What do you think?
Rate this book
Vindicating the Founders:: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America
This controversial, convincing, and highly original book is important reading for everyone concerned about the origins, present, and future of the American experiment in self-government.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 28, 1997
45 people are currently reading
496 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
October 9, 2018
The first thing that struck me about this book was the unnecessarily defensive title. This nation's founders - that remarkable generation who were born into a wilderness backwater and not only defeated the British Empire but had the prescience and wisdom to craft a Constitution and government that would become a model the world over and avoid the trap of becoming a poorly governed "banana republic" as has happened to so many other new countries since then - need no vindication. Rather, it is for us to try to live up to their lofty standards.
The author takes on the political left on their own ground - where they endlessly assert the founders were racist, sexist, biased against the poor, and so forth - and easily refutes these canards. Where the author falls short, I think, is that he does not pay sufficient attention to the basic fact that the founder literally were creating a new world. Up to that point in history, self-government was rare the world over, slavery was virtually universal, and the notion that all citizens possessed equal rights under the law was new and exotic. This being so, the founding generation is not to be condemned because the society they sought to create did not spring forth fully formed, like Athena emerging from the head of Zeus. Rather, it is a miracle they were able to achieve so much within the span of a single lifetime. Not only have subsequent generations failed to continue making the same progress, but the contemporary left, despite its incessant criticism of the founding generation, has actually sought to march in the wrong direction on many issues, and managed to pull the country as a whole along with it.
All in all, this book is a worthwhile read, but does not appear destined to become one of the classics on the subject.
The author takes on the political left on their own ground - where they endlessly assert the founders were racist, sexist, biased against the poor, and so forth - and easily refutes these canards. Where the author falls short, I think, is that he does not pay sufficient attention to the basic fact that the founder literally were creating a new world. Up to that point in history, self-government was rare the world over, slavery was virtually universal, and the notion that all citizens possessed equal rights under the law was new and exotic. This being so, the founding generation is not to be condemned because the society they sought to create did not spring forth fully formed, like Athena emerging from the head of Zeus. Rather, it is a miracle they were able to achieve so much within the span of a single lifetime. Not only have subsequent generations failed to continue making the same progress, but the contemporary left, despite its incessant criticism of the founding generation, has actually sought to march in the wrong direction on many issues, and managed to pull the country as a whole along with it.
All in all, this book is a worthwhile read, but does not appear destined to become one of the classics on the subject.
February 15, 2017
It's difficult to rate this book because it's so uneven. The section on property is stellar; the one of slavery good; those on women and the family, flawed. Sometimes the author has excellent facts to back up his arguments, putting quotes from original documents to good use. Other times he's straining the meager evidence he produces to support his claims. The latter sadly weakens not only the whole, but the excellent parts in particular.
September 13, 2007
Sexist, elitist crap. Right facts, wrong interpretation.
March 10, 2019
Well written, much needed information in today’s political climate. West covers everything from slavery to immigration to property rights, and what the Founding Fathers’ intentions were for the basic elements of government. Hint: it’s not what the media and public schools have been telling you. Using the Founding Fathers’ own words, West builds a case for the genius, noble, and intentional minds of those who wrote the Constitution. This should be required reading for very high school student, college student, and citizen of America. Five stars because it reveals truth, and I’m all about truth, as opposed to identity politics and ruling a country with emotions. Best used bookstore find ever!
February 18, 2016
I cannot say enough good things about this book. Our founding fathers don't deserve the amount of criticism they often receive. Like the book talks about ........ You have to go back more than 2,000 years to find anything close in comparison to the republic our wise foudnig fathers created. I'm glad to own this book.
February 16, 2025
This is one of those books, like New England Frontier and Rich Man’s War, that every liberal should have to be tied to a chair and forced to read over the course of 24 hours. And every time they try and interject with some snide remark, you smash their knuckles with a ball peen hammer.
