans begin to try to redeem the tragedy that had occurred."

There is more, much more, to talk about in this wonderful book but I’ll leave it to you to explore the rest. I’ll just end by saying simply that I loved this book. It taught me much, explained a lot, and it made me think hard about the American character, the one that emerged during the Jeffersonian revolution of the '”middling sorts.” Their confidence, initiative, and determination for self-improvement became instilled in the American persona, the idea of what it is to be an American. Their demand for liberty became our birthright. In the Age of Obama, do we still retain these characteristics? I think so. The push back against the statist, European vision of the Obama administration is heartening to see. While I am certain that the elites in Congress don’t give a damn what ordinary Americans think, they do take public opinion into account when it comes to their reelection. If there are enough of us “middling sorts” left out there, we may be able to defeat their collectivist vision and continue this Empire of Liberty with which we’ve been blessed.

[postmodern putin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having not seriously engaged with American history since high school (I'm 26), I decided to tackle Gordon Wood’s Oxford history of the early republic—partly to refresh my knowledge, but mostly to better understand what helped to define American character at its core. After working through this comprehensive volume, I can say Wood delivers on both fronts.

What impressed me most was Wood’s consistent objectivity throughout. Given the incredible depth of detail he brings to this period, he sets a great standard for how historians should approach contentious material. Wood doesn’t shy away from the contradictions and complexities that defined these formative decades, presenting them with nuanced clarity instead of the common partisan interpretation.

Almost immediately, the book confirmed something I’d long suspected: the Jeffersonian revolution planted a fanatical fervor for democracy in the American psyche that has never truly subsided. Wood traces how this democratic zeal became almost religious in its intensity, and frankly, both major political parties today still exhibit flashes of this obsessive idealism. As one contemporary observer Wood quotes warned: ‘a democracy is scarcely tolerable at any period of national history. Its omens are always sinister... It was weak and wicked in Athens. It was bad in Sparta, and worse in Rome.’

Perhaps more telling is how Wood documents the early Republican tendency to willingly abandon their ideological rigidity when it served their political interests—a pattern that feels eerily familiar in contemporary politics. This obsession with ever-expanding democracy has, in my view, led us to our current state of political paralysis. Reading Wood’s account, I found myself agreeing with Alexander Hamilton’s conviction that some form of aristocratic leadership should have emerged to channel the intense revolutionary energy that swept the nation.

Hamilton’s broader vision also proves remarkably prescient throughout Wood’s narrative. His emphasis on robust manufacturing as essential for projecting national power, his understanding of strong executive authority, and his focus on building cohesive national identity all emerge as crucial elements that shaped America’s trajectory. Wood demonstrates how these insights were not mere political theory but practical necessities for a fledgling nation.

One of Wood’s most fascinating observations concerns the relationship between religion and commerce in early America. He shows how ‘evangelical religion and American commercialism were more than compatible; they needed one another.’ This synthesis helped forge what Tocqueville would later recognize: ‘The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive of the one without the other.’ Wood’s exploration of this Christian foundation confirmed my long-held belief about the essentially religious character that shaped the American soul.

While Wood’s exhaustive approach occasionally feels overwhelming, the breadth of his research and the clarity of his analysis make this an invaluable work for anyone seeking to understand how America’s democratic experiment unfolded—with all its triumphs and contradictions.

[Jeremy Perron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Before I begin I would like to point out that I actually had the opportunity to meet Professor Wood when he was giving a lecture at the University of New England in September 2010. I was very impressed by his presentation and he even signed my copy of Empire of Liberty.

As I continue my march through the ages in which I explore all the historical eras of the United States of America, my journey takes me to the beginning of our modern government. Since I finished Robert Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause, which deals with the American Revolution and the Constitutional Convention, I now arrive as the U.S. Constitution is being implemented and the new government is just getting its metaphorical feet under its legs. As I stated in earlier posts the biggest challenge is to find books that try their best to explore from multiple perspectives to avoid just one narrow view, without at the same time surrendering a general narrative that is both readable and enjoyable. Gordon Wood's book more than meets those qualifications.

The book begins with a discussion of the Washington Irving story of Rip Van Winkle, a story many us remember from childhood in which a man falls asleep for twenty years. Wood reminds us of political implications of that story. How Van Winkle falls asleep prior to the American Revolution and wakes up in the America of 1790s and marvels how the world has completely changed.

The historical narrative begins as the nation writes and ratifies its new Constitution and concludes at the end of the War of 1812. This book tells the tale of two generations, the Revolutionary generation of the Founding Fathers and the second generation of J.Q. Adams, Henry Clay, and Andrew Jackson. The book in way covers how the Founders governed the country in the early Republic and although the book does not feature the passing the torch from one generation to another , it clearly shows a nation where over eighty percent of its population is under the age of forty. In this narrative a young nation is still trying to find and define itself.

