What do you think?
Rate this book
American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic
From the first shots fired at Lexington to the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the negotiations for the Louisiana Purchase, Joseph J. Ellis guides us through the decisive issues of the nation’s founding, and illuminates the emerging philosophies, shifting alliances, and personal and political foibles of our now iconic leaders–Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Adams. He casts an incisive eye on the founders’ achievements, arguing that the American Revolution was, paradoxically, an evolution–and that part of what made it so extraordinary was the gradual pace at which it occurred. He explains how the idea of a strong federal government was eventually embraced by the American people, and details the emergence of the two-party system, which stands as the founders’ most enduring legacy.
Ellis is equally incisive about their failures, and he makes clear how their inability to abolish slavery and to reach a just settlement with the Native Americans has played an equally important role in shaping our national character. With eloquence and insight, Ellis strips the mythic veneer of the revolutionary generation to reveal men both human and inspired, possessed of both brilliance and blindness. American Creation is an audiobook that delineates an era of flawed greatness, at a time when understanding our origins is more important than ever.
Ellis is equally incisive about their failures, and he makes clear how their inability to abolish slavery and to reach a just settlement with the Native Americans has played an equally important role in shaping our national character. With eloquence and insight, Ellis strips the mythic veneer of the revolutionary generation to reveal men both human and inspired, possessed of both brilliance and blindness. American Creation is an audiobook that delineates an era of flawed greatness, at a time when understanding our origins is more important than ever.
Audio
First published October 30, 2007
342 people are currently reading
12837 people want to read
About the author
Joseph J. Ellis
41 books1,323 followersJoseph John-Michael Ellis III is an American historian whose work focuses on the lives and times of the Founding Fathers of the United States. His book American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson won a National Book Award in 1997 and Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for History. Both of these books were bestsellers.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 557 reviews
July 7, 2025
Professor and esteemed historian Joseph J. Ellis has produced numerous books pertaining to the colonial history and early birth of the United States, with character studies on some of the more prominent founders such as Jefferson, Washington, and Adams. With American Creation, he sums up some of the key pivotal points during the years 1775 through 1803, and explains how each of these tailored and shaped the Early U.S. Republic. Ellis begins the book by discussing the scope of his work in determining how the Founding era produced the American government that came to be, and defines the period and years that in his mind were essential in establishing the democratic republic as we know it in its current form.
He divulges upon major facts and summarizes a variety of resources that pertain specifically to: the year 1775, the winter at Valley Forge, the splitting of parties based on the role of a centralized Federal Government, the Treaty of New York creating a border between the Creek Nation and the U.S., the Jefferson and Madison mid-term botany excursion (or “conspiracy” in its alleged formation of the anti-federalists), and finally the Louisiana Purchase and the beginnings of Manifest Destiny. Ellis leaves it to the reader to decide which factors were tragic or triumphant throughout the narrative, and shows how broad—and perhaps at times naive—certain decisions were pertaining to new policies and procedures:
What Knox and Washington envisioned as the outcome of the new policy was a series of Indian enclaves or homelands east of the Mississippi whose political and geographic integrity would be protected by federal law. The wave of white settlements would be required to bypass these Indian enclaves, leaving several Indian territories east of the Mississippi that would eventually, over the course of the next century, be assimilated as new states. It was a vision in which the westward expansion of an American empire coexisted alongside the preservation of the original Americans.
While nothing that he touches upon is truly groundbreaking in its appeal to the American Revolution history buff, the book is fairly easy to digest and use as a reference guide with its six distinct subjects that were monumental to the Revolutionary Cause and Early Republic. The book leaves room for many questions to ponder over and discuss from a modern perspective, and though it is indeed quick and has an agreeable flow, there unfortunately isn’t anything fresh or endearing to truly captivate the audience with—nor leave them with a memorable reading experience. Surprisingly, illustrations and relevant maps such as those pertaining to the Creek Boundary or scale of the Louisiana Purchase are not provided.
He divulges upon major facts and summarizes a variety of resources that pertain specifically to: the year 1775, the winter at Valley Forge, the splitting of parties based on the role of a centralized Federal Government, the Treaty of New York creating a border between the Creek Nation and the U.S., the Jefferson and Madison mid-term botany excursion (or “conspiracy” in its alleged formation of the anti-federalists), and finally the Louisiana Purchase and the beginnings of Manifest Destiny. Ellis leaves it to the reader to decide which factors were tragic or triumphant throughout the narrative, and shows how broad—and perhaps at times naive—certain decisions were pertaining to new policies and procedures:
What Knox and Washington envisioned as the outcome of the new policy was a series of Indian enclaves or homelands east of the Mississippi whose political and geographic integrity would be protected by federal law. The wave of white settlements would be required to bypass these Indian enclaves, leaving several Indian territories east of the Mississippi that would eventually, over the course of the next century, be assimilated as new states. It was a vision in which the westward expansion of an American empire coexisted alongside the preservation of the original Americans.
While nothing that he touches upon is truly groundbreaking in its appeal to the American Revolution history buff, the book is fairly easy to digest and use as a reference guide with its six distinct subjects that were monumental to the Revolutionary Cause and Early Republic. The book leaves room for many questions to ponder over and discuss from a modern perspective, and though it is indeed quick and has an agreeable flow, there unfortunately isn’t anything fresh or endearing to truly captivate the audience with—nor leave them with a memorable reading experience. Surprisingly, illustrations and relevant maps such as those pertaining to the Creek Boundary or scale of the Louisiana Purchase are not provided.
July 2, 2014
In this little gem of a book, Joseph J. Ellis argues that one venerable interpretation of the founding of the United States, namely that it was a clash between “democracy” and “aristocracy,” is flawed. None of the Founders, even Jefferson, regarded democracy as a goal. All of the Founders were what we would call “elitists.” In fact, the term “democracy” was considered an epithet. The core question was rather how to create a viable nation-state. The clash was between those who favored a wholly sovereign national government (the Federalists like Washington and John Adams) and those who wanted to preserve state sovereignty over all domestic issues (the Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson).
Ellis asserts that the founding generation was very successful in at least five respects, but woefully inadequate in at least two. First the good news: the Founders (1) waged the first successful war for colonial independence in the modern era; (2) established the first nation-sized republic; (3) created a wholly secular state, with genuine freedom of religion; (4) rejected Aristotle’s concept that sovereignty had to reside in a single place; and (5) created political parties as institutionalized channels for ongoing debate. The bad news was that they failed miserably (1) in handling Native Americans and (2) in dealing with the institution of slavery.
Rather than tackling the entire founding era (which Ellis defines as 1775-1803), Ellis describes only a few distinct and seminal “events,” almost like short stories, to illustrate themes that run through the entire period. In a chapter entitled “The Year,” we see how the revolution was more of an evolution, in which the nature of the opposition changed from a group of King George’s loyal subjects who just didn’t want to be taxed, to a group of increasingly audacious statesmen who desired complete independence. In another chapter, Ellis explores how Washington perforce changed strategy from direct military confrontation to modified guerrilla warfare, using America’s extensive space to avoid pitched battles where possible and to wear down his British adversaries.
Ellis does an impressive job of analyzing the debate about the adoption of the Constitution and the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation. The struggle lay in determining the relative power of the new federal government vis-à-vis the states. Ellis describes the resolution of the issue as “The Great Compromise,” which “essentially declared the theoretical question of state versus federal sovereignty politically unresolvable except by a split-the-difference structure that neither camp found satisfactory. The only workable solution was to leave the sovereignty question unclear.”