Kidding, of course. Vindicating the Founders is, as you might guess, an apologetic for the actions and beliefs of the Founding Fathers as it relates to their opinions concerning slavery, women, voting rights, welfare, and more. It purports to show that, actually, the Founding Fathers were in principle sympathetic to everything that is taken as self-evidently (no pun intended) sacred to a liberal (read: libtard) worldview.
West does a decent enough job at proving this point, though at some points his assertions are likely tenuous at best. Certainly they were many founders who were greedy and unrepentant slavers/capitalists. And certainly they were (except Paine and Jefferson) no radical democrats. He also falls prey to wide tangents that have likely little bearing on the subject matter at hand. For instance, Ice T’s 1992 album is referenced as evidence of today’s hypocrisy concerning violence towards women. Yes, I’m serious.
Perhaps what is most disappointing is that West feels the need to justify the founders within modern morality. I am perfectly content rejecting modern morality, and along with it any assumptions about democracy and its existential necessity to the “security of a free state.” I think the Founders rightfully rejected democracy, rightfully understood that not every individual was equal to every other and would be appalled at what this nation has become, as they were appalled even at 1820’s America.
Still, West does a good job of dispelling notions about hypocritical, evil slaveholders who hated women and non-whites and the poor. I won’t recount the arguments here as they deserve more than just a few paragraphs, but suffice it to say that there is sufficient reason for admiring the founding fathers and not just condescendingly giving them the “product of their times” treatment.
Kidding, of course. Vindicating the Founders is, as you might guess, an apologetic for the actions and beliefs of the Founding Fathers as it relates to their opinions concerning slavery, women, voting rights, welfare, and more. It purports to show that, actually, the Founding Fathers were in principle sympathetic to everything that is taken as self-evidently (no pun intended) sacred to a liberal (read: libtard) worldview.
West does a decent enough job at proving this point, though at some points his assertions are likely tenuous at best. Certainly they were many founders who were greedy and unrepentant slavers/capitalists. And certainly they were (except Paine and Jefferson) no radical democrats. He also falls prey to wide tangents that have likely little bearing on the subject matter at hand. For instance, Ice T’s 1992 album is referenced as evidence of today’s hypocrisy concerning violence towards women. Yes, I’m serious.
Perhaps what is most disappointing is that West feels the need to justify the founders within modern morality. I am perfectly content rejecting modern morality, and along with it any assumptions about democracy and its existential necessity to the “security of a free state.” I think the Founders rightfully rejected democracy, rightfully understood that not every individual was equal to every other and would be appalled at what this nation has become, as they were appalled even at 1820’s America.
Still, West does a good job of dispelling notions about hypocritical, evil slaveholders who hated women and non-whites and the poor. I won’t recount the arguments here as they deserve more than just a few paragraphs, but suffice it to say that there is sufficient reason for admiring the founding fathers and not just condescendingly giving them the “product of their times” treatment.
April 11, 2022
Where to start? This book ends up being less about the Founding Fathers and more about the author's political viewpoints. All of the topics the author lays out are problematic, although I was found the pieces on women and the family to be the worst (correlation is not causation, let's just leave it at that). Throughout this book, I kept thinking of people who deny being racist/sexist/anti-poor etc. while also advocating for policies which specifically hurt those groups. Moreover, the Founders, flawed human beings that they were, deserve better than this.
December 19, 2007
I have to be honest about West's "Vindicating the Founders." It is simply WAY too politically motivated. West is a great author, but his analysis of the Founding Fathers, especially when it comes to slavery, is extremely bias. I guess if you are a supercharged conservative you might like this book.
July 16, 2011
Probably the best introduction to the American Founders' political thought. This book deals with the ideas and arguments of the Founders rather than simply relying on the authority of their quotes to carry the burden. And West is a Claremont grad!
April 14, 2012
The author sets the record straight regarding the inaccurate historical perceptions of the Founders and early America that have been perpetuated by liberal historians over the past 50-60 years. Overall, a well-researched and enlightening read.