Early on the government under President Washington tries to mimic the British government's success without emulating its traps such as hereditary monarchy and aristocracy. The early administrations of Washington and Adams have a lot of success in helping the government find its feet by making good on treaties, establishing the public credit, kept the nation out of war, and being able to defend itself from internal problems such as the Whiskey Rebellion.

"The Senate considered itself distinctly superior to the 'lower' house, so-called perhaps because the House chamber was on the first floor of Federal Hall, while the Senate chamber was on the second floor. Although the Senate was not entirely clear about its relationship to the various state legislatures, which, of course, were its electors, it certainly did have a very high-flown sense of dignity. While the House was busy passing legislation, establishing revenue for the new government, and erecting the several executive departments, the Senate spent its time discussing ceremonies and rituals, perhaps because it had little else to do." (p. 63)

The Washington Administration did not really appreciate how bad Hamilton's programs--no matter how successful--would look to members of the public, who are terrified of tyranny, might view a growing executive. They did not care as much as they should because their views on how the Republic was supposed to look was greatly different than others. When the Adams Administration and Congress began to oppress the people's liberty with the Alien and Sedition Acts, the people would find a champion in Thomas Jefferson.

After the election of 1800, the historical narrative stops and Wood takes some time to inspect Jeffersonian America by taking an in-depth look at each area of society, from the west, to the everyday people, the religious establishments, and more. This book gives you the very feel of the nation as it was in the early nineteenth century.

The book also discusses Jefferson's greatest triumph of his presidency, the Louisiana Purchase and Lewis and Clark Expedition to explore it. Jefferson doubled the size of the nation and unintentionally secured the power of the Federal government of the United States. And while the accomplishments of Presidents Jefferson and Madison were many, they did make a good deal of mistakes such as the Embargo act of 1807 that both devastated the county and forced President Jefferson to take a line with dissenters that would have made Alexander Hamilton proud. They also allowed for ideology to cloud their judgment and lead the nation into a disaster.

"Although the Republicans in the Congress knew that the country's armed forces were not ready for any kind of combat, they nonetheless seemed more concerned about the threat the American military might pose to the United States than to Great Britain." (p. 671)

The War of 1812 nearly brought America to its knees but critical victories at Baltimore and New Orleans helped rally the American spirit. In the end of the War of 1812, even though the capital had been lost in the fighting American nationalism soared to a new height.

In the end the Founding Fathers that lived the longest seemed to be suffering from a Rip Van Winkle symptom as they could no longer recognize the nation that they had founded forty to fifty years later. This was most true for former President Thomas Jefferson.

"Although the world of the nearly nineteenth century was spinning out of Jefferson's control or even his comprehension, no one had done more to bring it about. It was Jefferson's commitment to liberty and equality that justified and legitimated the many pursuits of happiness that were bringing unprecedented prosperity to so many average white Americans. His Republicans followers in the North had created this new world, and they welcomed and thrived in it. They celebrated Jefferson and equal rights and indeed looked back in awe and wonder at all the Founders and saw in them heroic leaders the likes of which they knew they would never see again in America. Yet they also knew that they lived in a different would that required new thoughts and new behavior." (p. 736)

On a technical note, like the previous volume of the Oxford series,the footnotes are located at the bottom of the page they are on as opposed to either at the end of the book or the end of each chapter. I find this makes reading the book more enjoyable because that way I do not have to flip though pages to find the source of any particular fact or argument. I say again that I wish this method was mandatory.

Empire of Liberty is for the advanced reader who would like to receive an incredible amount of information about our nation in its earliest stages. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is open to that challenge.

[Jack Hayne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Worried about the collapse of the financial system?
Concerned about deepening bipartisan divides?
Anxious about violence against democratic institutions or the backroom political wheeling and dealing?
What about political self-enrichment? Or the decline of the arts?

Well, I’ve just described the tumultuous period following the American Revolutionary War.

In Empire of Liberty, Gordon Wood offers a wonderfully clear account of the early republic and the formation of the Hamiltonian federal system. At one point, all exports were declared illegal. Federalist politicians passed laws that made many Republican presses effectively illegal and even deported dissenting publishers. Some presses were firebombed.

Tensions between the (they thought) established gentry and the rising middle class—often aligned with the Federalists and Republicans, respectively—ran high. A newly elected representative was even beaten with a cane on the floor of the House because of his Republican beliefs.

Corruption followed every administration. The press was often unreliable, full of exaggerations or outright falsehoods. Cultural pessimism was rampant: many feared that America had no culture worth preserving.