With victory over the British came the thorny problem of how to deal with the many Native Americans who lived between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River. Despite the somewhat good intentions of George Washington and John Adams, the government was never able to adopt a satisfactory strategy or negotiate an equitable treaty with the various tribes. Instead, the inexorable pressures of a rapidly increasing white population and desire for cheap western land resulted in the driving of the tribes from their historic homes and the near extinction of them as a people.
Ellis’s treatment of the Louisiana Purchase is particularly well wrought. Napoleon Bonaparte was frustrated in his efforts to prevent Haiti from winning its independence from France. Moreover, his troops both in Haiti and on the mainland were being decimated by yellow fever and malaria. Napoleon's disgust with the whole enterprise presented the young American government with an opportunity to double the size of its realm at a very low price. In fact, the purchase could be financed entirely with the sale of land in the new territory to eager American buyers. The problem for then President Thomas Jefferson was that the Constitution did not specifically authorize the president (or anyone else) to take such dramatic measures. Jefferson had based his entire political career on limiting the power of the federal government. In the event, Jefferson ignored his Republican scruples because he just could not pass up the opportunity to increase the size of the republic. Ellis says, “…there was no getting around the blatant fact that it was a violation of his political creed, in effect a sin.” But, as Ellis added, “…without the capacity to enlarge presidential power toward monarchial levels of authority, it is difficult to understand how republican government could effectively respond to any genuine crisis.”
While there were numerous positive results of the Louisiana Purchase, it sealed the doom of Indians east of the Mississippi by providing a place where Eastern tribes could be relocated. [Many died during the forced relocations, or shared the fate of the tribes in the West by being annihilated or placed in reservations on the land the whites didn’t want, i.e., the most economically unviable.]
Another theme that resonates through the book is the attitude of many of the Founders to the institution of slavery. Many followed Jefferson’s “Virginia Compromise,” by simply ignoring the issue, as if the mere discussion of it amounted to a form of treason. Most of the Founders thought the problem was insolvable (at least while they were alive; the idea of emancipation evoked the unsavory prospect giving up their own slaves!). Very few of them could imagine a bi-racial society. Even most of the most liberal thought the solution would require the relocation of blacks to another country, either in Liberia or the Caribbean. Ellis shows how the Louisiana Purchase exacerbated this problem by adding a large new territory where there was no agreement about the reach of slavery.
Evaluation: This book does not add much to what was already known about the Founding period or the Founding Fathers, but it does present it in a well-organized and very readable style. I highly recommend this intelligent and perceptive analysis of the Founding Era as an addition to your Early American History library.
Ellis asserts that the founding generation was very successful in at least five respects, but woefully inadequate in at least two. First the good news: the Founders (1) waged the first successful war for colonial independence in the modern era; (2) established the first nation-sized republic; (3) created a wholly secular state, with genuine freedom of religion; (4) rejected Aristotle’s concept that sovereignty had to reside in a single place; and (5) created political parties as institutionalized channels for ongoing debate. The bad news was that they failed miserably (1) in handling Native Americans and (2) in dealing with the institution of slavery.
Rather than tackling the entire founding era (which Ellis defines as 1775-1803), Ellis describes only a few distinct and seminal “events,” almost like short stories, to illustrate themes that run through the entire period. In a chapter entitled “The Year,” we see how the revolution was more of an evolution, in which the nature of the opposition changed from a group of King George’s loyal subjects who just didn’t want to be taxed, to a group of increasingly audacious statesmen who desired complete independence. In another chapter, Ellis explores how Washington perforce changed strategy from direct military confrontation to modified guerrilla warfare, using America’s extensive space to avoid pitched battles where possible and to wear down his British adversaries.
Ellis does an impressive job of analyzing the debate about the adoption of the Constitution and the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation. The struggle lay in determining the relative power of the new federal government vis-à-vis the states. Ellis describes the resolution of the issue as “The Great Compromise,” which “essentially declared the theoretical question of state versus federal sovereignty politically unresolvable except by a split-the-difference structure that neither camp found satisfactory. The only workable solution was to leave the sovereignty question unclear.”
With victory over the British came the thorny problem of how to deal with the many Native Americans who lived between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River. Despite the somewhat good intentions of George Washington and John Adams, the government was never able to adopt a satisfactory strategy or negotiate an equitable treaty with the various tribes. Instead, the inexorable pressures of a rapidly increasing white population and desire for cheap western land resulted in the driving of the tribes from their historic homes and the near extinction of them as a people.
Ellis’s treatment of the Louisiana Purchase is particularly well wrought. Napoleon Bonaparte was frustrated in his efforts to prevent Haiti from winning its independence from France. Moreover, his troops both in Haiti and on the mainland were being decimated by yellow fever and malaria. Napoleon's disgust with the whole enterprise presented the young American government with an opportunity to double the size of its realm at a very low price. In fact, the purchase could be financed entirely with the sale of land in the new territory to eager American buyers. The problem for then President Thomas Jefferson was that the Constitution did not specifically authorize the president (or anyone else) to take such dramatic measures. Jefferson had based his entire political career on limiting the power of the federal government. In the event, Jefferson ignored his Republican scruples because he just could not pass up the opportunity to increase the size of the republic. Ellis says, “…there was no getting around the blatant fact that it was a violation of his political creed, in effect a sin.” But, as Ellis added, “…without the capacity to enlarge presidential power toward monarchial levels of authority, it is difficult to understand how republican government could effectively respond to any genuine crisis.”
While there were numerous positive results of the Louisiana Purchase, it sealed the doom of Indians east of the Mississippi by providing a place where Eastern tribes could be relocated. [Many died during the forced relocations, or shared the fate of the tribes in the West by being annihilated or placed in reservations on the land the whites didn’t want, i.e., the most economically unviable.]
Another theme that resonates through the book is the attitude of many of the Founders to the institution of slavery. Many followed Jefferson’s “Virginia Compromise,” by simply ignoring the issue, as if the mere discussion of it amounted to a form of treason. Most of the Founders thought the problem was insolvable (at least while they were alive; the idea of emancipation evoked the unsavory prospect giving up their own slaves!). Very few of them could imagine a bi-racial society. Even most of the most liberal thought the solution would require the relocation of blacks to another country, either in Liberia or the Caribbean. Ellis shows how the Louisiana Purchase exacerbated this problem by adding a large new territory where there was no agreement about the reach of slavery.
Evaluation: This book does not add much to what was already known about the Founding period or the Founding Fathers, but it does present it in a well-organized and very readable style. I highly recommend this intelligent and perceptive analysis of the Founding Era as an addition to your Early American History library.
April 21, 2019
A great telling of 1776 to the Louisiana Purchase. Very detailed analysis of the events and the positions of the major players. This would be an excellent text book for the period, in part because it is so readable and told so understandably.