September 21, 2011
INCREDIBLE! Brings to light what the Founders REALLY thought and wanted for us. Best book on them. Not liberal or conservative bias. Straight and honest
February 21, 2022
Useful book to address some of the more ridiculous aspects of historical iconoclasm going today.
May 22, 2014
In the "Founding Fathers' Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots Competition" of the flurry of books and articles on this topic in recent years, this book wins "Most Ridiculous".
The author makes enormous attributive mistakes. He completely misses the role of the Quakers and the Quaker-based founders and attributes their thinking to contractual patriarchs of the North such as Adams and institutionalized patriarchs of the South such as Jefferson and Madison. He uses some of the standard "Women Voters Are Whores" trope of the patriarchs of the South to explain why women lost the vote in New Jersey during the early 1800s; this makes sense only in the sense that women voters in those elections had to vote for male candidates; the reasons women lost the vote are more complex (having to do primarily with a large amount of non-Quaker immigration which did not have the same views of men and women, as well as with importation of laws of coverture which meant married women could not meet the property requirement for voting). He is oblivious to the laws of coverture and the "head and master" laws of the Napoleonic Code (the last of these was repealed in the US in the 1970s but vestiges of them exist in things like the design of Social Security and the federal income tax code).
The author's attribution to Justice Thurgood Marshall the words of Justice Taney in the Dred Scott opinion was one of the more entertaining of the many whopping errors of the book. It is true that Reconstruction Era black male leaders such as Frederic Douglass made the decision to seek reinterpretation of the words "person" and "citizen" to cover only black men and white men, over the objection of Sojourner Truth and Susan B. Anthony and many other people, and Marshall seemed in his 1987 speech to be deaf to how this likely contributed to it taking until Brown v. Board of Ed. for the Reconstruction Amendments to be enforced with regard to race, however, West's deafness and confusion on this issue dwarfs Marshall's.
And, finally, he makes the goofball mistake, far too prevalent, of identifying "America" as the territory governed by the Constitution, not the United States OF America.
If the author did not have such an aggressive agenda to block women's participation in the political economy - and apparently to avoid taking personal responsibility for his children - it would simply be tragic his gross distortion of US history. Instead the book becomes entertaining in how ridiculous it is. Sort of like a modern day Civil War reenactment of Jefferson Davis not being able to think his way out of a paper bag.
The author appears as someone too immature, traumatized or arrogant to handle something like taking personal responsibility for his children - or an equal partnership marriage - and trying desperately to prevent having to do this.
Much better books are "Quaker Constitutionalism and the Political Thought of John Dickinson" by Jane Calvert; "Not All Wives: Women of Colonial Philadelphia" by Karin Wulf; and Richard Beeman's books on both the Dec of Independence and the Constitution.
The author makes enormous attributive mistakes. He completely misses the role of the Quakers and the Quaker-based founders and attributes their thinking to contractual patriarchs of the North such as Adams and institutionalized patriarchs of the South such as Jefferson and Madison. He uses some of the standard "Women Voters Are Whores" trope of the patriarchs of the South to explain why women lost the vote in New Jersey during the early 1800s; this makes sense only in the sense that women voters in those elections had to vote for male candidates; the reasons women lost the vote are more complex (having to do primarily with a large amount of non-Quaker immigration which did not have the same views of men and women, as well as with importation of laws of coverture which meant married women could not meet the property requirement for voting). He is oblivious to the laws of coverture and the "head and master" laws of the Napoleonic Code (the last of these was repealed in the US in the 1970s but vestiges of them exist in things like the design of Social Security and the federal income tax code).
The author's attribution to Justice Thurgood Marshall the words of Justice Taney in the Dred Scott opinion was one of the more entertaining of the many whopping errors of the book. It is true that Reconstruction Era black male leaders such as Frederic Douglass made the decision to seek reinterpretation of the words "person" and "citizen" to cover only black men and white men, over the objection of Sojourner Truth and Susan B. Anthony and many other people, and Marshall seemed in his 1987 speech to be deaf to how this likely contributed to it taking until Brown v. Board of Ed. for the Reconstruction Amendments to be enforced with regard to race, however, West's deafness and confusion on this issue dwarfs Marshall's.