I like to return to history when things seem out of hand. More often than not—unless we’re in a civil war—things aren’t as bad as they seem. Our rosy view of the past and our bleak outlook on the future (something notably absent in early America) can distort our sense of the present.

This book was especially interesting for its portrait of Hamilton—whose economic program wasn’t beneficial to everyone and whose elitism is often overlooked or romanticized in what amounts to a pseudo-pseudepigrapha.

Wood is superb—masterfully balancing the macro with the micro.

96% Peace will take over the world.(Major Jeffersonian Belief)

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thorough and comprehensive study of how the early republic of the US came into its own. Everything from the banking system to the entrenchment of political parties, evangelical Christianity to national identity. Interesting to hear how the elitist founders lost control of their ideals almost at once, and the "middling sorts" (I really don't like that term...no doubt accurate, but feels offensive somehow) ascended, and wealth and education became not just available to all (white men), but the benchmarks of success and respectability.

Really enjoyed the section about pirates. Ahoy! Great explanation of the War of 1812 and the history of the Navy as well. (Side note: I had to look up ships of the line. It turns out that the HMS Victory, dry docked in Portsmouth, England, is the oldest commissioned battle ship in the world, once captained by Lord Nelson at the battle of Trafalgar...which just shows that you can learn things and put stuff on your bucket list that don't have anything much to do with the current book.) I get the feeling that Gordon Wood really knows his stuff, and didn't just research for a book...like you could ask him any random question on anything about this era, and he'd know.

Sectionalism was an issue from the beginning, and the book does a great job discussing the seeds of the coming, and inevitable, Civil War.

This OUP series of US History is excellent, even if I am reading them out of order.

[Grant Willford · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really loved the first half, which was pretty focused on narrative, and then slowed to a crawl on the largely topical second half. Gordon Woods's prose is truly hilarious at times

[Edward · Rating 4 out of 5]

How can an "empire", with its connotation of control by an "emperor" at the top and “liberty” with its suggestion of freedoms enjoyed by individuals at the bottom co-exist? They can't, or at least not easily, and that's the paradox explored by this history of our republic's first 25 years. There are fault lines that develop in these years as divisive and troublesome today as they were then. They emerge in nineteen chapters which interweave discussions about individuals (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Marshall, Hamilton, Burr,to mention just a few), foreign relations (chiefly with France and Britain), subjects (law, the west, slavery, religion, political parties.

At the heart of the paradox, it seems to me, is Thomas Jefferson whose soaring rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence spoke of liberty and equal rights for all men, but over the course of the next forty years their actual working-out changed the nation into one that Jefferson hardly understood in his old age. His "liberty", of course, had to be guaranteed by a government, and it was one that he thought would be made up of disinterested and impartial legislators. But for a government to guarantee the rights of individuals, power was needed, the power of taxation (to pay the bills), of armed force, of binding interpretation of laws. With the creation of this power, abuses and corruption were inevitable (the specter of the monarchies of Europe were always present) and these were what Jefferson feared and loathed.

But what he failed to realize was that in emphasizing government by the "people", he was opening it up to the "middling" classes. With ubiquitous and cheap land speculation and increasing technological advances, particularly in New England, money began to determine the worth of an individual. Commerce, making money, broke down the old class barriers of heredity, property, and a liberal education, so that everyone became "middling"., looking out after his own interests The idealistic values of enlightened and unselfish leadership that he espoused were swept away.

His opponents, Hamilton and the Federalists, were convinced that a strong central government was a necessity. For example, to pay off the revolutionary war debts, Hamilton set up a national bank, replacing chaotic state and local institutions, and felt that a ongoing debt, deficit financing in other words, would cement such national entity and help bring about a lasting political union. Jefferson never understood state finance, and for him it was a unchecked monster that destroyed the liberty of individuals, bringing about ever increasing expenditures and unjustified taxation.

Jefferson and the men of the people (the "Republic" men or the "Republicans") opposed such measures of the "Federal" men, and a kind of class warfare broke out. But ironically, once the backs of the Federalists were broken, the "exuberantly democratic nature of American politics" took over, and the new people in power used the government for their own aims. Corruption still existed, leading to another pendulum swing against the "government", any government, no matter what its lofty goals.

I think the fault lines are still with us today, as evidenced by some of the issues of the forth coming 2012 elections. On one side there is the distrust of government, of its intrusion into American individual "liberties", of its ongoing debt, weighing down future generations, of its endless bureaucratic agencies, and on the other is the popular support of government subsidies and entitlement programs, of a strong military presence, and of selected regulatory powers (as long as they benefit "me"). The wobbling (lurching?) from the supposed benefits of freedom and liberty to the control and power of government activity is an unending one. I think historian Wood coherently and interestingly lays out the beginnings of this conflict.