May 26, 2012
So even though I’m not a 5th grade teacher any more, I can’t shake the early American history addiction. This book holds a nice sweeping portrayal of the founding years and ties a lot of things together. It makes me want to read more about Thomas Jefferson. There were many issues presented that were new to me such as the importance of the constant argument between states rights and federal power, and the impetus behind the Louisiana Purchase. I agree with most of what the author postulates in this book except for 2 ideas. One is that the two party system is an integral and inevitable part of any republic that is going to function properly, and that it is a good thing that the founders stumbled across it, however unwillingly. I think the two party system sucks. It puts the power in the hands of the minority over the majority, it makes it so that most votes don’t count, and it makes sure that no honest, independent person will ever become president. I guess this country kind of got off on the wrong foot as far as honest presidents go, since the first one was complicit in the race-based trafficking of human flesh on his own property, but it would be kind of nice to have a decent person as president for once. The other thing I don’t agree with is the author’s insistence that Washington really cared that much about finding an alternative to exterminating the Native American population. Of course Washington cared quite a bit more about them than the next dozen presidents would, but to say that he honestly believed that he was making promises to the Indians that he was actually planning on keeping is just showing that this author still sees Washington with glasses shrouded in the mist of heroism. Washington is still somewhat godlike for this author, which is interesting because he has no qualms about totally defaming the other founders and facing head on the uncomfortable elephants in the room. Unfortunately one elephant he never even mentions is the fact that Jefferson and Washington never freed (very many of) their own personal slaves during their lives (I think Jefferson only freed 5, and after his death his family auctioned off 130 people, including the family members of one of the only two slaves he freed in his will. None of this is mentioned in the book). To me this fact renders absolutely ridiculous and irrelevant anything good they might have done. It’s like trying to find some good side to Hitler. I’m sure Hitler did some good things, but it would be blasphemous to number them as if they justified the holocaust. Was not slavery a cultural holocaust, and did not Jefferson and Washington have the power to end it at least on their own property? No, they were justified because they would have suffered financially and there was actually a law against freeing one’s own slaves. Poor babies, they would have had to break a diabolical law and go without their foreign wines and cheeses. Yet they did sacrifice so much during the revolutionary years, and they broke so many laws that they were guilty of treason. If they truly believed in those revolutionary principles, they would have made one more revolutionary sacrifice and freed their slaves. I am sick of historians appologizing for them.
July 18, 2018
Covers quite a bit of ground in bite sized portions. Ellis offers an intriguing take on the American founding through a few key moments from 1775-1803. I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but he does a good job outlining all the complexities of the various situations, especially excelling with the Continental Army's time at Valley Forge and the writing and ratification of the Constitution.
He gets a bit overly rhapsodic when it comes to pushing his triumphs/tragedies theme sometimes, but his secondary themes regarding time, space, the excellence but also imperfections of the founders, and the argumentative nature of the Constitution are quite perspicacious.
He gets a bit overly rhapsodic when it comes to pushing his triumphs/tragedies theme sometimes, but his secondary themes regarding time, space, the excellence but also imperfections of the founders, and the argumentative nature of the Constitution are quite perspicacious.
May 17, 2019
Ellis is an incredibly eloquent writer. I like how he doesn't attempt to write the definitive history of a period or person. He picks several significant events and explores them thoroughly, making you see them differently than your education and assumptions have led you to believe.
May 2, 2016
This book consists of a series of linked essays regarding what the author sees as problematic, often misrepresented or misunderstood, events in the early history of America from about 1775 until the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Much of the author's arguments run contrary to the simple, idealized portrayals of these events and of the figures prominent in them that one reads in general surveys intended for students or the general public. Jefferson, for instance, is protrayed rather negatively as an anti-democratic, racist, duplicitous opportunist. This picture may be more indicative of the author's politics than of Jefferson's actual character, but it did get me to question my more positive, and conventional, sense of the man.
What was most interesting for me were the speculations as regards the Indian and Negro questions, both of which author Ellis believes may well have been handled much more humanely than they actually were.
What was most interesting for me were the speculations as regards the Indian and Negro questions, both of which author Ellis believes may well have been handled much more humanely than they actually were.
March 13, 2009
This book was very easy to read and really got me psyched up about the era of the American Revolution. The author simultaneously points out the genius as well as the personal ambitions/failings/quirks of the founders. It's refreshing to read an account of history that isn't putting a sugar coat on everything, but also isn't bashing our beloved founding fathers. This book prompted me to start reading Undaunted Courage, because he does a grat job pointing out the importance of the Louisiana Purchase to our country's history.
July 29, 2009
There are some good bits to this book, and some things I learned, but the author took a loose theme -- triumphs and tragedies -- and shoved it down the reader's throat. The essay format works nicely, but only when it's not overdone.
October 2, 2025
Theme of the book: The creation of America leading to it's founding documents, was not a preordained march to greatness, but rather a series of improvised (and sometimes lucky ~ Chapter 2 about Valley Forge was illuminative) choices made by brilliant but flawed men. The achievements of these founders (Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison in particular) led to the creation of a new country, but compromises on slavery and Native American rights left an ugly stain on "all men are created equal" and further ensured the outbreak of civil war.
Ellis underscores what he calls the “tragedies” of the Founding — above all, the failure to resolve slavery and the devastating dispossession of Native Americans [Chapter 4 "The Treaty" is particularly devastating.] Ellis argues the founders knew slavery was incompatible with their ideals, but they consciously postponed dealing with it. Jefferson, in particular, comes in for criticism — he talked about slavery as a moral evil but never took real action. He further points out Henry Knox (Washington's Secretary of War) stated that Indians should be treated with the respect of an foreign nation, and that Knox and Washington tried to create an enormous land for Native Peoples to live on. Ultimately, those attempts collapsed under pressure from settlers’ expansion. Instead the signing of treaties lead to the systematic betrayal and displacement of Native peoples — a failure recognized by the founders but allowed to happen anyway.
Ellis emphasizes that these were not simply historical blind spots but issues fully recognized at the time, initially consciously deferred for the sake of unity, and then deferred further due to keeping political power [Yes I'm looking at you Jefferson & Madison!] These decisions allowed the new nation time to grow and mature into a cohesive body but at losing the moral high ground and directly leading to bloodshed.
A note, after being more or less chronological it goes from the formation of Political Parties and the first every peaceful transfer of power and complexly skips the Adams' administration to go direction to Jefferson, long preaching limited executive power, grabs it with both hands to approve the Louisiana Purchase without congressional input. [Jefferson does not fare well in this book!]
To be sure, Jefferson was a sincere aficionado of all things Gaelic, from French cooking to Parisian architecture to revolutionary politics. On the latter score, he remained committed to his original conviction that the French Jacobians, a radical party, would conduct themselves responsibly. ‘I begin to consider them the true revolutionary spirit of the whole nation,’ He apprised Madison, ‘And ask carry the nation with them.’ Since the Jacobians were, at the very moment he wrote these words, guillotining many of his French friends, this was another case where inconvenient evidence was not allowed to penetrate those interior chambers where Jefferson stored his deepest ideals.
Ellis underscores what he calls the “tragedies” of the Founding — above all, the failure to resolve slavery and the devastating dispossession of Native Americans [Chapter 4 "The Treaty" is particularly devastating.] Ellis argues the founders knew slavery was incompatible with their ideals, but they consciously postponed dealing with it. Jefferson, in particular, comes in for criticism — he talked about slavery as a moral evil but never took real action. He further points out Henry Knox (Washington's Secretary of War) stated that Indians should be treated with the respect of an foreign nation, and that Knox and Washington tried to create an enormous land for Native Peoples to live on. Ultimately, those attempts collapsed under pressure from settlers’ expansion. Instead the signing of treaties lead to the systematic betrayal and displacement of Native peoples — a failure recognized by the founders but allowed to happen anyway.