And, finally, he makes the goofball mistake, far too prevalent, of identifying "America" as the territory governed by the Constitution, not the United States OF America.
If the author did not have such an aggressive agenda to block women's participation in the political economy - and apparently to avoid taking personal responsibility for his children - it would simply be tragic his gross distortion of US history. Instead the book becomes entertaining in how ridiculous it is. Sort of like a modern day Civil War reenactment of Jefferson Davis not being able to think his way out of a paper bag.
The author appears as someone too immature, traumatized or arrogant to handle something like taking personal responsibility for his children - or an equal partnership marriage - and trying desperately to prevent having to do this.
Much better books are "Quaker Constitutionalism and the Political Thought of John Dickinson" by Jane Calvert; "Not All Wives: Women of Colonial Philadelphia" by Karin Wulf; and Richard Beeman's books on both the Dec of Independence and the Constitution.
October 8, 2021
Thomas West, in just over 200 pages demolishes the idea that the founders were in favor of slavery, were anti woman, were hypocrites, did not believe all men were equal, ignored the needs of the poor, and other similar falsehoods. Where did such slanderous, ignorant, and often self serving errors spring from? This book does a masterful job of facing these questions head on. One of the most powerful comments I have heard recently was "History happened!" That simply means a thing happened and we have records of what happened. West does yeoman's work in establishing the facts of what happened, what the founders said, what they wrote so we are left with facts. Not opinions, or presumptions. If you have any interest in the founding principles of this country this is an essential read. Those who see our constitution as "living" and changing with the current problems and political trends will most likely disagree with this book. But history happened, the facts are there. When you read this book you will better understand how our country has descended from the founders idea of "We the people..." to our modern "Government mandates" where heads of federal education think the government will decide what children should learn and it's none of the parents business. Please read this book.
July 27, 2020
Excellent book, a summary of the views of our Founding Fathers on social issues showing what is commonly known in the press is wrong--rumor, revisionist history, political views that aren't true. West uses historical fact as written by the founders in historical sources such as the Federalist papers--it describes the written opinions of the founders. They were as concerned about slavery, for example as we are, and saw all the problems with it. Most wanted to eradicate it in the new country of America and there was much debate and most did not believe it was feasible--that blacks could not survive as an independent people. 200 years ago people in this country were different, values were different, the issue of slavery was too complicated for agreement and the Founders priority was a Constitution (which was a new thing) which the majority must agree on. The fact that they created a document that could be agreed upon (though a few refused to sign it) is amazing. This book details what the issues were, what was approved and what the differences were.
March 1, 2025
Thomas G. West’s “Vindicating the Founders” is a bold rebuttal to the academy’s assault on the American project. As West notes, the Founders held that the Declaration of Independence “speaks of two requirements that follow from the natural equality of all men: government must be by the consent of the governed, and government must protect the rights of all.” Of late, ideologies articulate that America was conceived in the sins of racism, sexism, and xenophobia. In addition, they argue that suffrage was limited to a minority of elite property owners.
The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal.” Nonetheless, slavery was widespread in 1776; and the principal author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, himself was a slave owner. Moreover, several clauses of the Constitution give sanction to the institution. That said, is it correct to say that the equality clause of the Declaration was a sham?
West argues that the Founders considered slaves to be men. This may be true; however, this fact did almost nothing to ameliorate the plight of those in bondage. As Lincoln wrote, “he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.” How can a society enslave some, if “all men” have inalienable rights to life and liberty?
West records that the majority of states had abolished slavery by 1787, and notes that many of the Founders were outspoken in their condemnation of the “peculiar institution.” For the most part, the Founders did not condone slavery, and the clauses in the Constitution which touched on the matter were seen as compromises that would eventually result in abolition. As West rightly asserts, the northern states would have had no suasion to end the practice had the union never formed.
