Founding Brothers

Rating:
Summary: A hash job
Review: Ellis makes it clear from the start where his sympathies lie with the Revolutionary generation and he ambushes us with Abigail Adams for good measure. Of the six stories, only The Silence is revealing for Ellis' feeble attempt to portray the slavery debate as a South-against-South issue. He lavishes attention on a hillbilly from Georgia simply to whitewash a Virginian like Jefferson, who in fact held the same, if not worse, attitudes about his slaves (all conveniently ignored by Ellis). Hamilton was the closest as any of these founding brothers came to believing that blacks and whites were equal and his financial system doomed slavery in a way Adams and his fine rhetoric could never hope to, but he barely rates a mention.

Rating:
Summary: READ THIS!..THE TRUTH ABOUT FOUNDING BROS.
Review: Everyone please read this and I mean it, this is the truth about Founding Brothers. This book is absolutely dreadful. Unless you are a huge history buff, and I mean huge, this book is a waste of time, money, and energy. Ellis does a horrible job saying what he has to say. It takes him about 50 pages to make a point that can be done in 5. Don't read this book. I like history, especially the American Revolution, but this book has no way increased my interest, if anything decrease, or taught me something. There's only one word that can describe this book: BAD.

Rating:
Summary: The true "spirit of '76"
Review: FOUNDING BROTHERS by Joseph Ellis is one of the best expositions on the remarkable revolutionary fraternity that set the course for the nation; the book principally looks at the interpersonal relationships between George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, set against the backdrop of six episodes that the author says characterized the political-crisis filled, nation-building decade of the 1790's. The book then is less a history of the revolution than a collection of chapter stories and biographical glimpses that illustrates the character and the views of the revolution's most significant political leaders.

There are two themes which run throughout the book. Mr Ellis mentions them early and often; they are therefore important to a proper understanding of the behavior and motives of the the founding fathers in this crucial period of national consolidation and soul searching.

(1) "No one present at the start knew how it would turn out in the end." This was fundamentally true for all; it was not just a case of a few doubting Thomases. George Washington was unsure that we up for the task; Washington in his last General Order, the author says, expressed his concerns about what would happen if the principles of federal government were not supported: "the honor, dignity and justice of the nation would be lost forever." Mr Ellis says plainly "what in retrospect has the look of a foreordained unfolding of God's will was in reality an improvisational affair in which sheer chance, pure luck - both good and bad...determined the outcome."

(2) Politically the period was marked by "shrill accusatory rhetoric, flamboyant displays of ideological intransigence, intense personal rivalries and hyperbolic claims of imminent catastophe." This reality is invariably overlooked when we grow wistful and nostalgic. We should remember that in the political culture of the day there was no formal recognition of the role of an opposition. As such there can be no doubt that the debates were vitriolic; Indeed, Mr Ellis says: "neither side possessed the verbal or mental capacity to regard the other as anything but treasonable." Statesmen and gentlemen they undoubtably were, but as this book reminds us, they were also political animals - sometimes savagely so.

It is against this backdrop that we can look at the first episode - "THE DUEL" - which illustrates the nature of the relationship between these men. This chapter refers to all the historical versions of the 1804 duel between Burr and Hamilton; the latter man we know lost his life. It explores all that led up to the duel and the fallout from it. Burr is shown to be a reckless opportunist whose influence swiftly waned following Hamilton's death. The author says that despite the differences between the men and their political passions "the energies released by national independence did not devour its own children"; the duel represents the only case in "the revolutionary generation when political difference ended in violence and death rather than in ongoing argument."

The famous DINNER between Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton in 1790, is the subject of the second chapter. Here the book develops on the men's opposing economic and political visions for the new republic. On one side were the Federalists (Washington, Hamilton and Adams) who advocated "the virtuous surrender of personal, state and sectional interests to the larger purposes of American nationhood." They saw the nation's economic future tied to commerce and manufacturing; Hamilton's fiscal plan favored bankers, merchants and the urban elite - it would create a national debt and a national bank and conjured up for the opposing Republican's (Jefferson and Madison), an image of the all powerful national government that they had just fought to overthrow. Jeffersonians favored an agrarian economy and saw the true spirit of '76 as a "liberation movement." Mr Ellis states that the outcome of the dinner was the Compromise of 1790 whereby Hamilton's fiscal policies were agreed on in exchange for assurances for Southerners that the nation's capital would be built on the Potomac River.

Another chapter episode is "THE SILENCE" where Mr Ellis sees further compromise. The chapter begins with the arrival of petitions to Congress calling for the abolition of slavery; one such petition was signed by the newly appointed president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society - Benjamin Franklin. The 1790 Congressional debates on the subject were very opinionated; Washington favored Abolition, because Mr Ellis says: "he tended to regard the condition of the black population as a product of nurture rather than nature - that is, he saw slavery as the culprit." Even slave owners such as Jefferson and Madison called the pro-slavery speeches invoking the defenses of biblical authority and racial superiority, by their proper name - "a moral embarrassment". They however went no further. Mr Ellis says that in the face of secessionist threats from South Carolina and Georgia, the founding fathers believed the question of Abolition had "the political potential to destroy the union." Thus the silence. Perhaps Mr Ellis is correct but it reads more like a clear sign (and to be fair, the only time) that the founders had a collective failure of statesmanship. They missed an opportunity to debate the issue; an opportunity that would never come that generation's way again.

The last chapter "THE FRIENDSHIP" explores the relationship between Adams and Jefferson. Mr Ellis is clearly an admirer of John Adams and he paints a glowing portrait of the man. "His refreshing and often irreverent candor provides the clearest window into the deeper ambitions and clashing vanities that propelled them all." Adams had been deserted by the others when he assumed the presidency; he relied on his wife Abigail who effectively served as his one person staff. The author treated with that episode in "THE COLLABORATORS". Reconciliation between Jefferson and Adams eventually took place and their friendship resumed in 1812; what then followed was a 14 year exchange of letters - 158 in total.

This is a well written and insightful book, neatly and succintly bringing to the fore historical and biographical details we have all learned before, but have never read about in so entertaining and refreshing a manner.

"The reading of all good books is like conversation with the finest men of past centuries." (Rene Descartes)

Rating:
Summary: Welcome To The Family
Review: Founding Brothers is a wonderful reintroduction to the early years of the United States and a fascinating portrait of the men (and one woman) whose conflicting, sometimes shifting beliefs came together to shape the direction of our republic. Broken into six easily readable chapters, Ellis's narrative manages to show the founding fathers as real -- albeit extraordinary -- people, each with his own idiosyncrasies. Historical figures that had all but merged together in my mind since high school history classes I now see as distinct individuals with separate ideals, flaws, and ambitions.

Ellis is at his best describing the relationships between the founding fathers: the friendships, the rivalries, and the personal conflicts. In doing so, Ellis makes the founding fathers resemble one big dysfunctional family. His favorite characters seem to be those who left the most for the historical record (Monroe, Adams), while Franklin plays a minor role and Jefferson comes across as something between hypocritical and schizophrenic.

The few weaknesses of Founding Brothers are easily overlooked. Ellis struggles to describe the cancerous effect of slavery on the young republic, often attempting to clarify his logic in the book's endnotes. He also has a habit of alluding to relationships or events that he only fully develops in later chapters, sometimes leading to a disjointed chronology.

Ellis's style is perfect for a generalist audience. He lets the founding fathers speak for themselves, then follows these 18th century quotes with modern translations or his own interpretation. I had gotten to know the characters so well that when Jefferson and then Adams died in the final chapter, I regretted the time they had spent angry at each other and felt a sense of loss, as if I had recently rediscovered missing relatives only to have them disappear once again so soon thereafter.

Rating:
Summary: Good book-Too much information
Review: Founding Brothers is an excellent book by Joseph J. Ellis. He describes, in his opinion, the six most important events of the revolutionary era. He calls them the Duel, Dinner, Silence, Farewell, Collaborators, and Friendship. Though how historically accurate Ellis is, the book gets really boring at times. If you are a history buff, you will love it. Me, I enjoy reading about history, but this book was a little too much. It took me what seemed like forever to finish this book, and I skipped a lot. First, let me tell you that you will need a dictionary when reading this book. Second, Ellis has a style in which he keeps on going and going on one topic. This is the part that historians and history buffs love, but the average person gets bored out of his mind. The chapter I enjoyed the most were the Duel, Silence, and Farewell. The rest were alright, but Ellis does not know when to quit. Overall, pick it up from a library and voice your own opinion.

Rating:
Summary: Read critically
Review: In Founding Brothers, Joseph Ellis uses six vignettes to show how the thoughts, acts, and interactions of the leaders of the "Revolutionary Generation" reveal their uncertainty about the new republic's ability to survive and about the issues that threaten that survival, including slavery and the two parties' fundamental differences. The "Brothers" of the title are Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton (one vignette examines their famous duel), George Washington, Benjamin Franklin (who is skimmed over, partly because of his age and lack of highest-level participation in the new government and partly, one suspects, because Ellis openly holds him in low regard), James Madison, John (and Abigail) Adams, and Thomas Jefferson.

Ellis is a highly biased historian and, as a result, can be a sloppy one. He fares best with Hamilton and Burr, showing Hamilton's concerns about Burr's character at a crucial time when character mattered because so much was at stake.

Any attempt at objectivity ends with Hamilton and Burr, however. For Ellis, George Washington is the sole reason we are here today. While outlining his physical flaws, Ellis believes that Washington had a prescient idea of what the nation needed, including a strong leader like himself-a leader who could write to the Cherokee "in this path I wish all the Indian nations to walk" (referring to his advice to them to stop fighting white expansion and to adopt white economics and culture). Ellis avoids any reference to what would happen when many of the Cherokee did exactly what Washington told them to do-the infamous Trail of Tears. For all of Ellis's belief in Washington's prophetic abilities and insight, he deliberately leaves out that which does not fit with his view of history-the fact that the Indians, whether compliant Cherokee or defiant Comanche, were going to suffer similar fates, whether they took Washington's advice or not.

Later, when listing the Founding Brothers' individual faults, the worst Ellis can say of Washington is that he was not well read, did not write well, and was a poor speller. He also notes that Washington was more of an actor than a leader, failing to acknowledge that leadership is largely a matter of acting out the role and performing for the public.

Ellis is similarly protective of John Adams, whose presidency is remembered as a bad one because that is what Jefferson wanted. Ellis points out that Adams's best decision-to send a peace delegation to France-was made while Abigail was sick in Quincy, while his worst choices-support of the Alien and Sedition Acts-were made under her direct influence. When he says that Adams did well when all the votes were counted, despite "bad luck, poor timing, and the highly focused political strategy of his Republican enemies," Ellis disingenuously blames circumstance, Abigail, and Jefferson for Adams's failings. Ellis can gloss over the evidence, but he cannot explain away Adams's personal choice to support bad legislation. He, not Abigail or Jefferson, was responsible for his own actions and his own presidency.

This is not the case with Jefferson's presidency. While it is barely mentioned (it merits part of a paragraph on page 212), Ellis says that Jefferson's first term "would go down as one of the most brilliantly successful in American history." This passive statement implies that this success had nothing to do with Jefferson or his actions, but just happens to be how history had recorded it. Ellis hurries on to state that his second term "proved to be a series of domestic tribulations and foreign policy failures." Ellis leaves the reader with the impression that Adams is not to blame for his mistakes and that Jefferson can take credit only for his failures.

While Ellis's view of Jefferson as a conniving, borderline psychotic may explain Jefferson's behavior and pattern of denial, it does so partly because Ellis contorts the evidence to lead to his conclusion rather than letting the evidence lead him to the conclusion. At one point, he states that Adams must surely have seen an exchange of letters between Abigail and Jefferson and that "we can be reasonably sure that Abigail was speaking for her husband as well as herself and goes on to elaborate that the "Adams team" was charging Jefferson with two serious offenses. One page later, Ellis contradicts himself when he says, "Although Jefferson probably presumed that Abigail was sharing their correspondence with her husband, Adams himself never saw the letters until several months later." He quotes Adams as writing, "The whole of the correspondence was begun and conducted without my Knowledge or Suspicion."

Later, Ellis reads Jefferson's mind, asserting that his use of the "collective we" in a letter was "inadvertent acknowledgment of the coordinated campaign of the Republican party." How Ellis draws this conclusion is unclear; Jefferson uses "we" three times in the sentence. There is nothing "inadvertent" about Jefferson's statement; he is telling Adams outright the collective Republican leadership's perception of his role.

Ellis has come up with an interesting interpretation of Washington as indispensable; Jefferson as treacherous, traitorous, and seemingly disturbed; and Adams between the two-a fiery but decent man, hamstrung by Washington's aura and reputation and by Jefferson's disingenuous deviousness. Jefferson's version of history, which Ellis believes was consciously created, has won. The underlying problem is that, given the level of contortions, distortions, and outright mind reading it requires for Ellis to come to this point, his version of history is as suspect as that of the Thomas Jefferson he portrays.

If you want to learn about the aftermath of the American Revolution and the relationships of its leaders, read Founding Brothers-but read it critically and with an awareness that Ellis is guiding you not to where the evidence leads, but where he directs it to lead. It's interesting, entertaining, and thought provoking-but then so is historical fiction. Trust Ellis's objectivity as much as he trusts Jefferson's.

Rating:
Summary: This book rambles on about simple stuff
Review: Joseph Ellis is one of the worst writers in history I think. The simple concepts he writes about can be easily explained in about 5 pages, but no, he will write 50+ pages on nothing!! Do I really care what Hamilton was wearing when he woke up on the morning of the duel? No. Do I care how many people rowed his boat? Again NO!! He may have some good facts but they are all so irrelevant to anything that it becomes boring and tedious to read. The only reason I read this was for my honors history class. My advice is to read the first couple of pages and the last couple of each chapter, that sums up everything. Everything in between is filler, total and utter [...].

Rating:
Summary: Joseph Ellis and the Founding Fathers
Review: Joseph Ellis set out to compose ground-breaking book about the Founding Fathers and their interactions. While the idea for the book is good, the approach Ellis took to flawed. In the historical sense, the book is very strong. The problems is Ellis's writing begin with his addition of personal insights into history. Applying his beliefs and psychology in this scenario just did not seem appropriate.

The portions of the book I found most entertaining were the chapters on the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton and the chapters on the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. While the chapter on Adams and Jefferson are largely objective, they seem to be skewed against John Adams at times. The other chapters seem to explore the faults of the founder's personality more than their historical significance. It seems rather arrogant for Ellis to make some of his insinuations. The opinion of Jefferson in this book seems low despite the fact that Ellis has devoted an entire book to him. Additionally, while at first seeming critical of George Washington, the author changes direction. Aside from Ben Franklin, I believe Washington is the most worshiped figure in this book. The uneveness of the discussions and the author's seemingly baseless insights are the downfall of the book.

The chapter of the Burr/Hamilton may have been the strongest point of the book. Ellis goes into the greatest depth I have ever read on the topic. His explanations of the potential scenarios which led to Hamilton's death are well thought out. In this and other chapters, Ellis lays out the evidence as to why Alexander Hamilton was so unpopular with his contemporaries. His scathing prose, made me question how Hamilton could be on the twenty dollar bill. The flaws in Burr's character and his iminent demise seem strong and well documented.

While I have read better accounts of the relationship between Adams and Jefferson, I am always interested in their interactions and complex friendship which inadvertently caused the development of a two party system and partisanism. The accounts of their interactions is fairly strong. I respect the fact that Ellis used portion of their letters to each other as support for his arguments.

I believe much of the praise for this book is exaggerated. While I feel it has some strong points and well written sections, it does have some fundamental flaws which seem rather glaring. In spite of the flaws, I felt it was a worth while read.

Rating:
Summary: A Look at the One of the Most Important Decades - 1790's
Review: Joseph J. Ellis' richly (and deservedly) rewarded book, Founding Brothers (The Revolutionary Generation), looks at six important events that helped form the stable government of the United States after the war for independence and the intellectual wars over the creation of the constitution had ended and before a new generation took up the mantle of state. The period was primarily the 1790's, one of the richest decades in American history from which to mine and the author does a great job of finding and presenting some prime historical nuggets. It is fascinating to see this band of brothers who fought a war divide themselves slowly into ideological camps that then transformed over the decade into parties while still preserving the precarious union that they all created without the shedding of blood, the Burr-Hamilton duel notwithstanding. Adams comes out the best and Jefferson the worst in the narrative as many historians are swinging that direction lately but this will change again, showing that the debates raging in the 1790's are still raging in the history books today. The reconciliation of these two friends is the most touching and noble section of the the book. This is a lively and enlightening read.

Rating:
Summary: A Portrait of American Greats--who were Human as Well
Review: Mr. Ellis has penned an astoundingly good book. Though in the news of late for apparently misleading his college classes on certain aspects of his life, this should by no means be seen as a reason not to read this book. The affair seems, in fact, something more like the millionaire who is caught shoplifting. Mr. Ellis' genius at portraying the lives of the founding fathers during the decade of 1790 makes one wonder why he would ever feel the need for fiction in his own life.

Founding Brothers gives us an inside look that simultaneously shows just how great these people really were, and how human (with plentiful faults) as well. I have long thought George Washington's reputation was overblown. He wasn't particularly smart, in some senses, compared to such men as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. As General, he managed to lose just about every battle he ever led. Winning the Revolutionary War always seemed to me to be a product of American dumb luck and British stupidity.

Where, I wondered, was the greatness? Mr. Ellis shows where it was. Washington knew what needed to be done to preserve the greatness of the revolutionary ideas his compatriots were putting forth. Holding the Continental Army together was all Washington needed to do to keep the British from winning the war. And subsequently, steering a course of neutrality at practically any cost, and ensuring the preeminence of the federal government, was what was needed to preserve the ideals of the Constitution and see to it that America survived its birthing pains.

Jefferson, meanwhile, has been a founding father I have thought highly of. I still think highly of his ideas, but after reading Founding Brothers, you realize that Jefferson was really not a particularly admirable person. This is not to suggest that Mr. Ellis castigates Jefferson. Indeed, not only Jefferson's ideas, but also Jefferson's duplicity and lying were necessary ingredients for the successful outcome of the Revolution and the founding of a new nation. His faults are shown, but so is the brilliance of his ideas and visions that helped this country maintain and cherish freedom.

In Founding Brothers, I learned that Washington was great, as well as human. I learned that Jefferson was human, as well as great. What you will learn will no doubt depend on your own notions about this time and these people. Many of the other founding fathers are also featured in the book, so perhaps you will learn more about your favorite. Whatever the case, I think you will find the book enjoyable. It is very readable, with an entertaining style of writing that immerses you in the lives of these men during the 1790s.