Ellis emphasizes that these were not simply historical blind spots but issues fully recognized at the time, initially consciously deferred for the sake of unity, and then deferred further due to keeping political power [Yes I'm looking at you Jefferson & Madison!] These decisions allowed the new nation time to grow and mature into a cohesive body but at losing the moral high ground and directly leading to bloodshed.
A note, after being more or less chronological it goes from the formation of Political Parties and the first every peaceful transfer of power and complexly skips the Adams' administration to go direction to Jefferson, long preaching limited executive power, grabs it with both hands to approve the Louisiana Purchase without congressional input. [Jefferson does not fare well in this book!]
To be sure, Jefferson was a sincere aficionado of all things Gaelic, from French cooking to Parisian architecture to revolutionary politics. On the latter score, he remained committed to his original conviction that the French Jacobians, a radical party, would conduct themselves responsibly. ‘I begin to consider them the true revolutionary spirit of the whole nation,’ He apprised Madison, ‘And ask carry the nation with them.’ Since the Jacobians were, at the very moment he wrote these words, guillotining many of his French friends, this was another case where inconvenient evidence was not allowed to penetrate those interior chambers where Jefferson stored his deepest ideals.
December 30, 2020
3.5/5. (I think 4/5 would have been too high, so, sadly, had to round down.) The book provides commentary on a series of six key events, which the author deems important but admittedly far from exhaustive, which represents America's founding period (1775-1803)...
*the months leading upto the declaration of independence
*the war with the British
*the drafting of the constitution
*the attempt at peaceful integration of Native Americans with the crafty Muscogee-Scott leader of the tribes, McGillivray
*rise of the two party system with the Federalist Party on one side and the Democratic-Republican Party on the other
*the intricacies of the Louisiana purchase, and its repercussions on the interpretation of constitution and on slavery - with discussion of the founders' clear but leashed intent on abolishing slavery
---
Four people get particular attention - sorted by their prominence in the book, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and John Adams.
And as the subtitle says, the book discusses both the triumphs and tragedies. I suspect the author tried to focus more on the imperfections of the events and actions, to compensate for, what he perceived as, the God-like image of the founders in the current times (I guess some of his earlier books unintentionally(?) added to that.) That's fair too - I don't think there is any prominent political bias here either. He also actually mentions the need to guard against the other extreme perspective of painting the founders as evil whities. The picture of the founders we get here is one of capable men rising to the occasion, taking actions, delivering results more due to their competence rather than just divine intervention/luck, and at times, not being great at it.
Note that before the book, my knowledge of American history was of a basic level (maybe still is), so this review has to be read in that context - I guess, with a pinch of salt.
I had taken this up, after having come across some intriguing posts regarding the founding fathers of the oldest extant democracy and the superpower, that is the US, and regarding the role of the founding towards the promotion of liberty in the world (the right to firearms being a feature of particular interest). Off the top of my head an interesting video on Washington - from PragerU, yes oui haanji - is one of the aforementioned posts. Subsequent search suggested that this book fit the bill. While the book has a totally different character compared to the aforementioned posts, it was still an enriching read.
First the negatives and/or disclaimers...
The writing isn't smooth, with frequent clumsy long sentences. ( Even worse than how I write here :) ) Content-wise, it is NOT supposed to be an exhaustive account of the founding era - something the author makes clear in the prologue. So, either an overall understanding of the related historical events is needed, or you will need a low to medium amount of web lookups. Though I feel, at least a line or two about the overall context should have been added every time the main theme of the subsection has been dealt with. Also, the flow of the "stories" isn't smooth either - the NYT review also mentions how it is unfocused at times.
On the positive side, this seems to be a well researched, authoritative book with tons of references, and postulations of the author about events lacking full documentation.
I'd have loved to spend more time for detailed notes, but for now here are the basic takeaways/questions off the top of my head, chapter wise...
• Chapter 1 - the independence could have gone the way of Canada/ANZ but miscalculations of the British and the resolve of the American leaders ensured the British empire would end up learning a great lesson in managing colonies. Adams' influence on the founding. To ponder - would human progress have been set back in the long run if the revolution had failed? If so, by how much?
• Chapter 2 - how the war of independence had to be deftly managed by the Americans, and how precarious it was at times. To ponder - what did the French hope to get and eventually got, out of their assistance?
• Chapter 3 - the debates and background story related to the drafting of the constitution, with a particular focus on Madison, and the lasting effect on political science. Patrick Henry's impact - the bill of rights. Deliberate existence of some ambiguity regarding state vs federal sovereignty.
• Chapter 4 - the failed attempt at peaceful integration of Native Americans with the crafty Muscogee-Scott leader of the tribes, McGillivray with the Spanish playing a part. To ponder - how does this compare to the integration of the natives in New Zealand.
• Chapter 5 - rise of the two party system with the Federalist Party on one side and the Democratic-Republican Party on the other. Jefferson's and Madison's secretive maneuvers leading upto the creation of the Democratic-Republican party, to promote, what they considered, the true spirit of the revolution, by standing upto increased federal power.
• Chapter 6 - the intricacies of the Louisiana purchase, and its repercussions on the interpretation of constitution and on slavery - with discussion of the founders' clear but leashed intent on abolishing slavery. Diplomacy and pressure tactics in dealing with Napoleon. Haitian revolution. Pressures from plantation owners. Jefferson having to go against his own principles about federal overreach. To ponder - why didn't Haiti progress more despite being free from Colonial rule for two centuries.
---
There's also a repeated message, an observation which is weirdly underrated, of how the geography of the US was (and is) its greatest asset - like how the mountains and rivers of India, and the Mediterranean coasts of the Roman Empire supported the greatest civilizations of earlier times (Post-Industrial revolution, mineral resources have become another aspect all over the world.) However there's one aspect which I think is important but wasn't discussed in the book - the people who populate the lands. And I think the early settlers did have the strength of entrepreneurial and small-l liberal spirit, which could have found a place in the book, with, in all fairness, a related discussion of slavery.
Other useful reviews:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/ar...
https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/...
A harsh but essentially true critique of Ellis' prose (different book, but relates to my comments above): https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
*the months leading upto the declaration of independence
*the war with the British
*the drafting of the constitution
*the attempt at peaceful integration of Native Americans with the crafty Muscogee-Scott leader of the tribes, McGillivray
*rise of the two party system with the Federalist Party on one side and the Democratic-Republican Party on the other
*the intricacies of the Louisiana purchase, and its repercussions on the interpretation of constitution and on slavery - with discussion of the founders' clear but leashed intent on abolishing slavery
---
Four people get particular attention - sorted by their prominence in the book, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and John Adams.
And as the subtitle says, the book discusses both the triumphs and tragedies. I suspect the author tried to focus more on the imperfections of the events and actions, to compensate for, what he perceived as, the God-like image of the founders in the current times (I guess some of his earlier books unintentionally(?) added to that.) That's fair too - I don't think there is any prominent political bias here either. He also actually mentions the need to guard against the other extreme perspective of painting the founders as evil whities. The picture of the founders we get here is one of capable men rising to the occasion, taking actions, delivering results more due to their competence rather than just divine intervention/luck, and at times, not being great at it.