West quotes Jefferson, “We have the wolf by the ears, and we neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.” The author contends that the Founders regarded prudence as central to morality. Yes, slavery violated rights, but immediate abolition might be worse.
West makes other salient points. West strongly defends individuals’ rights to own property, and the Founders belief that ending primogeniture and entail would foster social stability. Family laws in the early republic did not reflect a “sexist” belief that women are inferior. According to West, the Founders thought that strengthening the family helped women and society. West wrote, "A society dominated by intact families does a better job protecting women and children against crime, poverty, and sadness. It also gives men powerful incentives to behave responsibly: love, interest, shame, and honor” An assertion borne out by much recent research.
Overall, West offers a cogent defense of the Founding. Perhaps it was Voltaire who remarked, “Perfect is the enemy of good.” West’s work is an extension of this aphorism, and should be a caveat for those who seek to radically transform America.
The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal.” Nonetheless, slavery was widespread in 1776; and the principal author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, himself was a slave owner. Moreover, several clauses of the Constitution give sanction to the institution. That said, is it correct to say that the equality clause of the Declaration was a sham?
West argues that the Founders considered slaves to be men. This may be true; however, this fact did almost nothing to ameliorate the plight of those in bondage. As Lincoln wrote, “he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.” How can a society enslave some, if “all men” have inalienable rights to life and liberty?
West records that the majority of states had abolished slavery by 1787, and notes that many of the Founders were outspoken in their condemnation of the “peculiar institution.” For the most part, the Founders did not condone slavery, and the clauses in the Constitution which touched on the matter were seen as compromises that would eventually result in abolition. As West rightly asserts, the northern states would have had no suasion to end the practice had the union never formed.
West quotes Jefferson, “We have the wolf by the ears, and we neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.” The author contends that the Founders regarded prudence as central to morality. Yes, slavery violated rights, but immediate abolition might be worse.
West makes other salient points. West strongly defends individuals’ rights to own property, and the Founders belief that ending primogeniture and entail would foster social stability. Family laws in the early republic did not reflect a “sexist” belief that women are inferior. According to West, the Founders thought that strengthening the family helped women and society. West wrote, "A society dominated by intact families does a better job protecting women and children against crime, poverty, and sadness. It also gives men powerful incentives to behave responsibly: love, interest, shame, and honor” An assertion borne out by much recent research.
Overall, West offers a cogent defense of the Founding. Perhaps it was Voltaire who remarked, “Perfect is the enemy of good.” West’s work is an extension of this aphorism, and should be a caveat for those who seek to radically transform America.
September 21, 2019
Most would agree that the political climate in the United States has become overly polarized. And in the frenzied debate between the Right and the Left, the nation's founding fathers have become a political football. Historian Thomas West feels that these seminal figures have been unfairly maligned, often denigrated as nothing more than a group of sexist, racist, or elitist white men. So in this book, he revisits some of the historical evidence and through a series of essays on various topics, attempts to show that the founders were more egalitarian and democratic than they are generally given credit for.
Unfortunately, I am not certain that these essays will help the conservative cause or to lower the temperature of the arguments.
West opens with a chapter on the founders' attitudes toward slavery. This may be the best section of the book. West highlights the ways in which Washington, Jefferson, and others really did believe in the equality of all peoples, found the institution of slavery troubling, and wanted to abolish it but felt limited in what they could accomplish immediately. West essentially argues that the founders opted instead for a pragmatic and incremental approach, believing it would get the country to abolition eventually. West's sources and arguments in this chapter are somewhat convincing and it did cause me to rethink what I thought I knew about the founders.
The book is downhill from there. The chapter on property rights is OK, but by the time West gets into chapters on women's right, poverty, and immigration, he makes arguments that don't help his cause. The alternative explanations he offers for the founder's actions and words are actually just as bad as the original interpretation. I assume that West thinks he is defending these eminent men, but instead he winds up digging the hole a bit deeper.
