Charles Carroll of Carrollton Faithful Revolutionary

Rating:
Summary: What you didn't get in american history courses
Review: When Charles Carroll of Carrollton died at 95 years old, he was universally mourned in the young republic. School children of the time all knew that he was the last living signer of the Declaration of Independence. Who hears about Carrollton now? I didn't in high school, or in a university course on American History, for that matter. After reading this book, I think I know why: Carrollton desperately fails to qualify for the pantheon of politically correct historical subjects (an increasingly select group), despite the fact that he liberally educated his daughters and was an influential voice for tolerance in the revolutionary era. Between us and Carrollton stand some ugly episodes in American intolerance, some of which made it possible for us to be in relative ignorance of the man and his voice. McDermott's biography doesn't make unreasonable claims for Carrollton's influence, but it does offer a well-researched portrait of a man with singular political inspiration.

Carrollton's unique perspective on the debates over federalism and state authority seems to derive, in part, from the dual nature of his standing in society. He was born to one of the wealthiest landowners in the colonies, but he was born illegitimate, and it took his father years to adopt him as his heir. He had all the means to power, but he was a Catholic and suffered intolerance and bigotry. These paradoxes shed some light on Carrollton's moderation on partisan issues, accompanied by a readiness when the time came to act.

One of the best narratives McDermott draws throughout the book is the generational relationship of the Carroll family. Carrollton's struggle for his father's acceptance is a moving story and central to the development of a revolutionary who balanced tradition with a strong sense of his own personal responsibility and independence. Carrollton's own son, despite some efforts at reform, proved to be a wastrel, and it appears that all the Carrolls were subject to personal faults of various kinds. In McDermott's realistic and sympathetic treatment of human folly, there is reminiscence of Evelyn Waugh's generosity to his prodigal characters.

Carrollton was evidently an impressive and imperfect character in the fascinating times of the revolution and the decades that followed. This leads me to my final comment, a minor complaint about McDermott's style: he incorporates numerous outtakes from Carrollton's letters into his prose. This method fails to capture the style of Carrollton's writing, and it makes certain paragraphs somewhat belabored. I know block quotes are out of fashion, but I think longer excerpts and entire letters would have added some significant context for the man's character and thought. A small disappointment in an otherwise profitable read.

Rating:
Summary: What you didn't get in american history courses
Review: When Charles Carroll of Carrollton died at 95 years old, he was universally mourned in the young republic. School children of the time all knew that he was the last living signer of the Declaration of Independence. Who hears about Carrollton now? I didn't in high school, or in a university course on American History, for that matter. After reading this book, I think I know why: Carrollton desperately fails to qualify for the pantheon of politically correct historical subjects (an increasingly select group), despite the fact that he liberally educated his daughters and was an influential voice for tolerance in the revolutionary era. Between us and Carrollton stand some ugly episodes in American intolerance, some of which made it possible for us to be in relative ignorance of the man and his voice. McDermott's biography doesn't make unreasonable claims for Carrollton's influence, but it does offer a well-researched portrait of a man with singular political inspiration.

Carrollton's unique perspective on the debates over federalism and state authority seems to derive, in part, from the dual nature of his standing in society. He was born to one of the wealthiest landowners in the colonies, but he was born illegitimate, and it took his father years to adopt him as his heir. He had all the means to power, but he was a Catholic and suffered intolerance and bigotry. These paradoxes shed some light on Carrollton's moderation on partisan issues, accompanied by a readiness when the time came to act.

One of the best narratives McDermott draws throughout the book is the generational relationship of the Carroll family. Carrollton's struggle for his father's acceptance is a moving story and central to the development of a revolutionary who balanced tradition with a strong sense of his own personal responsibility and independence. Carrollton's own son, despite some efforts at reform, proved to be a wastrel, and it appears that all the Carrolls were subject to personal faults of various kinds. In McDermott's realistic and sympathetic treatment of human folly, there is reminiscence of Evelyn Waugh's generosity to his prodigal characters.

Carrollton was evidently an impressive and imperfect character in the fascinating times of the revolution and the decades that followed. This leads me to my final comment, a minor complaint about McDermott's style: he incorporates numerous outtakes from Carrollton's letters into his prose. This method fails to capture the style of Carrollton's writing, and it makes certain paragraphs somewhat belabored. I know block quotes are out of fashion, but I think longer excerpts and entire letters would have added some significant context for the man's character and thought. A small disappointment in an otherwise profitable read.