Note that before the book, my knowledge of American history was of a basic level (maybe still is), so this review has to be read in that context - I guess, with a pinch of salt.
I had taken this up, after having come across some intriguing posts regarding the founding fathers of the oldest extant democracy and the superpower, that is the US, and regarding the role of the founding towards the promotion of liberty in the world (the right to firearms being a feature of particular interest). Off the top of my head an interesting video on Washington - from PragerU, yes oui haanji - is one of the aforementioned posts. Subsequent search suggested that this book fit the bill. While the book has a totally different character compared to the aforementioned posts, it was still an enriching read.
First the negatives and/or disclaimers...
The writing isn't smooth, with frequent clumsy long sentences. ( Even worse than how I write here :) ) Content-wise, it is NOT supposed to be an exhaustive account of the founding era - something the author makes clear in the prologue. So, either an overall understanding of the related historical events is needed, or you will need a low to medium amount of web lookups. Though I feel, at least a line or two about the overall context should have been added every time the main theme of the subsection has been dealt with. Also, the flow of the "stories" isn't smooth either - the NYT review also mentions how it is unfocused at times.
On the positive side, this seems to be a well researched, authoritative book with tons of references, and postulations of the author about events lacking full documentation.
I'd have loved to spend more time for detailed notes, but for now here are the basic takeaways/questions off the top of my head, chapter wise...
• Chapter 1 - the independence could have gone the way of Canada/ANZ but miscalculations of the British and the resolve of the American leaders ensured the British empire would end up learning a great lesson in managing colonies. Adams' influence on the founding. To ponder - would human progress have been set back in the long run if the revolution had failed? If so, by how much?
• Chapter 2 - how the war of independence had to be deftly managed by the Americans, and how precarious it was at times. To ponder - what did the French hope to get and eventually got, out of their assistance?
• Chapter 3 - the debates and background story related to the drafting of the constitution, with a particular focus on Madison, and the lasting effect on political science. Patrick Henry's impact - the bill of rights. Deliberate existence of some ambiguity regarding state vs federal sovereignty.
• Chapter 4 - the failed attempt at peaceful integration of Native Americans with the crafty Muscogee-Scott leader of the tribes, McGillivray with the Spanish playing a part. To ponder - how does this compare to the integration of the natives in New Zealand.
• Chapter 5 - rise of the two party system with the Federalist Party on one side and the Democratic-Republican Party on the other. Jefferson's and Madison's secretive maneuvers leading upto the creation of the Democratic-Republican party, to promote, what they considered, the true spirit of the revolution, by standing upto increased federal power.
• Chapter 6 - the intricacies of the Louisiana purchase, and its repercussions on the interpretation of constitution and on slavery - with discussion of the founders' clear but leashed intent on abolishing slavery. Diplomacy and pressure tactics in dealing with Napoleon. Haitian revolution. Pressures from plantation owners. Jefferson having to go against his own principles about federal overreach. To ponder - why didn't Haiti progress more despite being free from Colonial rule for two centuries.
---
There's also a repeated message, an observation which is weirdly underrated, of how the geography of the US was (and is) its greatest asset - like how the mountains and rivers of India, and the Mediterranean coasts of the Roman Empire supported the greatest civilizations of earlier times (Post-Industrial revolution, mineral resources have become another aspect all over the world.) However there's one aspect which I think is important but wasn't discussed in the book - the people who populate the lands. And I think the early settlers did have the strength of entrepreneurial and small-l liberal spirit, which could have found a place in the book, with, in all fairness, a related discussion of slavery.
Other useful reviews:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/ar...
https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/...
A harsh but essentially true critique of Ellis' prose (different book, but relates to my comments above): https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
September 9, 2023
I really enjoyed this book, it took you past the Constitutional Convention and through the 1st decade of the 1800’s and gave great insights into creation of political parties and the struggles of republicanism vs federalists. It also showed that by not making decisions on slavery and expansionism they left those battles to be fight over and over.
September 18, 2009
Joseph Ellis has already authored a number of very well received books on early American history: Founding Brothers, American Sphinx (focusing on Thomas Jefferson), and His Excellency (about George Washington). This book is yet another very nice contribution to our understanding of the period from the Declaration of Independence through the early 19th Century. The subtitle, perhaps, says a great detail about the content of this book: "Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic." Ellis notes in his Foreword that (page xi): "This is a story, then, about tragedy as well as triumph, indeed about their mutual and inextricable coexistence."
At the outset, he observes some of the great accomplishments of the Revolution and Founding: the colonies won their independence from the greatest power of the day; the Founders created the first large scale republic; they created a secular state (although I would argue that Ellis overstates matters somewhat with this statement); they divided power among states and the national government; they developed political parties as channels for ongoing debate (although, again, the Founders thought that party was evil, and their development was not understood at the time in such glowing terms). The tragedies? An unwillingness to address slavery and the status of Native Americans. In simplest terms, this represents what this book is about, the development of a new nation and innovative ways of organizing governance--coupled with inherent strains that created their own problems.
One of the special talents of Ellis is his richly drawn characters. Here, Washington, once more, is drawn nicely by Ellis, so that he is not the cardboard figure that often shows up in high school textbooks. Just so, John Adams is nicely portrayed in his complexity--vastly talented, a little uncertain of his place, someone who spent enormous energy on defending his place in American history. Vignettes about the shortest American President, James Madison, and his unusual political brilliance, are telling. One nicely drawn point here: how Madison finally convinced an originally resistant George Washington to be one of Virginia's delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
He spends time on key episodes, such as Washington's dawning realization that, to win the Revolutionary War, he must fight a defensive war, going against everything he wanted to do. Or the machinations of producing a document overthrowing the American government under its first Constitution, The Articles of Confederation (with Madison as a key player). The various historical set pieces conclude with the Louisiana Purchase, under Jefferson's presidency.
In his brief Afterword, he contends that (page 241): "The American Founding lasted for twenty-eight years, from 1775 to 1803. The point? In that historically brief point in time, there was created on this continent a new nation, operating on principles not seen in the family of nation-states at that time.
While I do have some quibbles about this book (as noted earlier), this is a very well done analysis of what happened in the critical era from 1775 to 1803. The reader will have his or her understanding of the Founding challenged and invigorated by this book. Even though I disagree with some elements in Ellis' argument, I am nonetheless impressed with his work and, by grappling with it, have a better sense of what was at stake in that short period of time that he explores.
At the outset, he observes some of the great accomplishments of the Revolution and Founding: the colonies won their independence from the greatest power of the day; the Founders created the first large scale republic; they created a secular state (although I would argue that Ellis overstates matters somewhat with this statement); they divided power among states and the national government; they developed political parties as channels for ongoing debate (although, again, the Founders thought that party was evil, and their development was not understood at the time in such glowing terms). The tragedies? An unwillingness to address slavery and the status of Native Americans. In simplest terms, this represents what this book is about, the development of a new nation and innovative ways of organizing governance--coupled with inherent strains that created their own problems.