A case in point: West discusses the reasons the founding fathers did not provide women with the right to vote, and his argument comes down to something like: the founders recognized that women had mastery over the domestic domain, and that that was their proper sphere of influence, and they were very busy in it, so they didn't want to burden them with having to learn about politics too and frankly, men didn't want to learn about housekeeping and child-rearing either, so they decided to just keep men and women in their own lanes (my paraphrase). I'm sure this was supposed to sound magnanimous and loving, but it comes across as sexist and patriarchal.
(I suppose this mirrors the challenge with politics today. An argument that sounds totally reasonable to a conservative, sounds like nonsense to a liberal, and vice versa. Perhaps the divide really is too great and finding common understanding is unattainable.)
In any event, West does not, to my way of thinking, succeed in vindicating the founders. He's preaching to a conservative choir, not to the rest of us who are not on the far right.
Unfortunately, I am not certain that these essays will help the conservative cause or to lower the temperature of the arguments.
West opens with a chapter on the founders' attitudes toward slavery. This may be the best section of the book. West highlights the ways in which Washington, Jefferson, and others really did believe in the equality of all peoples, found the institution of slavery troubling, and wanted to abolish it but felt limited in what they could accomplish immediately. West essentially argues that the founders opted instead for a pragmatic and incremental approach, believing it would get the country to abolition eventually. West's sources and arguments in this chapter are somewhat convincing and it did cause me to rethink what I thought I knew about the founders.
The book is downhill from there. The chapter on property rights is OK, but by the time West gets into chapters on women's right, poverty, and immigration, he makes arguments that don't help his cause. The alternative explanations he offers for the founder's actions and words are actually just as bad as the original interpretation. I assume that West thinks he is defending these eminent men, but instead he winds up digging the hole a bit deeper.
A case in point: West discusses the reasons the founding fathers did not provide women with the right to vote, and his argument comes down to something like: the founders recognized that women had mastery over the domestic domain, and that that was their proper sphere of influence, and they were very busy in it, so they didn't want to burden them with having to learn about politics too and frankly, men didn't want to learn about housekeeping and child-rearing either, so they decided to just keep men and women in their own lanes (my paraphrase). I'm sure this was supposed to sound magnanimous and loving, but it comes across as sexist and patriarchal.
(I suppose this mirrors the challenge with politics today. An argument that sounds totally reasonable to a conservative, sounds like nonsense to a liberal, and vice versa. Perhaps the divide really is too great and finding common understanding is unattainable.)
In any event, West does not, to my way of thinking, succeed in vindicating the founders. He's preaching to a conservative choir, not to the rest of us who are not on the far right.
September 13, 2018
This book is at its best when he tries to explain the Founders thinking. however, when he then tries to justify it himself he gets into a lot of trouble. At times he ceases using their quotes and makes his own assertions. He also frequently forgets his opponent’s best arguments, as when mid-chapter he seems to forget that many Founders owned slaves. This book could be a good starting point for a serious scholar to build a more contemplative study of the thinking of the founders.
October 19, 2020
Dry at times, and repetitive at other times. This book is insightful. It delves into the minds, mentality, reasoning and thought-processes of the founders concerning topics like equality, slavery and suffrage. Many have accused the founders of being racist, sexist and classist. This book tackles those accusations, holds clear and reasonable facts to the contrary, and is honest about the strengths & failings of the founders.
December 13, 2021
This book gave an academic answer to the Founder’s views on race, gender, property and immigration.
I felt that it is a very relevant book considering our current problems with welfare, gender equality and immigration.
Although written in the 1990’s it is still a necessary read.
I was relieved to read quotes by the founders themselves, vindicating them of many modern accusations.
They were some pretty good dudes!
I felt that it is a very relevant book considering our current problems with welfare, gender equality and immigration.
Although written in the 1990’s it is still a necessary read.
I was relieved to read quotes by the founders themselves, vindicating them of many modern accusations.
They were some pretty good dudes!
June 23, 2025
While I am of the view that the Founders were based and require no vindication, this was still a good read and was thoroughly researched and argued by West, who provided a ton of quotes and examples to back his points. That the widespread ignorance and lies about our great nation's founding have only gotten worse since this was published in 1997 is truly sad.
