Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation

Rating:
Summary: A Question of Character
Review: As a trained historian (Ph.D, 1976) whose professional life has gone far afield, occasionally I have the luxury of keeping up thru books on tape. After a couple of listens to Ellis's narrative, and knowing what we do now about the man's rather pervasive deceptions concerning his own biograpy, it came to me.

The deceiving, dissembling, two-faced Jefferson of the American Sphinx and Founding Brothers, the man of seductive words with the split-personality, isn't Jefferson at all, it's Joe Ellis. Now you can say it takes one to know one, so this doesn't necessarily get Jefferson off the hook. But it's certainly clear that the key aspects of the author's much acclaimed interpretation of Jefferson's character focus on qualities endemic to Mr. Ellis's persona as super star intellectual and teacher of the young.

You hear it said that the false identity Ellis projected to colleagues and students doesn't vitiate his scholarly works. Surely it's just the opposite. He's not writing about canal building or the impact of steam power. His chosen subject is character. His writing is filled with judgments, commendations and rebukes of a highly subjective nature. His claim to fame is his particular style of impugning Jefferson's character, character assination al la mode in todays intellectual climate.

So I say, beware. Not because I'm after Mr. Ellis. But to stand up for Jefferson as the fountain head of values that sustained, motivated and inspired dozens of generations of Americans, myself among them. We were a new people in a new land, things could be different here. The world does belong to the living generation. We are free and able to remake it in the image of our fondest hopes and dreams. Ellis and his crowd would cut us off from this our birth right. He's a damaging and dangerous mind, a "head case" working out his own problems in the guise of historical portrait painting. He projects his own faults and self-disgust on the man who surely was the spiritual father of the Revolution -- the great visionary of the possibilities of American life.

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 Very Good Read on the American Founders
Review: This book is a good read on our founding fathers though it is limited in scope. The book mainly tells the story between Jefferson and Adams. I enjoyed reading how the two men had such great riftd between their r "idealogy" after the declaration was signed and the new consition was in effect withour new system of government. The auhor does a good job detailing the stuggles between these tow men after their assencion to the office of the president and vice president. It is truly amazing to see the alliances and influences with men such as Madison and Hamilton play great distress in our early days of government. The book does not entail much of George Washington and should include more of his influence upon our new nation. The chapter on the duel between Hamilton and Burr is quite interesting. It really gives a glimpse into an era of offended honor. I would recommend this book. Just one complaint the outhor goes overboard in his use of uncommon vocabulary so keep a dictionary handy.

Rating:
Summary: A well-written but hardly comprehensive history.
Review: This certainly was readable enough, but is it worthy of a Pulitzer? Of the six essays in the book, not one offers a truly in-depth analysis of the subject at hand, and most of these subjects have been covered more thoroughly elsewhere. Anyone wanting a more in-depth treatment of the Burr-Hamilton duel should consult Thomas Fleming's book "Duel." The Jefferson-Adams correspondence from 1812-1826 has been dealt with more times than one can count.
The core figures of this book are Jefferson, Adams, and Washington, with Madison and Hamilton being giving somewhat second billing. Burr (with the exception of the duel) and Franklin are mentioned only in passing, so why their portaits appear on the cover is a mystery.
I found the chapter covering Washington's Farewell address to be the most informative of all the essays, but still lacking in what I consider the necessary depth.
Ellis' attitude towards Jefferson should come as no suprise to anyone who has read his work. He is certainly not alone in his appraisal of Jefferson. No doubt devotees to the Sage of Monticello will be irritated by this treatment.
I suppose that as an introduction to the history of post-Articles of Confederation United States, this book would serve its purpose. Its prose flows along well enough, and its brevity will not frighten off the casual reader. Will it be a permanent contribution to the scholarship of the period? I rather doubt it. Given the recent controversy surrounding Ellis, this was probably his last opportunity to contribute to the field of study.

Rating:
Summary: Our Nation's Beginnings
Review: Joseph J. Ellis has written an interesting account of the germination of the political beginnings of the United States, the longest running republic in history. He shows the incredible foresight these men had in forming the laws of the country and how their decisions directly affect the way we live today. He dispells some myths and offers keen insights into what really happened in history. He had previously written a book on Thomas Jefferson, so it's no surprise that Mr. Jefferson plays a prominent role in this book and is portrayed in the highest regards. But it is interesting to learn how influential James Madison was. He is rarely mentioned amongst Jefferson, Franklin, Adams or Washington, but he played a major role in the history of the country Specifically in his determination of placing the nation's capital in Washington ,D.C., which at th time was basically swamp land. There are many other great pieces of information including what really happened in the Burr-Hamilton duel. Mr. Ellis notes that nowadays there is a flooding of books regarding the men and woman of the World War II era being the greatest generation. While he does not dispute that generation's greatness, he makes a compelling argument that the Revolutionary generation is far and away the greatest generation in the country's history. After reading this book, it's tough to argue.

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: New Fave for a History Buff
Review: Joseph Ellis manages to take the interactions of seven (or eight, is you include Abigail Adams) founders and illustrate the truly amazing issues that faced the framers of the new country. In the preface, Ellis states he believes that politics, rather than the War itself, was the revolution of America. The Revolutionary War was, as we all know, instituted to free the colonists from the economic and social yoke of the British. To do that, they inspired themselves and their countrymen with the idea of individual freedom. But how does one reconcile individual freedom with the notion of government -- any government. Of the fathers(George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and Benjamin Franklin), Washington, Adams and Jefferson are most deeply drawn. They represent the issues, icons and ideologies that perhaps any successful revolution must have. The issues threatened to tear apart the brand new nation nearly at birth. The political battles between Federalists and Repupblicans were vicious and prolonged, and featured lies, personal attacks, misunderstandings, and featured some amazingly strong and intellectually profound personalities. The 'band of brothers' were not overwhelmed with brotherly love. They fought literally and figuratively with one another, even when they were on the same side. The 'Brothers' were far more than the two dimensional figures on our classroom walls, and their weaknesses, failures and blind spots are made clear. But the wrestling resulted in a Constitution that manages to somehow preserve the idea of individual rights with the demands of a coordinated and unified governance.

Ellis is a gifted writer but even better, he is gifted in choosing the incidents and relationships that illustrate the conflicts that had to be raised, faced and compromised to allow the new country to continue. The Burr Hamilton duel. The love affair between Adams and his wife. The disrespect Jefferson felt, but hid from even his friends. The invisible elephant in middle of the room that was slavery. The impact of one personality -- George Washington -- had in keeping the country together. There are bits of humor, lots of examples, some fine imagining and nice underlying juxtaposition of issues with their examples. The author can see a theme underlying the disputes. While he calls the eight chapters "stories", I suspect he chose the word to avoid calling them 'essays' and thus scaring off most of us who don't want to read boring, windy expositions of historical views. On the other hand, I was originally attracted to history precisely because it is all stories, and I read history in part to see if I can understand the meaning, if there is any, behind the stories. Ellis, I suspect, sees it my way (or more properly, I see it his). He tells the story and manages to tell you why the story matters. While he never says as much, The Founding Brothers is about the second American Revolution--the one that took place in the Congress, the plantations of Viginia, the small towns of Massachusetts, the bluffs of New Jersey. With one exception, the second Revolution is bloodless, but wounding; barely civilized at times, but world shaking. It was the overturning of all that had come before in the notion of nations, the idea of governing, and the attempt to make practical the very romantic idea of individual liberty.

I was around in the sixties, which self conciously billed itself as a revolution and at the time, the people behind the bullhorns were exhorting their fellow citizens to shake off the shackles of a lying government and take over the government for the people. I remember thinking at the time, Great, but let's say it works, and the government falls. What do we do then? All of the romantic ideas could be put into practice, but how? And who gets to decide?
The Founding Brothers describes with charm, insight, clarity and sympathy the 'how' after the Revolutionary War is done, and the only weapons were wit, ideals, ideas and politics. A failure of politics would be the end of America then. Just as it might be now.

Rating:
Summary: Surprising Connections
Review: Joseph Ellis has again given us an extraordinary story of our early republic. His chapters deal with such material ranging from the Hamilton-Burr Duel to the up and down relationships of Jefferson and John Adams. What Ellis has attempted is to treat the reader with both significant and informative accounts of the background to some famous episodes of the late eighteenth century. Much of what he writes is not in history books and historians can add material to their teaching as they read the various chapters. My favorite account is of Washington's Farewell Address and how he is careful to shy away from partisanship and support the Federalist ideas of a strong central government which is eventually what happens. The relationship between Hamilton and Washington is something that I found enlightening and the theme of states-rights vs. a firm federal government runs through the entire book. The personalities of Jefferson and Adams are written about at length and the reader feels he knows these men by the final chapter. Anybody interested in our early period of history and the workings of our Founding Fathers will cherish this latest work by an author whose research is complete.

Rating:
Summary: Founding fathers & political rivals in newborn Republic
Review: This book is the winner of the Pulitzer Prize for good reason. Author Joseph J. Ellis offers intimate portraits of our nation's founding fathers and also a vivid view of the political rivals in our newborn Republic. Ellis is a terrific writer. History comes alive in this stirring narrative...the action starts in the opening pages with the most famous duel in American history and ends in the final chapter with a glowing review of the fued/friendship between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

John Adams, Aaron Burr, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington are examined in great detail by Ellis. Adams "enlightened diplomacy" negotiated a critical peace treaty with France. Burr is an opportunist and manipulator who was never forgiven for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Franklin, (who is not given the same attention as others) is a scientific genius who uses the press to attack political enemies, particularly those who were advocates of slavery.

Hamilton restored public credit but also nurtured power for the commercial elite at the expense of the large landowners. Jefferson is the brilliant author of the Declaration of Independance. Madison's nickname in Congress is "Big Knive" for his ability to cut up opposition to legislation he sponsors. And Washington is the "American Untouchable," a great horseman and pragmatic military man who is clearly not as well read as other leaders of his generation but becomes by far the greatest legend among the people. The combined talents of the founding fathers provided the intellectual energy that allowed our nation to survive.

Ellis is a talented writer, impressive researcher and a towering patriot. Highly recommended.

Bert Ruiz

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.