One of the special talents of Ellis is his richly drawn characters. Here, Washington, once more, is drawn nicely by Ellis, so that he is not the cardboard figure that often shows up in high school textbooks. Just so, John Adams is nicely portrayed in his complexity--vastly talented, a little uncertain of his place, someone who spent enormous energy on defending his place in American history. Vignettes about the shortest American President, James Madison, and his unusual political brilliance, are telling. One nicely drawn point here: how Madison finally convinced an originally resistant George Washington to be one of Virginia's delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
He spends time on key episodes, such as Washington's dawning realization that, to win the Revolutionary War, he must fight a defensive war, going against everything he wanted to do. Or the machinations of producing a document overthrowing the American government under its first Constitution, The Articles of Confederation (with Madison as a key player). The various historical set pieces conclude with the Louisiana Purchase, under Jefferson's presidency.
In his brief Afterword, he contends that (page 241): "The American Founding lasted for twenty-eight years, from 1775 to 1803. The point? In that historically brief point in time, there was created on this continent a new nation, operating on principles not seen in the family of nation-states at that time.
While I do have some quibbles about this book (as noted earlier), this is a very well done analysis of what happened in the critical era from 1775 to 1803. The reader will have his or her understanding of the Founding challenged and invigorated by this book. Even though I disagree with some elements in Ellis' argument, I am nonetheless impressed with his work and, by grappling with it, have a better sense of what was at stake in that short period of time that he explores.
November 4, 2012
I really enjoyed this book and found it to be refreshing, especially as a read during an major election. I feel a bit better about the constant partisan arguments, lies and exaggerations, posturing, etc. The debate is part of the point of how our democracy is set up and our beloved founding fathers engaged in the same partisan lies and exaggerations that parties engage in today. I'm not saying it's right--I'm only saying there is a bit of relief in knowing we've made it through before and we can make it through again.
Anyway--more specifically about the book:
Ellis organized the sequence of events and chose nice examples for the story he was telling. His argument and evidence was clearly and persuasively laid out. Even having listened to the book on audio, in snippets in the car, I could follow the case he was making. His writing is clear, concise, and interesting.
The reader was also good. I'd listened to the same reader narrate a Baldacci book and I'd really disliked how the narrator read female voices. However, with no female voices to narrate, his reading was smooth and added--rather than detracted--from the story.
I had gotten some other Ellis books from the library to listen to and am looking forward to them, though I think I need a break from the American Revolution and politics for a bit.
Anyway--more specifically about the book:
Ellis organized the sequence of events and chose nice examples for the story he was telling. His argument and evidence was clearly and persuasively laid out. Even having listened to the book on audio, in snippets in the car, I could follow the case he was making. His writing is clear, concise, and interesting.
The reader was also good. I'd listened to the same reader narrate a Baldacci book and I'd really disliked how the narrator read female voices. However, with no female voices to narrate, his reading was smooth and added--rather than detracted--from the story.
I had gotten some other Ellis books from the library to listen to and am looking forward to them, though I think I need a break from the American Revolution and politics for a bit.
July 29, 2008
I read this to fill in a few of the considerable gaps in my knowledge of American history. I found Ellis readable and entertaining, especially his chapters on the Continental Army at Valley Forge and the Louisiana Purchase.
His portraits of Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Washington are compelling and complex.
Ellis sets out to present the founding generation as neither saints nor villains. He shows how the founding was the product of some brilliant individuals but also of the historical climate that enabled such an creative act of statecraft. He balances these achievements with two historical tragedies from which we've yet to recover: slavery and our disastrous encounters with native cultures.
This is a layperson's history--though apparently exhaustively researched--that would be a good springboard for further, deeper historical readings.
His portraits of Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Washington are compelling and complex.
Ellis sets out to present the founding generation as neither saints nor villains. He shows how the founding was the product of some brilliant individuals but also of the historical climate that enabled such an creative act of statecraft. He balances these achievements with two historical tragedies from which we've yet to recover: slavery and our disastrous encounters with native cultures.
This is a layperson's history--though apparently exhaustively researched--that would be a good springboard for further, deeper historical readings.
abandoned
May 27, 2017This is my second attempt to read this book. I am interested in history and the nation's founding, but wow, I could not handle this author. I'm not sure the audience he intended. I think he was writing more for other scholars on the topic of the nation's foundation and not for those wanting to learn the history. He starts off arguing which scholarly viewpoint was correct and then he offers his own explanation. I wasn't really interested in the viewpoints scholars are arguing about. I also found him arrogant. So abandoned it is...
June 13, 2014
Although difficult to enjoy at first due to the author's extremely intellectual and impressive use of the English language and quoted passages, when focused on specific topics in our nation's founding, like failed federal Indian policy/preservation and the origins of our two-party political system, this book was very enjoyable and interesting.
September 28, 2019
Pedantic, condescending, and clumsily edited.
November 7, 2023
4.5 stars
This is a brilliant little book (243 pages) by Ellis, who takes a look at aspects of the founding era, which he defines here as 1775-1803. With numerous insightful comments, he has created a great complimentary source to traditional histories of the period:
What did the American Revolution achieve? It established 1st nation sized republic: “ the very definition of what it meant to govern was transformed forever in ways that put all coercive forms of political authority on permanent defense. It rejected the idea that sovereignty must reside in one place. It created political parties as institutional channels for debate, permitting dissent without being treason.”
The grievances with Great Britain led to independence and Jefferson’s preamble to Declaration of Independence which “turned out to be the most potent and consequential words in American history, perhaps in modern history as they became the political fountainhead for all the liberal reforms that would seep out & over the nation and eventually over much of the world.”
Valley Forge shifted Washington’s strategy from defeating the British army to controlling the countryside, using the vast space of the continent & time to convince the British their effort was not worth the cost: “Both space and time were on the American side ,so the only way to lose the war was to try and win it”
The failure of the Articles of Confederation to meet the needs of a newly independent country led to the Constitutional Convention where Madison drove development of an unprecedented version of federalism where state & federal authority engage in ongoing negotiation for supremacy. “The genius of his argument for shared sovereignty led to the novel discovery that government was not about providing answers but rather about providing a framework in which salient questions could continue to be debated.”
Hamilton’s plan to remodel federal financial system provoked hysterical responses from Jefferson & Madison who saw it as repudiation of revolutionary principles leading to monarchial usurpation of power. This opposition led directly to the formation of what is now our ingrained 2 party system.
Was Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana territory, which doubled size of U.S., constitutional ? Forced to choose between his principles and a fortuitous opportunity, he chose opportunity. Ellis uses this event to interject issue of slavery and then slams Jefferson for it:”Tragedy trumped triumph in the story of the Purchase for several reasons, but mostly because race more than space defined the outer limits of Jefferson’s political mind.”
There is much more nuance in this little book than the summaries above would indicate but Ellis cannot help himself from kneeling before the God of Wokeness, making sure the reader knows that the founders failed to solve the problems of Indian removal and slavery. Ellis’ criticism here contradicts an earlier footnote where he dismisses historians and others who believe “justice delayed is justice denied”.
Of course the consequence of abolishing slavery & prohibiting Indian removal would be no United States had they attempted to impose 21 century moral standards in 1787.
This is a brilliant little book (243 pages) by Ellis, who takes a look at aspects of the founding era, which he defines here as 1775-1803. With numerous insightful comments, he has created a great complimentary source to traditional histories of the period:
What did the American Revolution achieve? It established 1st nation sized republic: “ the very definition of what it meant to govern was transformed forever in ways that put all coercive forms of political authority on permanent defense. It rejected the idea that sovereignty must reside in one place. It created political parties as institutional channels for debate, permitting dissent without being treason.”
The grievances with Great Britain led to independence and Jefferson’s preamble to Declaration of Independence which “turned out to be the most potent and consequential words in American history, perhaps in modern history as they became the political fountainhead for all the liberal reforms that would seep out & over the nation and eventually over much of the world.”
Valley Forge shifted Washington’s strategy from defeating the British army to controlling the countryside, using the vast space of the continent & time to convince the British their effort was not worth the cost: “Both space and time were on the American side ,so the only way to lose the war was to try and win it”
The failure of the Articles of Confederation to meet the needs of a newly independent country led to the Constitutional Convention where Madison drove development of an unprecedented version of federalism where state & federal authority engage in ongoing negotiation for supremacy. “The genius of his argument for shared sovereignty led to the novel discovery that government was not about providing answers but rather about providing a framework in which salient questions could continue to be debated.”
Hamilton’s plan to remodel federal financial system provoked hysterical responses from Jefferson & Madison who saw it as repudiation of revolutionary principles leading to monarchial usurpation of power. This opposition led directly to the formation of what is now our ingrained 2 party system.
Was Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana territory, which doubled size of U.S., constitutional ? Forced to choose between his principles and a fortuitous opportunity, he chose opportunity. Ellis uses this event to interject issue of slavery and then slams Jefferson for it:”Tragedy trumped triumph in the story of the Purchase for several reasons, but mostly because race more than space defined the outer limits of Jefferson’s political mind.”
There is much more nuance in this little book than the summaries above would indicate but Ellis cannot help himself from kneeling before the God of Wokeness, making sure the reader knows that the founders failed to solve the problems of Indian removal and slavery. Ellis’ criticism here contradicts an earlier footnote where he dismisses historians and others who believe “justice delayed is justice denied”.
Of course the consequence of abolishing slavery & prohibiting Indian removal would be no United States had they attempted to impose 21 century moral standards in 1787.
July 14, 2018
Professor Ellis does a great service with this book. He provides an honest and balanced look at the Founders and Framers that avoids the comic book type heroes and villains historical narratives that are overly-abundant in today's rhetoric. For this I am grateful as it is history. Straight forward. Pure and simple.
American Creation takes a look at several pivotal moments of the independence era and the early years of the Republic. He presents a top-down narrative which dovetails wonderfully into one of his main arguments of the book: the Revolution and Constitution were top-down constructions. This is at odds with the popular idea that America was formed as a democracy from the very beginning as read in the arguments of Gary Nash and other historians. The evidence that Ellis provides against this idea reflects a second large theme of the book: the Founders and Framers did not know what their final creation would yield, and in many instances their actions ran counter to their intentions.
Such contradictions and discrepancies point to a third theme of the book: our republic is complicated, imperfect, and built upon debates that our truly infinite (i.e. state versus federal governments). Throughout American Creation, the reader is exposed to how these debates were drawn out and what the larger faults of these men were. This leads us to the fifth theme of the book: these people were not perfect. Nor were they evil. Their flaws and imperfections led to great tragedies, but considered within the context of the 18th century, they should not be held to criticisms of hindsight from the lessons we learned over the course of the 20th century.
With all of the peripheral, unreasonably critical, and overly adoring modern histories about big topics, it is rewarding to read balanced and honest treatments of these important subjects.
American Creation takes a look at several pivotal moments of the independence era and the early years of the Republic. He presents a top-down narrative which dovetails wonderfully into one of his main arguments of the book: the Revolution and Constitution were top-down constructions. This is at odds with the popular idea that America was formed as a democracy from the very beginning as read in the arguments of Gary Nash and other historians. The evidence that Ellis provides against this idea reflects a second large theme of the book: the Founders and Framers did not know what their final creation would yield, and in many instances their actions ran counter to their intentions.
Such contradictions and discrepancies point to a third theme of the book: our republic is complicated, imperfect, and built upon debates that our truly infinite (i.e. state versus federal governments). Throughout American Creation, the reader is exposed to how these debates were drawn out and what the larger faults of these men were. This leads us to the fifth theme of the book: these people were not perfect. Nor were they evil. Their flaws and imperfections led to great tragedies, but considered within the context of the 18th century, they should not be held to criticisms of hindsight from the lessons we learned over the course of the 20th century.
With all of the peripheral, unreasonably critical, and overly adoring modern histories about big topics, it is rewarding to read balanced and honest treatments of these important subjects.
December 9, 2017
Read this in between finals grading to get a break, always been a fan of Ellis' writing and thinking. There's plenty of overlap with Founding Brothers and American Sphinx, but I still enjoyed and learned a lot from American Creation. It basically tackles major periods or moments in the revolutionary in vivid, interesting chapters that treat one major figure as the main character. It covers the Declaration, Valley Forge, the Constitution and Federalist v Anti-Federalist debates, the formation of the first party system, the failure to reach a just settlement with Indians, and the Louisiana Purchase. There's also a surprisingly good historiographical essay in the intro in which Ellis rightfully criticizes historians for focusing too much on fringe elements of the revolutionary period rather than the founding of a nation and its major political institutions, which really should be the core of the story. I'll probably use this book to get interesting tidbits and clear conceptualizations for future teaching. It is also very well written and entertaining. Although I still think Ellis' best book is American Sphinx, this one is still worth a read for a person with general interest in the revolutionary period. Scholars will be refreshed by clear thinking, writing, and compelling portraits of these events.
January 8, 2020
Mr. Ellis makes several good points in well laid out "arguments". I am not saying I agree with all of them, but I found all of them interesting. He appears to deny the sovereignty of God in all of history. I do like his point of most Americans today look at our founding fathers as if they were gods or could not be equalled today, which is most likely not true. He may not say it this way but I agree they were men of flesh and blood and had sin natures. We tend to judge history through our 20/20 hindsight and modern values, which leaves us wondering why they did what they did at times. Ellis concludes nicely that as early as 1803 (or earlier) senators and congressman voted more according to "if their party was in power" instead of their "core beliefs". We like to think this is a new thing, but it is obvious that it occurred during Jefferson's presidency.
Worth the read if you enjoy history, particularly United States History.
Worth the read if you enjoy history, particularly United States History.
March 2, 2023
I read this book to help build a foundation for my U.S. presidents reading project, and I'm glad I did because it gave me some insight into some of the Founders who didn't ever hold this office. Joseph Ellis says his goal is to be objective instead of either hero-worshipping or vilifying these men, and I think he achieves this.
Of particular interest to me is the chapter on the formation of the two party system. I hadn't remembered (or maybe I didn't ever know) that the founders had hoped not to have any parties at all.
Of particular interest to me is the chapter on the formation of the two party system. I hadn't remembered (or maybe I didn't ever know) that the founders had hoped not to have any parties at all.
March 30, 2024
If you're interested in early US history, this book provides a summary and interpretation of 6 major events between the Revolution and the Louisiana Purchase that the author frames as the most influential events during this country's founding and the following years.
I'm not a historian by any means, but nothing in this book was particularly revelatory. However, it is a refresher on this history and how it shapes our modern day. It's also short, so if you want to revisit concepts from AP Gov, this is a decent place to start.
I'm not a historian by any means, but nothing in this book was particularly revelatory. However, it is a refresher on this history and how it shapes our modern day. It's also short, so if you want to revisit concepts from AP Gov, this is a decent place to start.
January 5, 2023
was assigned this book for U.S. history before my junior year of high school. utter white man tosh. in the foreword, Ellis explains that he sees no use in telling "history from below" because socially disadvantaged people supposedly aren't the ones making change happen. this reductive view taints the entire book. there are plenty of other history books that are a far better use of your time.
October 17, 2020
Not much to say. Ellis is a master, and proof that great history tells us as much about ourselves as the past. This is a book of trenchant, well-told stories about key events in our founding, the last two of which are bracing for the direct parallels drawn to today’s world.
January 30, 2021
An exceptionally insightful look at the founding generation. A great antidote to the ideological pseudo history that is so prevalent these days when looking back at the creation of our country.
June 29, 2019
An extraordinary book! Innovations such as creating continent sized republic, concept of sharing of sovereignty between Federal Govt and states, finding that the size facilititates many interests and factions which generates a dynamic of ever shifting alliances and power sharing (thereby eliminating the fate of earlier city republics).
On the downside, all founders were total douchebags to blacks and natives and they knew it. Ethnic cleansing of natives was explicitly discussed and planned. Slavery was never a big concern as they spent decade talking big about freedom and liberty.
Thomas Jefferson doesn't come out a hero (which is opposite of what I thought until now). His contribution to Louisiana Purchase contract? Replacing "people" (which would have declared the new territory slavery-free) with "white people".
He was the founder of the Republican Party and started many of it's glorious traditions (penchant for conspiracy theories, "states rights", imagining America as a white people only society to name a few).
Finally, the Founding generation didn't want to do anything with Europe or its ideas. Americanization was essentially de-Europeanization and America proclaimed "all men are equal". Thomas Jefferson put America back in Europe's orbit and America went back to its white superiority complex. It's been swinging back and forth ever since.
On the downside, all founders were total douchebags to blacks and natives and they knew it. Ethnic cleansing of natives was explicitly discussed and planned. Slavery was never a big concern as they spent decade talking big about freedom and liberty.
Thomas Jefferson doesn't come out a hero (which is opposite of what I thought until now). His contribution to Louisiana Purchase contract? Replacing "people" (which would have declared the new territory slavery-free) with "white people".
He was the founder of the Republican Party and started many of it's glorious traditions (penchant for conspiracy theories, "states rights", imagining America as a white people only society to name a few).
Finally, the Founding generation didn't want to do anything with Europe or its ideas. Americanization was essentially de-Europeanization and America proclaimed "all men are equal". Thomas Jefferson put America back in Europe's orbit and America went back to its white superiority complex. It's been swinging back and forth ever since.
August 21, 2015
In the Forward, Mr. Ellis relates a question he was asked: why do we have to choose between Bush and Kerry when 200 years ago they could choose from Adams and Jefferson? I love that question because it captures very well the feeling today that we're faced with less than perfect choices whereas the men who founded this nation are regarded essentially as "demigods." And while Ellis acknowledges his admiration and awe at what the Founding Fathers accomplished, he also realizes that they were just as human as we are today; imperfect and susceptible to failings, but who nonetheless arose to the occasion and created something truly great.
And this is an approach to history that I appreciate - neither idolizing nor condemning. Chapter 1 covers many of the contributions John Adams made to the revolution and the Declaration of Independence. Chapter 2 covers the strategy Washington was forced to take in fighting a far superior enemy, and the difficulties his army faced at Valley Forge. Chapter 3 discusses James Madison's contributions to the Constitution. Chapter 4 tells of Washington's attempts at a treaty with the Indians. Chapter 5 returns to Madison and Jefferson and the beginnings of a two-party political system. And chapter 6 talks about Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, and how it played into the practice of slavery and doomed the nation to eventual civil war.
Mostly a very entertaining book, although a few parts drag occasionally. The main theme of the chapters/essays is that the founding of the nation was an "evolutionary revolution" which happened over about 25 years. The men who accomplished this were not perfect, often obsessed with their legacy and jealous of each other, but nonetheless created a form of government unlike no other. Their failures were in not dealing fairly with the Indians or resolving the issue of slavery. In the end, our seemingly less-than-ideal choices today probably aren't very different than those 200 years ago, except that the situation has changed.
And this is an approach to history that I appreciate - neither idolizing nor condemning. Chapter 1 covers many of the contributions John Adams made to the revolution and the Declaration of Independence. Chapter 2 covers the strategy Washington was forced to take in fighting a far superior enemy, and the difficulties his army faced at Valley Forge. Chapter 3 discusses James Madison's contributions to the Constitution. Chapter 4 tells of Washington's attempts at a treaty with the Indians. Chapter 5 returns to Madison and Jefferson and the beginnings of a two-party political system. And chapter 6 talks about Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, and how it played into the practice of slavery and doomed the nation to eventual civil war.
Mostly a very entertaining book, although a few parts drag occasionally. The main theme of the chapters/essays is that the founding of the nation was an "evolutionary revolution" which happened over about 25 years. The men who accomplished this were not perfect, often obsessed with their legacy and jealous of each other, but nonetheless created a form of government unlike no other. Their failures were in not dealing fairly with the Indians or resolving the issue of slavery. In the end, our seemingly less-than-ideal choices today probably aren't very different than those 200 years ago, except that the situation has changed.
February 13, 2019
I'm giving this a three for now. I'm about half way through with the audio book, and I will get the actual book from my library. IMHO this is not a book that most people will enjoy listening to. The concepts are complex, and I have found myself rewinding many times. That's not a very satisfactory solution, however - I need to be able to go back and read something earlier with a different eye. This is almost impossible to do with an audio book. I can't search as I would with an e-book, and I can't find the relevant chapter and flip through pages until I get to the subject I need.
Obviously this is an audio book issue, but it is particularly acute with a history that covers a bit of time and sees situations through various player's eyes. it is especially problematic with this work.
My criticism on the substance has to do with the author's many assumptions about how a person is thinking or feeling. For example, we are told that Jefferson has such a bias that he is incapable of any evaluation of pros and cons; i.e., that he has divided X issue into two theories with so little insight that he can only see one point of view. I don't believe this to be accurate. Yes, we have exceptional first hand resources, but we just cannot know certain things. I say this as someone who has read extensively on Jefferson; I have read the entire multi-volume biography by Dumas Malone.
I can't say whether this problem is true of Madison, Adams et all; I don't have enough knowledge to make such an assessment.
I will update this review when I have finished the book (which I definitely will do; I love this time in U.S. history.)
I strongly recommend the book rather than the audio book. Happy reading!
Obviously this is an audio book issue, but it is particularly acute with a history that covers a bit of time and sees situations through various player's eyes. it is especially problematic with this work.
My criticism on the substance has to do with the author's many assumptions about how a person is thinking or feeling. For example, we are told that Jefferson has such a bias that he is incapable of any evaluation of pros and cons; i.e., that he has divided X issue into two theories with so little insight that he can only see one point of view. I don't believe this to be accurate. Yes, we have exceptional first hand resources, but we just cannot know certain things. I say this as someone who has read extensively on Jefferson; I have read the entire multi-volume biography by Dumas Malone.
I can't say whether this problem is true of Madison, Adams et all; I don't have enough knowledge to make such an assessment.
I will update this review when I have finished the book (which I definitely will do; I love this time in U.S. history.)
I strongly recommend the book rather than the audio book. Happy reading!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 557 reviews