October 24, 2025
Astute and concise accounting of the founding fathers' approach to governance. The supporting citations and quotes provide a rich factual basis for the ideas presented. Foundational reading for anyone interested in the origins of our republic and the topical debates about governance that still rage today.
May 27, 2020
I plan to reread this book when I can concentrate more.
August 1, 2021
Necessary primer and corrective, particularly in our current cultural climate.
July 30, 2016
Critiques of the American Founding abound nowadays, from the halls of critical theorists pointing out that the Founders never achieved utopia to conservative hawks who don't believe the Founders were moral enough.
West's book is an invitation to think alongside the Founders on several issues - slavery, property rights, welfare, voting rights, and immigration. (He has admitted in a recent lecture that he should not have posed the book's thesis as a defense of the Founders, if he wanted a larger readership.) One of the most important things West's scholarly volume shows us is that many debates among the founders were over concrete applications of the principles of the Declaration and Constitution, not the principles themselves.
In terms of readability, this is not a quick read. On the other hand, it is really, really nice that one does not have to read the essays in the order presented.
While not the most current book on the subject, it is a wonderful book on the American Founding from one of America's most interesting Straussians.
West's book is an invitation to think alongside the Founders on several issues - slavery, property rights, welfare, voting rights, and immigration. (He has admitted in a recent lecture that he should not have posed the book's thesis as a defense of the Founders, if he wanted a larger readership.) One of the most important things West's scholarly volume shows us is that many debates among the founders were over concrete applications of the principles of the Declaration and Constitution, not the principles themselves.
In terms of readability, this is not a quick read. On the other hand, it is really, really nice that one does not have to read the essays in the order presented.
While not the most current book on the subject, it is a wonderful book on the American Founding from one of America's most interesting Straussians.
August 3, 2014
If you are someone who is willing to give the founders the benefit of the doubt you will love this book, if you are not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt then this book will probably just up set you.
I found it well researched, well argued and believable. There were a few sources and quotes he used multiple times but they never seemed over used like that was all he was relying on. Some might find it odd that he used quotes from Abraham Lincoln in a book about the founding. They were not very frequent and when they did come they seemed justified on the grounds that much of his rhetoric was based on the founding.
I found it well researched, well argued and believable. There were a few sources and quotes he used multiple times but they never seemed over used like that was all he was relying on. Some might find it odd that he used quotes from Abraham Lincoln in a book about the founding. They were not very frequent and when they did come they seemed justified on the grounds that much of his rhetoric was based on the founding.
December 28, 2008
I really enjoyed this book, and thought it was surprisingly relevant to the current state of affairs in the United States. It's easy to point to leaders of the past and "forgive" them for being naive or not wholly competent, but West exposes these attacks for what they really are - cheap, incorrect, and frequently deceptive.
If you already "know" that the founders of the United States were sexist and racist, you'll hate this book. On the other hand, if you can read with an open mind, you'll surely find something insightful and enlightening, if not more.
If you already "know" that the founders of the United States were sexist and racist, you'll hate this book. On the other hand, if you can read with an open mind, you'll surely find something insightful and enlightening, if not more.
January 7, 2011
I first bought this book for a class in college. I decided to pick it up again and read it because I wanted to gain a better appreciation of the Founders and what they were thinking when they founded this country. It isn't the most readable book, but it does contain some interesting rhetoric.
Each chapter in the book discusses a different topic, such as property rights, poverty and welfare, and women and voting. I felt that some of the author's arguments were quite convincing, but I also felt that he didn't give enough weight to opposing arguments at times.
Each chapter in the book discusses a different topic, such as property rights, poverty and welfare, and women and voting. I felt that some of the author's arguments were quite convincing, but I also felt that he didn't give enough weight to opposing arguments at times.
March 27, 2009
Good review of modern core issues treated by the Founders.
Read
September 23, 2010"Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America by Thomas G. West (2001)"
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews